From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 1 15:02:57 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:02:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:15:50 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> From today: >>> >>> 1S 2H 1C >>> >>> The player didn't see the 2H bid, meant to bid 1NT (6-9 HCP), then >>> pulled the >>> wrong bidding card. >>> So then what is the meaning of 1C? >> >> [Sven Pran] >> This question is only relevant if the player refrains from changing his >> 1C >> bid to 1NT before law 27 is applied. It seems to me that the only reason >> for >> that could be to be allowed to change his insufficient bid 1C to 3C under >> Law 27B1. However, TD will have to seriously consider Law 27D in this >> situation. > > So, you would allow a nonbarring change to 3C. Is that consistent with > your method of determining the meaning of an insufficient bid? Sven proposes applying L27B1(a), for which the meaning of the IB is irrelevant, only whether or not it is "incontrovertably not artificial". An accidental bid with no defined meaning would seem to qualify. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 1 16:15:46 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:15:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:02:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:15:50 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>>> Robert Frick >>>> From today: >>>> >>>> 1S 2H 1C >>>> >>>> The player didn't see the 2H bid, meant to bid 1NT (6-9 HCP), then >>>> pulled the >>>> wrong bidding card. > >>>> So then what is the meaning of 1C? >>> >>> [Sven Pran] >>> This question is only relevant if the player refrains from changing his >>> 1C >>> bid to 1NT before law 27 is applied. It seems to me that the only >>> reason >>> for >>> that could be to be allowed to change his insufficient bid 1C to 3C >>> under >>> Law 27B1. However, TD will have to seriously consider Law 27D in this >>> situation. >> >> So, you would allow a nonbarring change to 3C. Is that consistent with >> your method of determining the meaning of an insufficient bid? > > Sven proposes applying L27B1(a), for which the meaning of the IB is > irrelevant, only whether or not it is "incontrovertably not > artificial". An accidental bid with no defined meaning would seem to > qualify. To paraphrase, you are not saying the 1C is natural. You are saying that it is neither natural nor artificial. Since it is not artificial, L27B1(a) applies. Hence the cheapest bid of the same denomination (clubs) is nonbarring. Don't all insufficient bids have no defined meaning? From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 1 16:41:31 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:41:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> Message-ID: On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:02:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> So, you would allow a nonbarring change to 3C. Is that consistent with >>> your method of determining the meaning of an insufficient bid? >> >> Sven proposes applying L27B1(a), for which the meaning of the IB is >> irrelevant, only whether or not it is "incontrovertably not >> artificial". An accidental bid with no defined meaning would seem to >> qualify. > > To paraphrase, you are not saying the 1C is natural. You are saying that > it is neither natural nor artificial. Correct. It is meaningless. > Since it is not artificial, L27B1(a) > applies. Hence the cheapest bid of the same denomination (clubs) is > nonbarring. Correct (assuming that the RB, which is defined, is also not artificial). > Don't all insufficient bids have no defined meaning? Bad choice of word on my part; I should have written "intended meaning", which is how we apply L27B1(b). Whatever we call it, it depends on the nature of the misperception of the auction that led to the IB. The point is that a mispull cannot, by definition, have an intended meaning. I should note that the intent of my post was to support the logic behind Sven's reasoning, not necessarily to agree that it is the correct approach to this situation -- that's what we're trying to figure out here. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 1 19:53:42 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:53:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> > Eric Landau > >> Sven proposes applying L27B1(a), for which the meaning of the IB is > >> irrelevant, only whether or not it is "incontrovertably not > >> artificial". An accidental bid with no defined meaning would seem to > >> qualify. > > > > To paraphrase, you are not saying the 1C is natural. You are saying > > that it is neither natural nor artificial. > > Correct. It is meaningless. > > > Since it is not artificial, L27B1(a) applies. Hence the cheapest bid > > of the same denomination (clubs) is nonbarring. > > Correct (assuming that the RB, which is defined, is also not artificial). > > > Don't all insufficient bids have no defined meaning? > > Bad choice of word on my part; I should have written "intended meaning", > which is how we apply L27B1(b). Whatever we call it, it depends on the > nature of the misperception of the auction that led to the IB. The point is > that a mispull cannot, by definition, have an intended meaning. > > I should note that the intent of my post was to support the logic behind > Sven's reasoning, not necessarily to agree that it is the correct approach to > this situation -- that's what we're trying to figure out here. [Sven Pran] May I call special attention to the fact that Law 27B1{a} uses the words: "in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial". This law does NOT require TD to establish the offender's intension with his IB, but it does require TD to make up his own mind whether or not the IB was incontrovertibly not artificial. Of course this may look like splitting hairs, and under normal circumstances TD will have to try establishing what the offender thought he was doing. During my more than thirty years as licensed director I have had (I believe) my share of insufficient bids. Very seldom have I had any problem establishing whether in my opinion a call is incontrovertibly not artificial. Don't overlook the fact that any real doubt in this respect must automatically disqualify the condition "incontrovertibly". The argument that an insufficient bid has no defined meaning is at the best a dead end sidetrack and deserves no attention in a discussion on Law 27. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 1 22:18:44 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:18:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> Message-ID: On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Eric Landau >> >>>> Sven proposes applying L27B1(a), for which the meaning of the IB is >>>> irrelevant, only whether or not it is "incontrovertably not >>>> artificial". An accidental bid with no defined meaning would seem to >>>> qualify. >>> >>> To paraphrase, you are not saying the 1C is natural. You are saying >>> that it is neither natural nor artificial. >> >> Correct. It is meaningless. >> >>> Since it is not artificial, L27B1(a) applies. Hence the cheapest bid >>> of the same denomination (clubs) is nonbarring. >> >> Correct (assuming that the RB, which is defined, is also not artificial). >> >>> Don't all insufficient bids have no defined meaning? >> >> Bad choice of word on my part; I should have written "intended meaning", >> which is how we apply L27B1(b). Whatever we call it, it depends on the >> nature of the misperception of the auction that led to the IB. The point is >> that a mispull cannot, by definition, have an intended meaning. >> >> I should note that the intent of my post was to support the logic behind >> Sven's reasoning, not necessarily to agree that it is the correct approach to >> this situation -- that's what we're trying to figure out here. > > [Sven Pran] > May I call special attention to the fact that Law 27B1{a} uses the words: > "in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid > are incontrovertibly not artificial". > > This law does NOT require TD to establish the offender's intension with his > IB, but it does require TD to make up his own mind whether or not the IB was > incontrovertibly not artificial. > > Of course this may look like splitting hairs, and under normal circumstances > TD will have to try establishing what the offender thought he was doing. > > During my more than thirty years as licensed director I have had (I believe) > my share of insufficient bids. Very seldom have I had any problem > establishing whether in my opinion a call is incontrovertibly not > artificial. Don't overlook the fact that any real doubt in this respect must > automatically disqualify the condition "incontrovertibly". > > The argument that an insufficient bid has no defined meaning is at the best > a dead end sidetrack and deserves no attention in a discussion on Law 27. I agree in general. My point here, though, is that an *unintended* bid (subject to L25A, which Sven cites in this case) can have no intended meaning by definition, regardless of whether or not it is sufficient. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 1 22:52:10 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:52:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> Message-ID: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> > Eric Landau [...] > > The argument that an insufficient bid has no defined meaning is at the > > best a dead end sidetrack and deserves no attention in a discussion on Law > 27. > > I agree in general. My point here, though, is that an *unintended* bid > (subject to L25A, which Sven cites in this case) can have no intended meaning > by definition, regardless of whether or not it is sufficient. [Sven Pran] Of course not. An unintended call, qualifying as such under Law 25A, is specifically void under this law and whatever meaning that call might have had is completely irrelevant as the call is considered never made. (Law 25, if applicable, takes precedence over Law 27 and other laws on irregularities during the auction!) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 1 23:30:45 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 21:30:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE31D9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >..... >The argument that an insufficient bid has no defined meaning is at the best >a dead end sidetrack and deserves no attention in a discussion on Law 27. Law 27B1(b) and footnote: if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following. * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. Richard Hills: In my opinion the 2007 Drafting Committee caused confusion by creating two definitions for the phrase "meaning of a call". Under Law 40 the "meaning of a call" is the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. But under Law 27 the meaning of an insufficient bid is the singular intent of the insufficient bidder. One weird blmler believes that the Law 27 definition of the "meaning of a call" also applies to Law 40. In 2017 such a misinterpretation of the Laws could be avoided by an expanded footnote to Law 27. For example: Hypothetical 2017 Law 27 footnote: * The "meaning" of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. For each and every sufficient call (which includes the replacement call for an insufficient bid) its "meaning" is defined by the methods of the partnership, not by the unilateral intent of one partner. An insufficient bid is an exception, with its "meaning" being defined by the intent of the insufficient bidder. Thus, to avoid creating unnecessary unauthorized information, the Director may wish to question the insufficient bidder away from the table. An example of how the Director should proceed is West dealing and opening 1C, North overcalling 1S, and East responding 1H. When South does not accept East's 1H the Director chooses to take East away from the table. The Director then discovers that East did not notice North's 1S overcall, so therefore East's intended meaning of the 1H response was to show 4 or more hearts and 6+ hcp. In the East-West methods a negative double shows exactly 4 hearts and exactly 6 to 9 hcp. As such a negative double has "a more precise meaning" than the insufficient bid of 1H, the Director does not prohibit the double under Law 27B3, but the Director instead permits the double under Law 27B1(b). Best wishes, Another weird blmler UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130401/4e004f87/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 2 00:21:06 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:21:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:52:10 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Eric Landau > [...] >> > The argument that an insufficient bid has no defined meaning is at the >> > best a dead end sidetrack and deserves no attention in a discussion on > Law >> 27. >> >> I agree in general. My point here, though, is that an *unintended* bid >> (subject to L25A, which Sven cites in this case) can have no intended > meaning >> by definition, regardless of whether or not it is sufficient. > > [Sven Pran] > Of course not. > An unintended call, qualifying as such under Law 25A, is specifically > void > under this law I am not sure what you are saying. The player bid 1C. That is never "void". I think "void" only applies to call of a nonexistent card from dummy. The 1C of course might be replaced or withdrawn. and whatever meaning that call might have had is > completely > irrelevant as the call is considered never made. Again, this comment would make a lot more sense if the 1C bid had been replaced with the intended bid. But it wasn't. So it seems to exist just as much as any other insufficient bid. (Law 25, if applicable, > takes precedence over Law 27 and other laws on irregularities during the > auction!) Law 25 does not require changing the unintended bid. Right? Your comments here all make sense if I can require a player to change to the intended bid and then deal with it. Of course, then your ruling makes no sense. Bob From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 2 00:40:27 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:40:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE31D9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE31D9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002901ce2f29$e9234350$bb69c9f0$@online.no> You may hopefully have observed that my note applied to a discussion of Law L27B1(a) Dragging other parts of Law 27 in here will at the best just confuse the issue. I am, however, fully aware that TD often must ascertain to his own satisfaction the intended meaning of an otherwise illegal call in order to give a correct ruling. To your contribution below I have just one comment: A person searching for solutions and a person searching for problems have one thing in common ? they (usually) both succeed. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 1. april 2013 23:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >..... >The argument that an insufficient bid has no defined meaning is at the best >a dead end sidetrack and deserves no attention in a discussion on Law 27. Law 27B1(b) and footnote: if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following. * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. Richard Hills: In my opinion the 2007 Drafting Committee caused confusion by creating two definitions for the phrase ?meaning of a call?. Under Law 40 the ?meaning of a call? is the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. But under Law 27 the meaning of an insufficient bid is the singular intent of the insufficient bidder. One weird blmler believes that the Law 27 definition of the ?meaning of a call? also applies to Law 40. In 2017 such a misinterpretation of the Laws could be avoided by an expanded footnote to Law 27. For example: Hypothetical 2017 Law 27 footnote: * The ?meaning? of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. For each and every sufficient call (which includes the replacement call for an insufficient bid) its ?meaning? is defined by the methods of the partnership, not by the unilateral intent of one partner. An insufficient bid is an exception, with its ?meaning? being defined by the intent of the insufficient bidder. Thus, to avoid creating unnecessary unauthorized information, the Director may wish to question the insufficient bidder away from the table. An example of how the Director should proceed is West dealing and opening 1C, North overcalling 1S, and East responding 1H. When South does not accept East?s 1H the Director chooses to take East away from the table. The Director then discovers that East did not notice North?s 1S overcall, so therefore East?s intended meaning of the 1H response was to show 4 or more hearts and 6+ hcp. In the East-West methods a negative double shows exactly 4 hearts and exactly 6 to 9 hcp. As such a negative double has ?a more precise meaning? than the insufficient bid of 1H, the Director does not prohibit the double under Law 27B3, but the Director instead permits the double under Law 27B1(b). Best wishes, Another weird blmler UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130401/bff62a22/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 2 00:49:13 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:49:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > >> I agree in general. My point here, though, is that an *unintended* > >> bid (subject to L25A, which Sven cites in this case) can have no > >> intended > > meaning > >> by definition, regardless of whether or not it is sufficient. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Of course not. > > An unintended call, qualifying as such under Law 25A, is specifically > > void under this law > > I am not sure what you are saying. The player bid 1C. That is never "void". I > think "void" only applies to call of a nonexistent card from dummy. The 1C of > course might be replaced or withdrawn. > > > > and whatever meaning that call might have had is > > completely > > irrelevant as the call is considered never made. > > Again, this comment would make a lot more sense if the 1C bid had been > replaced with the intended bid. But it wasn't. So it seems to exist just as > much as any other insufficient bid. > > > > > (Law 25, if applicable, > > takes precedence over Law 27 and other laws on irregularities during > > the > > auction!) > > Law 25 does not require changing the unintended bid. Right? Your comments > here all make sense if I can require a player to change to the intended bid > and then deal with it. Of course, then your ruling makes no sense. [Sven Pran] An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it is replaced by the intended call (under that law). Once this is done the unintended call is treated for all purposes as never made and thus void. If Law 25A is not applied then the call is not ruled as unintended and thus obviously neither is it void. (It may of course still be replaced under other laws) Do we in any way disagree here? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 2 01:15:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:15:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE324B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran, April 2013: >..... >To your contribution below I have just one comment: A person searching >for solutions and a person searching for problems have one thing in >common - they (usually) both succeed. David Burn, February 2008: ..... I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). .... Of one thing I am sure: it is not good enough for those who make the Laws to say, ex cathedra, that it is obvious what those Laws mean. In truth, that wasn't good enough even when Kaplan was Archbishop; as recent correspondence has made clear, if bridge really is to be a global game, the Lawmakers ought to listen very hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not know how to translate the Laws into Japanese because he does not know what they mean in English. .... UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130401/d0bd430b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 2 02:09:19 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:09:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:49:13 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> >> I agree in general. My point here, though, is that an *unintended* >> >> bid (subject to L25A, which Sven cites in this case) can have no >> >> intended >> > meaning >> >> by definition, regardless of whether or not it is sufficient. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Of course not. >> > An unintended call, qualifying as such under Law 25A, is specifically >> > void under this law >> >> I am not sure what you are saying. The player bid 1C. That is never > "void". I >> think "void" only applies to call of a nonexistent card from dummy. The >> 1C > of >> course might be replaced or withdrawn. >> >> >> >> and whatever meaning that call might have had is >> > completely >> > irrelevant as the call is considered never made. >> >> Again, this comment would make a lot more sense if the 1C bid had been >> replaced with the intended bid. But it wasn't. So it seems to exist >> just > as >> much as any other insufficient bid. >> >> >> >> >> (Law 25, if applicable, >> > takes precedence over Law 27 and other laws on irregularities during >> > the >> > auction!) >> >> Law 25 does not require changing the unintended bid. Right? Your >> comments >> here all make sense if I can require a player to change to the intended > bid >> and then deal with it. Of course, then your ruling makes no sense. > > [Sven Pran] > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it is > replaced by the intended call (under that law). If a call is unintended, it remains unintended even if the player does not change it or is unable to change it. That would be natural language usage and follows the usage in L25A1. And it gives us a way to talk about the situation. What do you call an unintended bid which is not corrected? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 2 02:16:49 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:16:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:49:13 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> >> I agree in general. My point here, though, is that an *unintended* >> >> bid (subject to L25A, which Sven cites in this case) can have no >> >> intended >> > meaning >> >> by definition, regardless of whether or not it is sufficient. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Of course not. >> > An unintended call, qualifying as such under Law 25A, is specifically >> > void under this law >> >> I am not sure what you are saying. The player bid 1C. That is never > "void". I >> think "void" only applies to call of a nonexistent card from dummy. The >> 1C > of >> course might be replaced or withdrawn. >> >> >> >> and whatever meaning that call might have had is >> > completely >> > irrelevant as the call is considered never made. >> >> Again, this comment would make a lot more sense if the 1C bid had been >> replaced with the intended bid. But it wasn't. So it seems to exist >> just > as >> much as any other insufficient bid. >> >> >> >> >> (Law 25, if applicable, >> > takes precedence over Law 27 and other laws on irregularities during >> > the >> > auction!) >> >> Law 25 does not require changing the unintended bid. Right? Your >> comments >> here all make sense if I can require a player to change to the intended > bid >> and then deal with it. Of course, then your ruling makes no sense. > > [Sven Pran] > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it is > replaced by the intended call (under that law). > Once this is done the unintended call is treated for all purposes as > never > made and thus void. > If Law 25A is not applied then the call is not ruled as unintended and > thus > obviously neither is it void. (It may of course still be replaced under > other laws) > > Do we in any way disagree here? Well, you seem to be ignoring L27B1(b), which requires determining the "meaning" of 1C. Two ways have been suggested to determine the meaning of an insufficient bid. They both lead to the meaning of the bid being 6-9 HCP. Do we agree on that? (In their system, that is the meaning of the 1NT response to 1S, and it is what the player intended to do.) Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 2 06:50:13 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 04:50:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU L&EC minutes Jan 2013 - Law 92A & Law 92D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3336@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/general/frontpage/minutes.htm ..... The appeal had been made by the captain of the team where it was clear that the team members involved did not wish for it to be appealed. It was confirmed that under Law 92A a contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at the table by the director, so the appeal was in order. It was also confirmed that the reverse would not be true - if the team members wished to appeal but the captain did not then no appeal would be permitted. ..... UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130402/472c11ba/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 2 08:59:27 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:59:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000c01ce2f6f$9e67ef50$db37cdf0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > If a call is unintended, it remains unintended even if the player does not > change it or is unable to change it. That would be natural language usage and > follows the usage in L25A1. And it gives us a way to talk about the situation. > What do you call an unintended bid which is not corrected? [Sven Pran] As far as the laws are concerned an unintended call that is not changed under Law 25A1 is just a call made and is treated as such. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 2 09:04:10 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:04:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <515A82EA.906@skynet.be> Have you all considered that when a call was unintended, it shows nothing about the hand. How artificial can you get? I am fairly certain that the laws did not intend this person to be allowed to change his unintented 1Cl to 3Cl. To all intents and purposes, this man has started with an insufficient 1NT (which I will treat as non-artificial). Herman. Sven Pran schreef: >> Eric Landau > [...] >>> The argument that an insufficient bid has no defined meaning is at the >>> best a dead end sidetrack and deserves no attention in a discussion on > Law >> 27. >> >> I agree in general. My point here, though, is that an *unintended* bid >> (subject to L25A, which Sven cites in this case) can have no intended > meaning >> by definition, regardless of whether or not it is sufficient. > > [Sven Pran] > Of course not. > An unintended call, qualifying as such under Law 25A, is specifically void > under this law and whatever meaning that call might have had is completely > irrelevant as the call is considered never made. (Law 25, if applicable, > takes precedence over Law 27 and other laws on irregularities during the > auction!) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3161/6219 - Release Date: 04/01/13 > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 2 09:10:41 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:10:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it is > > replaced by the intended call (under that law). > > Once this is done the unintended call is treated for all purposes as > > never made and thus void. > > If Law 25A is not applied then the call is not ruled as unintended and > > thus obviously neither is it void. (It may of course still be replaced > > under other laws) > > > > Do we in any way disagree here? > > > Well, you seem to be ignoring L27B1(b), which requires determining the > "meaning" of 1C. [Sven Pran] Law 27B1{b}, which starts with the words: "if, except as in (a)", is only relevant or applicable when an insufficient bid cannot be handled under Law 27B1{a}! > Two ways have been suggested to determine the meaning of an insufficient > bid. They both lead to the meaning of the bid being 6-9 HCP. Do we agree on > that? (In their system, that is the meaning of the 1NT response to 1S, and it is > what the player intended to do.) [Sven Pran] What is important when determining the meaning of a call (whether insufficient or not) is for TD to make a decision with which he himself is comfortable. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Apr 2 14:02:21 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:02:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] the H1H alive and well Message-ID: <000301ce2f99$efdb6e00$cf924a00$@optusnet.com.au> The other day I was watching some class US players on BBO. The bidding was 2 passes to the following hand: J10x xxx 98xx Jxx I thought to myself, I wonder if he will open 1H? Instead he opened 1NT!. 4th hand had 25 points and NS were cold for 6NT. The bidding then went pass pass 1NT x pass pass 2C x pass pass xx pass pass! 2D ?? pass 3NT. 2NT xx was 7 off when North blinked. So I conclude the H1NT works! cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 2 23:51:14 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:51:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Event: Vanderbilt Session: Afternoon, March 21, 2013 Subject: Misinformation Bd: 21..................Sabine Auken Vul: N?S................?A3 Dlr: North..............?KT4 ........................?987432 ........................?JT Geir Helgemo.................................Tor Helness ?T962........................................?KQJ7 ?AQ762.......................................?98 ?---.........................................?AKQJ ?9852........................................?K76 ........................Roy Welland ........................?854 ........................?J53 ........................?T65 ........................?AQ43 West......North.....East......South ---.......Pass......1?........Pass 1?........Pass......2NT.......Pass 3?(1).....Pass......3NT(2)....Pass Pass......Pass (1) Shows five hearts and, according to East?s explanation, denies four spades; forcing. (2) West to South: No three hearts or four spades. East to North: No three hearts. Contract: 3NT by East Opening lead: ?5 Table result: Making three, North?South minus 400 Director ruling: Making three, North?South minus 400 Committee ruling: Down one, North?South plus 50 The facts: The director was summoned at the end of the hand. West told South that 3NT denied three hearts or four spades. East said he may or may not hold four spades. South said he might have led a heart with the correct information. Five expert players were polled and all said that a heart lead was out of the question. North won the opening lead with the ?A and led the ?8 (second highest, by agreement). East won the trick perforce and South played the ?6. East then led the ?9 to the queen, losing to North?s ?K. North led another diamond. East led a second heart, South played the ?J and declarer ducked, making three. After the dinner break, South said he would have played the ?10 (upside-down carding) on the first round of diamonds had he been given the correct information. The ruling: The director ruled that South is unlikely to choose a heart opening lead. Despite further discussion of the play and the director?s attempt to discuss the hand at the session, South never mentioned the play of the ?10. Therefore the ?10 play was ruled unlikely and the table result stands, 3NT, making three, East?West plus 400. The appeal: South explained that his defense was predicated on the information that East had at most three spades. All his efforts were channeled into making sure his partner not play a second spade. The ?8 promised a higher card, so he knew declarer could not come to nine tricks without help. North?South give suit preference in the first suit declarer plays, so he was concerned that covering the ?8 with the ?J might be interpreted as suit preference for spades. He was likewise concerned that discouraging with the ?10 might result in partner playing spades. He also asserted that although he understood that none of the players polled chose a heart lead, he leads declarer?s short suit much more often than most players. He noted that had he covered the ?8 or discouraged with the ?10, the contract would almost certainly have been defeated, and that both those plays would have been substantially more attractive with correct information. East?West told the Committee that while they have no system notes, their agreement is in fact the one East provided to North, that 3? asks only about heart support, and that West?s explanation to South was erroneous. East?West also asserted that North ought to have known that her defense would prove ineffective. She was playing declarer for three spades. East?West open 1? with 4?4 in the minors, so East?s shape was by implication 3=2=5=3. South?s play of the ?6 was thus likely to have been forced, and could not be relied on as a signal. East?West also noted that covering the ?9 could be dangerous, sparing declarer a heart guess when he holds 10 9 doubleton and needs only a second heart trick for his contract. North?South countered that with ?KQJx, declarer would almost certainly have unblocked before leading a heart, and also that with ?109, he would likely have started with the 10 to entice a cover. The decision: The committee had no reason to doubt East?West?s testimony that East?s explanation was correct and West?s incorrect. The facts of the case made it clear that the misinformation made a heart lead less attractive than it would have been with correct information, but the committee agreed with the TD that a heart lead was unlikely in any case. The facts of the case also made it clear that the winning defense would be more attractive had South had correct information. In effect he was defending in ?three spade world? and gave no consideration to ?four spade world.? The committee discussed whether the North? South argument was timely, in that the argument regarding South?s carding was advanced only after the dinner break and that the initial basis for the appeal was only the possibility of a different opening lead. We found that North?South had no need to make the basis for their appeal known to the TD, just the fact that they wish to appeal. North?South might indeed have only realized at dinner the implications of the correct information on South?s defense, but the argument they made stands or falls on its own. South might have a stronger case if he immediately told the TD how and why he would have defended differently with different information, but that is not what he is, or ought to be, concentrating on during the session or even before the short dinner break. East ought to have realized when he saw the dummy that South had likely received inaccurate information. At that point, he could have and probably should have informed South of the actual East?West agreement. Not many players would realize this, and the committee judged that the failure to do so did not warrant a procedural penalty. Neither North?s nor South?s defense may have been best, even given the information they had, but the Laws do not require perfect play in order to receive redress for damage. In particular, the mistakes, if any, did not rise to the level of ?serious error? per Law 12. The committee found that MI was present and that it led to damage. We judged that given accurate information, the most favorable result that was likely for North?South was plus 50, and that this was also the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for East?West. Accordingly, we adjusted the score per Law 12, to 3NT by East, down one, East?West minus 50. DIC: Olin Hubert Chairperson: Adam Wildavsky Committee members: Michael Huston, Craig Allen, Craig Ganzer and Chris Moll UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130402/95f42370/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 3 04:59:38 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 02:59:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3598@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Appeals Committee's obiter dictum: >..... >East ought to have realized when he saw the >dummy that South had likely received inaccurate >information. At that point, he could have and >probably should have informed South of the actual >East-West agreement. Not many players would >realize this, and the committee judged that the failure >to do so did not warrant a procedural penalty. >..... Richard Hills: The flaw in the AC's reasoning (as observed by Aussie Chief Director Sean Mullamphy) is that the match was played with a screen. If West was declarer, then West would notice an anomaly in his description of East's cards. But since East was declarer, West's dummy told East nothing, with the screen precluding East from seeing West's written misexplanation. Macquarie Dictionary: obiter dictum, n. Law an opinion by a judge in deciding a case, upon a matter not essential to the decision, and therefore not binding. [Latin: (something) said by the way] UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130403/5c917255/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 3 06:52:41 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:52:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Not a Lert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE35E9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL 1997 and 2007 Definitions: Alert - A notification, whose form may be specified by [a sponsoring organisation - 1997] / [the Regulating Authority - 2007], to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation. Roger Pewick, September 2005: >>>Law 73B1: >>>Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls >>>or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, >>>through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through >>>alerts and explanations given or not given to them. >>> >>>73B1 reduced to the topic of immediate interest: >>> >>>Partners shall not communicate through --- alerts ---. >>> >>>The language is clear. In f2f alerts communicate systemically >>>therefore players are prohibited from them. Adam Beneschan, September 2005: >>Since the last clause of 73B1 says "alerts and explanations given >>*or* *not* *given*", then it follows that if Law 73B1 can be >>interpreted to say that alerting is illegal, it can also be interpreted to >>say that not alerting is illegal. Roger Pewick, September 2005: >When there is an alert system there certainly is communication by the >absence of an alert. Conversely, when there is no alert system the >absence of alerts with respect to communication thereby is mute. Adam Beneschan, September 2005: >>So as soon as I make a call, my partner is in a bind, since he is >>violating the Laws if he alerts, and he's violating the Laws if he >>doesn't alert. Roger Pewick, September 2005: >Such is the effect of implementing rules contrary to law. Richard Hills, April 2013: Does Law 40B2(a) implement a rule contrary to Law 40B2(a)??? "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. It may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings, and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority ++may prescribe alerting procedures++ and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods. It may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." Adam Beneschan, September 2005: >>Of course, it probably doesn't matter, since I already violated the >>Laws when RHO made a call, and either I violated Law 73B1 by >>asking a question, or I violated Law 73B1 by not asking a question, >>either of which communicated something to partner. >>..... UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130403/b8edd956/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 3 13:12:37 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:12:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <515C0EA5.8070703@ulb.ac.be> ISTM that one issue has not been addressed by either the Td or the Committee. Issue 1 : misinformation. Handled and found to exist; Issue 3 : possible errors by NS. Handled and not found to be egregious etc. But what about issue 2 ? What about the lnk between Mi and damage ? Once it has been determined that a Heart lead wouldn't been more probable with the right information, all that remains is the question whether the right information would make North play Clubs after the SA or after the HK. As long as this hasn't been answered to the positive, there is no link, whence no redress. And IMOBO there is no such link : East could as well hold AQxx(x) diamonds and KQx clubs with or without 4 spades. So it boils down to South's carding, and I fail to understand how it would have been different. The fact that South might be stranded into playing a non-significant card is true in both cases. And here, can't South play the 10 in all cases ? Le 2/04/2013 23:51, Richard HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > *Event: *Vanderbilt > *Session: *Afternoon, March 21, 2013 > *Subject: *Misinformation > *Bd: *21................../Sabine Auken/ > *Vul: *N--S................?A3 > *Dlr: *North..............?KT4 > ........................?987432 > ........................?JT > /G//e//ir Helgemo//.................................//Tor Helness/ > ?T962........................................?KQJ7 > ?AQ762.......................................?98 > ?---.........................................?AKQJ > ?9852........................................?K76 > /........................//Roy Welland/ > ........................?854 > ........................?J53 > ........................?T65 > ........................?AQ43 > *West**......**North**.....**East**......**South* > ---.......Pass......1?........Pass > 1?........Pass......2NT.......Pass > 3?(1).....Pass......3NT(2)....Pass > Pass......Pass > (1) Shows five hearts and, according to East's > explanation, denies four spades; forcing. > (2) West to South: No three hearts or four spades. > East to North: No three hearts. > *Contract: *3NT by East > *Opening lead: *?5 > *Table result: *Making three, North--South minus 400 > *Director ruling: *Making three, North--South > minus 400 > *Committee ruling: *Down one, North--South plus 50 > *The facts: *The director was summoned at the end > of the hand. West told South that 3NT denied three > hearts or four spades. East said he may or may not > hold four spades. South said he might have led a heart > with the correct information. > Five expert players were polled and all said that a > heart lead was out of the question. > North won the opening lead with the ?A and led > the ?8 (second highest, by agreement). East won the > trick perforce and South played the ?6. East then > led the ?9 to the queen, losing to North's ?K. North > led another diamond. East led a second heart, South > played the ?J and declarer ducked, making three. > After the dinner break, South said he would have > played the ?10 (upside-down carding) on the first > round of diamonds had he been given the correct > information. > *The ruling: *The director ruled that South is > unlikely to choose a heart opening lead. Despite > further discussion of the play and the director's > attempt to discuss the hand at the session, South never > mentioned the play of the ?10. Therefore the ?10 play > was ruled unlikely and the table result stands, 3NT, > making three, East--West plus 400. > *The appeal: *South explained that his defense > was predicated on the information that East had at > most three spades. All his efforts were channeled into > making sure his partner not play a second spade. The > ?8 promised a higher card, so he knew declarer could > not come to nine tricks without help. North--South > give suit preference in the first suit declarer plays, so > he was concerned that covering the ?8 with the ?J > might be interpreted as suit preference for spades. He > was likewise concerned that discouraging with the > ?10 might result in partner playing spades. He also > asserted that although he understood that none of the > players polled chose a heart lead, he leads declarer's > short suit much more often than most players. He > noted that had he covered the ?8 or discouraged > with the ?10, the contract would almost certainly > have been defeated, and that both those plays would > have been substantially more attractive with correct > information. > East--West told the Committee that while they > have no system notes, their agreement is in fact the > one East provided to North, that 3? asks only about > heart support, and that West's explanation to South > was erroneous. East--West also asserted that North > ought to have known that her defense would prove > ineffective. She was playing declarer for three spades. > East--West open 1? with 4--4 in the minors, so East's > shape was by implication 3=2=5=3. South's play of > the ?6 was thus likely to have been forced, and could > not be relied on as a signal. East--West also noted that > covering the ?9 could be dangerous, sparing declarer > a heart guess when he holds 10 9 doubleton and needs > only a second heart trick for his contract. > North--South countered that with ?KQJx, > declarer would almost certainly have unblocked > before leading a heart, and also that with ?109, he > would likely have started with the 10 to entice a > cover. > *The decision: *The committee had no reason to > doubt East--West's testimony that East's explanation > was correct and West's incorrect. > The facts of the case made it clear that the > misinformation made a heart lead less attractive than > it would have been with correct information, but the > committee agreed with the TD that a heart lead was > unlikely in any case. > The facts of the case also made it clear that the > winning defense would be more attractive had South > had correct information. In effect he was defending > in "three spade world" and gave no consideration to > "four spade world." > The committee discussed whether the North-- > South argument was timely, in that the argument > regarding South's carding was advanced only after > the dinner break and that the initial basis for the > appeal was only the possibility of a different opening > lead. We found that North--South had no need to > make the basis for their appeal known to the TD, just > the fact that they wish to appeal. North--South might > indeed have only realized at dinner the implications > of the correct information on South's defense, but the > argument they made stands or falls on its own. > South might have a stronger case if he > immediately told the TD how and why he would have > defended differently with different information, but > that is not what he is, or ought to be, concentrating > on during the session or even before the short dinner > break. > East ought to have realized when he saw the > dummy that South had likely received inaccurate > information. At that point, he could have and > probably should have informed South of the actual > East--West agreement. Not many players would > realize this, and the committee judged that the failure > to do so did not warrant a procedural penalty. > Neither North's nor South's defense may have > been best, even given the information they had, > but the Laws do not require perfect play in order > to receive redress for damage. In particular, the > mistakes, if any, did not rise to the level of "serious > error" per Law 12. > The committee found that MI was present and > that it led to damage. We judged that given accurate > information, the most favorable result that was likely > for North--South was plus 50, and that this was also > the most unfavorable result that was at all probable > for East--West. Accordingly, we adjusted the score per > Law 12, to 3NT by East, down one, East--West minus 50. > *DIC: *Olin Hubert > *Chairperson: *Adam Wildavsky > *Committee members: *Michael Huston, Craig > Allen, Craig Ganzer and Chris Moll > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20130403/d0c87ca6/attachment-0001.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Apr 3 18:49:30 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:49:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3598@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3598@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I think you are missing the point: >From the BridgeWinners site (www.bridgewinners.com) which has several extensive discussions of the hand, rulings and appeals: Aviv Shahaf: T9xx AQxxx void 98xx is not like xxxx in a balanced hand. His World Class partner was highly unlikely to not look for a 4-4 fit in spades and one highly probable reason is that partner forgot their methods in which case he probably gave MI to South. Mmbridge Richard Hills wrote: Appeals Committee's obiter dictum: >..... >East ought to have realized when he saw the >dummy that South had likely received inaccurate >information. At that point, he could have and >probably should have informed South of the actual >East-West agreement. Not many players would >realize this, and the committee judged that the failure >to do so did not warrant a procedural penalty. >..... Richard Hills: The flaw in the AC's reasoning (as observed by Aussie Chief Director Sean Mullamphy) is that the match was played with a screen. If West was declarer, then West would notice an anomaly in his description of East's cards. But since East was declarer, West's dummy told East nothing, with the screen precluding East from seeing West's written misexplanation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130403/83dd8990/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 4 00:17:03 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 22:17:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE36C2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>The flaw in the AC's reasoning (as observed by Aussie >>Chief Director Sean Mullamphy) is that the match was >>played with a screen. If West was declarer, then West >>would notice an anomaly in his description of East's >>cards. But since East was declarer, West's dummy told >>East nothing, with the screen precluding East from >>seeing West's written misexplanation. Jim Fox: >I think you are missing the point: > >From the BridgeWinners site (www.bridgewinners.com) >which has several extensive discussions of the hand, >rulings and appeals: > >Aviv Shahaf: > >T9xx AQxxx void 98xx is not like xxxx in a balanced >hand. His World Class partner was highly unlikely to not >look for a 4-4 fit in spades and one highly probable >reason is that partner forgot their methods in which case >he probably gave MI to South. Richard Hills: I think both of you are missing the point. The point being that the screen prevents East from knowing what West and South are doing during the auction. While West in actuality both misbid and misexplained, from East's point of view South may not have bothered to ask a question about 3NT, hence from East's point of view West's errors may have been restricted to Lawful misbids. So in this case Law 20F5(b)(ii) is modified by Law 80B2(e): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens - provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130403/5eb22a68/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Apr 4 02:43:18 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:43:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE36C2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE36C2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: The key words in Shahaf's statement being "highly probable" and the key word repeated in Hills' being "may". Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 04/03/2013 6:17 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>The flaw in the AC's reasoning (as observed by Aussie >>Chief Director Sean Mullamphy) is that the match was >>played with a screen. If West was declarer, then West >>would notice an anomaly in his description of East's >>cards. But since East was declarer, West's dummy told >>East nothing, with the screen precluding East from >>seeing West's written misexplanation. Jim Fox: >I think you are missing the point: > >From the BridgeWinners site (www.bridgewinners.com) >which has several extensive discussions of the hand, >rulings and appeals: > >Aviv Shahaf: > >T9xx AQxxx void 98xx is not like xxxx in a balanced >hand. His World Class partner was highly unlikely to not >look for a 4-4 fit in spades and one highly probable >reason is that partner forgot their methods in which case >he probably gave MI to South. Richard Hills: I think both of you are missing the point. The point being that the screen prevents East from knowing what West and South are doing during the auction. While West in actuality both misbid and misexplained, from East's point of view South may not have bothered to ask a question about 3NT, hence from East's point of view West's errors may have been restricted to Lawful misbids. So in this case Law 20F5(b)(ii) is modified by Law 80B2(e): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens - provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130404/f4713699/attachment-0001.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Apr 4 02:54:58 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:54:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE36C2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE36C2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: For your edification on this topic and a possible way of avoiding the type of situation: 'In a Bridge Winners thread on the subject of the appeal, Steve Robinson offers the following: "Peter [Boyd] and I would never have the problem of different explanations when we declare a hand. At the end of the auction, one of us will explain the auction just to make sure that the opponents know what's going on before they lead. If there is a disagreement about a meaning, the opponents will know what each of us meant. Sometimes we are on different wave lengths during the auction but our opponents will know what our bids meant during the auction. Our opponents can't complain that they made a bad lead or mis-defend based on mis-information." If a pair follows the pre-lead explanatory approach of Robinson-Boyd, then, provided the partners also actively inform the opponents when the explanation discloses a disagreement or a forgetful moment, one would think that the scenarios producing the type of problem addressed in the appeal would diminish.' For those who are unaware, Robinson-Boyd are multiple winners of the Vanderbilt type of competition. I can vouch for the fact that they follow this procedure in all events in which they participate. Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 04/03/2013 6:17 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>The flaw in the AC's reasoning (as observed by Aussie >>Chief Director Sean Mullamphy) is that the match was >>played with a screen. If West was declarer, then West >>would notice an anomaly in his description of East's >>cards. But since East was declarer, West's dummy told >>East nothing, with the screen precluding East from >>seeing West's written misexplanation. Jim Fox: >I think you are missing the point: > >From the BridgeWinners site (www.bridgewinners.com) >which has several extensive discussions of the hand, >rulings and appeals: > >Aviv Shahaf: > >T9xx AQxxx void 98xx is not like xxxx in a balanced >hand. His World Class partner was highly unlikely to not >look for a 4-4 fit in spades and one highly probable >reason is that partner forgot their methods in which case >he probably gave MI to South. Richard Hills: I think both of you are missing the point. The point being that the screen prevents East from knowing what West and South are doing during the auction. While West in actuality both misbid and misexplained, from East's point of view South may not have bothered to ask a question about 3NT, hence from East's point of view West's errors may have been restricted to Lawful misbids. So in this case Law 20F5(b)(ii) is modified by Law 80B2(e): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens - provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130404/613b6766/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Apr 4 03:08:28 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 02:08:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE36C2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <93ED61405A0C401DAAC088D23E405731@G3> [Jim Fox] For your edification on this topic and a possible way of avoiding the type of situation: ?In a Bridge Winners thread on the subject of the appeal, Steve Robinson offers the following: ?Peter [Boyd] and I would never have the problem of different explanations when we declare a hand. At the end of the auction, one of us will explain the auction just to make sure that the opponents know what?s going on before they lead. If there is a disagreement about a meaning, the opponents will know what each of us meant. Sometimes we are on different wave lengths during the auction but our opponents will know what our bids meant during the auction. Our opponents can?t complain that they made a bad lead or mis-defend based on mis-information.? If a pair follows the pre-lead explanatory approach of Robinson-Boyd, then, provided the partners also actively inform the opponents when the explanation discloses a disagreement or a forgetful moment, one would think that the scenarios producing the type of problem addressed in the appeal would diminish.? For those who are unaware, Robinson-Boyd are multiple winners of the Vanderbilt type of competition. I can vouch for the fact that they follow this procedure in all events in which they participate. [Nige1] I gather that ACBL regulations encourage this sort of thing: but WBF regulations actively discourage it (if not actually forbid it)? Anyway, Jim's suggestion seems excellent and could be enshrined in TFLB. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 4 03:38:32 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 01:38:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3730@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jim Fox: >>The key words in Shahaf's statement being "highly probable" and the key word >>repeated in Hills' [quote from Law 80B2(e)] being "may". Key words from initial phrase of Law 20F5: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation..." Richard Hills: "Has given" is NOT synonymous with "probably given, but possibly not even been asked for". Steve Robinson: >Peter [Boyd] and I would never have the problem of different explanations when >we declare a hand. At the end of the auction, one of us will explain the auction >just to make sure that the opponents know what's going on before they lead. If >there is a disagreement about a meaning, the opponents will know what each of >us meant. Sometimes we are on different wave lengths during the auction but our >opponents will know what our bids meant during the auction. Our opponents >can't complain that they made a bad lead or misdefend based on misinformation. Richard Hills: Hashmat [Ali] and I would never have the problem of different explanations when we declare a hand. At the end of the auction, one of us will explain both the positive inferences and also the negative inferences of our Symmetric Relay auction to make sure that the opponents know what's going on before they lead, generously (not niggardly) obeying the ABF post-Alert regulation. If there is a disagreement about a meaning, the opponents sometimes will know what each of us intended, but sometimes when we are on different wave lengths during the auction our opponents will only discover our pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Our opponents are NOT entitled to know the so-called "meanings" of our misbids during the auction. Our opponents can't complain that they made a bad lead or misdefence based on actual misinformation. So-called "misinformation" according to the Boyd-Robinson Unwritten Law is merely pseudo-misinformation. See the Written Law 75C: "The partnership agreement is as explained - 2D is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130404/e8739730/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Apr 4 04:09:33 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 22:09:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <93ED61405A0C401DAAC088D23E405731@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE36C2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <93ED61405A0C401DAAC088D23E405731@G3> Message-ID: Nigel: I wish I could take credit for the suggestion but it actually is a comment/suggestion made by Jeff Lehman on the website www.bridgeblogging.com referring to Robinson's comments from www.bridgewinners.com . Jim -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: 04/03/2013 9:08 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Jim Fox] For your edification on this topic and a possible way of avoiding the type of situation: ?In a Bridge Winners thread on the subject of the appeal, Steve Robinson offers the following: ?Peter [Boyd] and I would never have the problem of different explanations when we declare a hand. At the end of the auction, one of us will explain the auction just to make sure that the opponents know what?s going on before they lead. If there is a disagreement about a meaning, the opponents will know what each of us meant. Sometimes we are on different wave lengths during the auction but our opponents will know what our bids meant during the auction. Our opponents can?t complain that they made a bad lead or mis-defend based on mis-information.? If a pair follows the pre-lead explanatory approach of Robinson-Boyd, then, provided the partners also actively inform the opponents when the explanation discloses a disagreement or a forgetful moment, one would think that the scenarios producing the type of problem addressed in the appeal would diminish.? For those who are unaware, Robinson-Boyd are multiple winners of the Vanderbilt type of competition. I can vouch for the fact that they follow this procedure in all events in which they participate. [Nige1] I gather that ACBL regulations encourage this sort of thing: but WBF regulations actively discourage it (if not actually forbid it)? Anyway, Jim's suggestion seems excellent and could be enshrined in TFLB. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 4 07:48:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 05:48:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3EE5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Frederick LOEWE (1904-1988), American composer: "I don't like my music, but what is my opinion against that of millions of others?" Bobby WOLFF blog post: When I played bridge Friday with Judy, a friend of mine confronted me, in a very pleasant way, and with the best of intentions, about what examples would I follow, if my love of our game demanded certain minimum standards which need to be adhered to in order to play bridge the way it was originally intended. My thoughts went to Howard Weinstein's wonderful guest editorial about either sportsmanlike or unsportsmanlike dumping (depending on what the reader thinks it should be called) in April, 2013's sensational Bridge World magazine with Jeff Rubens' superior editing , which along with Mark Horton's English Bridge Magazine, rank so high in my scale of exactly what constitutes the best and brightest way to discuss high-level bridge and its many nuances and, at the same time, leaving room for many articles designed for aspiring players working hard to follow the yellow brick road to success. I've compiled a list of do's and do not's which hopefully will convey my thinking. 1. Always alert at the table what may be of interest to the opponent's, keeping in mind the Golden Rule of Bridge, tell them what you would like to be told by them if the situation is reversed. Richard HILLS: As I recall, David Burn complained about some of his EBU peers who believed that the prime purpose of an alert regulation was to be obeyed. The ABF, on the other hand, believes in Wolff's Golden Rule that the prime purpose of an alert regulation is to provide a warning that a call has a meaning that "your opponents are unlikely to expect". Bobby WOLFF blog post: 2. Never break tempo as a defender if the slow choice of what you eventually decide could be thought to be unauthorized information (UI) to partner. Richard HILLS: A matter of Lawful strategy rather than unLawful bad ethics. Rather limit pard's logical alternatives with a slooow right card, I prefer to play a possibly wrong card with celerity and panache. (And sometimes the "wrong" card is a successful Grosvenor Gambit.) Bobby WOLFF blog post: If the break in tempo (BIT) occurs, partner should lean over backwards to [avoid following] your suggestion (even if he suspects by doing so he is possibly committing bridge suicide), rather than taking advantage of the UI. Richard HILLS: Correct, Law 73C. Bobby WOLFF blog post: 3. Never volunteer system information partner may or may not have forgotten to inform the opponents, if, by so doing, an opponent may be misled. In other words, for example, if partner failed to mention your NT rebid may be by passing major suit(s), then by freely offering that information that player MUST have at least one four card major that he has bypassed. Richard HILLS: Semi-correct and demi-incorrect. One is required to explain one's partnership understandings, but such required explanations should not be deceptively misleading. For example, when Hashmat forgets to alert my 1NT overcall, and I declare that contract, I carefully explain, "My 1NT overcall neither promises nor denies a stopper," whether or not I have a stopper. Bobby WOLFF blog post: 4. While Convention Disruption must be done away with (particularly and at a very high bridge level presently in process where artificiality is very popular), it must be penalized out of existence, because its presence often makes the rest of that hand unplayable, however, sometimes, when it doesn't (or shouldn't) have a material effect to the opponent's detriment. Then, until strict automatic penalties are put into force, no score adjustment should take place. I envision and would encourage a possible procedural penalty (PP) to be instituted, if nothing else will stop the proliferation of CD, but only as a deterrent -not as an advantage to the opponents. After all, if any partnership decides on "jazzing up their system," they should at least have the responsibility of not making high level bridge a farce and if so, pay a substantial price, at least on that hand. Richard HILLS: High level bridge farceurs can look after themselves. It is low level bridgeurs disconcerted by their peer Futile Willie who need protection. Hence the ABF permits the Director the power to require wingnuts to switch to a simple standard system. Bobby WOLFF blog post: 5. While deciding on one's system to play, never include confusing nor intimidating weaker nor less experienced opponents as one of the reasons for deciding to play this or that. 6. Do not look for and then gather any possible, though farfetched, table situations, for later inclusion to take to committees in case of a close loss, in the hope of magically winning an appeal without enough merit. To violate this caveat should be grounds for future suspension and everyone thus should be on notice. 7. Our administrators, including aspiring to be better tournament directors (TD), should spend time trying to make our game as fair as can be which includes putting as little pressure as possible on relatively inexperienced tournament committee members as well as understanding that a specifically numbered board match (64) needs to play 64 boards and shortening the match should NEVER be a consideration, even if it means a shorter (or not any) dinner break. For evidence, all one has to view is that in all of our major sports, right now it is March madness, and even with a team ahead by double digits and in the last minute, the referees take unlimited time before deciding close decisions which require viewing tape regarding many plays which occur. The winner of a bridge match is entitled to the above considerations. In bridge, appeals should be held as quickly as possible after they occur and whatever it takes must be done to insure doing so. 8. Both TDs and committee members should be tested periodically on the rules with laggards dismissed Richard HILLS: One famous laggard, whose rulings consistently ignored the due process mandated by the Laws, was ..... Bobby Wolff!!! Bobby WOLFF blog post: and, if necessary, money provided to compensate volunteers who otherwise would be qualified. The pool of eligible committee members are far less than anticipated because of the direct involvement between professional and sponsor and other far reaching friendships together with general likes and dislikes which are and will forever be present among many of the people involved. And though it is difficult to even consider, never eliminate the possibility of bribing to occur. 9. High-level bridge is worth whatever effort conscientious and bridge loving players and administrators can put into it. All of us should bond together trying to make our game respected as a beacon of, if left to our own devices, making the ethics and rules of the game as important as they must be to make the playing field level for everyone. Richard HILLS: But what are "the ethics"? WBF Code of Practice, ETHICS: A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130404/89ed7b06/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 4 23:56:19 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 21:56:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3F7D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Appeals Committee, March 2013: >>..... >>The committee discussed whether the North- >>South argument was timely, in that the argument >>regarding South's carding was advanced only after >>the dinner break and that the initial basis for the >>appeal was only the possibility of a different opening >>lead. We found that North-South had no need to >>make the basis for their appeal known to the TD, just >>the fact that they wish to appeal. North-South might >>indeed have only realized at dinner the implications >>of the correct information on South's defense, but the >>argument they made stands or falls on its own. >>..... William (Kojak) Schoder, August 2005: >..... >However, there are those from novice to expert, who feel that an AC >willing to throw out the TD ruling and start all over again may get them >something better. The first sentence of Law 92 intentionally uses the >words "...may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the >Director...." It has become all too common practice by some ACs to >preempt the giving of evidence, the TD basis for ruling, and the objection >of the appellant to the ruling, by starting from scratch. I have observed >too many times (means more than once) where the process started with >"...let's see you were sitting in the North, right? And you held those >cards, right? And you bid one spade. OK, then it went......." as the first >words after the introduction of the committee members by Chairs and >members. And this by very senior persons who refuse to be constrained by >the wording of Law 92A, if they even ever read it. And I find it hard to >reconcile a sponsoring organization's statement that the TD ruling ceases >to exist when the AC convenes with Law 92A. Grattan Endicott, August 2005: +=+ Kojak, I agree, In Europe we do not consent at all to the idea that the AC starts again from scratch. We start from the point where the TD has made a ruling and the appellant has asked the AC to review it and to exercise its powers in the event that it finds cause under the laws to do so. When Denis Howard did me the honour of asking me to chair the WBF TAC in Perth I did introduce the European approach, including our belief that co-nationals should not sit on ACs and that appeals committee members should restrict themselves to questions, not entering into dialogue. A shocked Edgar Kaplan told me I was wrong. I bow to no-one in my belief that we are right, but have accepted of course the compromise limitation which we wrote into the CoP after some discussion.. Incidentally I thought the commonality of our approach was of benefit to the players, and indeed has been on occasion since then. Incidentally I have always thought the 'restart from scratch' AC approach to be specifically an ACBL approach. That is a matter for the ACBL but it is a comfort to me that such a significant American bridge personality as yourself does not approve. Perhaps readers outside of Europe and the ACBL can tell me whether the practice does prevail anywhere else. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130404/8ff13464/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 5 02:53:14 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:53:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 03:10:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> > [Sven Pran] >> > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it is >> > replaced by the intended call (under that law). >> > Once this is done the unintended call is treated for all purposes as >> > never made and thus void. >> > If Law 25A is not applied then the call is not ruled as unintended and >> > thus obviously neither is it void. (It may of course still be replaced >> > under other laws) >> > >> > Do we in any way disagree here? >> >> >> Well, you seem to be ignoring L27B1(b), which requires determining the >> "meaning" of 1C. > > [Sven Pran] > Law 27B1{b}, which starts with the words: "if, except as in (a)", is only > relevant or applicable when an insufficient bid cannot be handled under > Law > 27B1{a}! Wrong. You are saying that because there is a possible nonbarring correction by (a), (b) is irrelevant. I don't think you really believe that, but just in case, consider this example. 2H 1S 1S was meant as an opening bid and can be corrected to 2S without barring partner via L27B1(a). But (b) still applies. A correction to 3S would probably be allowed, as might a Michaels 3H. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 5 02:56:57 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:56:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 03:10:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> > [Sven Pran] >> > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it is >> > replaced by the intended call (under that law). >> > Once this is done the unintended call is treated for all purposes as >> > never made and thus void. >> > If Law 25A is not applied then the call is not ruled as unintended and >> > thus obviously neither is it void. (It may of course still be replaced >> > under other laws) >> > >> > Do we in any way disagree here? >> >> >> Well, you seem to be ignoring L27B1(b), which requires determining the >> "meaning" of 1C. > > [Sven Pran] > Law 27B1{b}, which starts with the words: "if, except as in (a)", is only > relevant or applicable when an insufficient bid cannot be handled under > Law > 27B1{a}! > >> Two ways have been suggested to determine the meaning of an insufficient >> bid. They both lead to the meaning of the bid being 6-9 HCP. Do we agree > on >> that? (In their system, that is the meaning of the 1NT response to 1S, >> and > it is >> what the player intended to do.) > > [Sven Pran] > What is important when determining the meaning of a call (whether > insufficient or not) is for TD to make a decision with which he himself > is > comfortable. Almost everyone thinks it is a good idea to provide guidelines. Does anyone think it is good if decisions are inconsistent, as long as the director feels good about them? Here, you are not following your own guidelines. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 5 05:13:36 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:13:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] She is large, she contains multitudes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE402F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL English As She Is Spoke (1883): DIALOGUE 17 To Inform One'self of a Person How is that gentilman who you did speak by and by? Is a German. I did think him Englishman. He is of the Saxony side. He speak the french very well. Tough he is German, he speak so much well italyan, french, spanish and english, that among the Italyans, they believe him Italyan, he speak the frenche as the Frenches himselves. The Spanishesmen believe him Spanishing, and the Englishes, Englishman. It is difficult to enjoy well so much several langages. Grattan Endicott, May 2009: >>>+=+ If East, having shown the heart fit with the 3D bid says that even >>>opposite the sign-off 3H he was always intending to bid game, he must >>>show beyond reasonable doubt that (a) these are the partnership >>>methods, and (b) that he has the hand for it. In deciding about this the >>>Director should adopt an attitude of scepticism and require to be fully >>>convinced on both (a) and (b). Whatever he decides the score goes >>>on the score sheet the same for both sides. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Laws As She Is Spoke, May 2009: >>One of my choices is always to split the score, in this case giving EW >>+650 and NS -200. This makes NS happy. (They get a top.) It doesn't >>upset EW at all. So it is a "feel-good" ruling. >> >>It isn't prohibited by the laws. At the club level around here, when the >>NOS score is adjusted because of a hesitation or whatever, I would >>guess that more than half the time the OS gets to keep their original >>score. >> >>I agree with Grattan that it is not legal. But the world I live in -- >>which I am trying to share with you -- is that the club owner likes them >>(and they eliminate any possibility of appeal). So I have to be >>reasonably sure I am doing that right thing when I DON'T give a feel- >>good split score. This was a close decision. Richard Hills: "It isn't prohibited by the Laws"??? It is prohibited by the Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle, "A" or "not-A". If East-West have committed a Law 73C infraction - "A" - then the score should be adjusted to EW +200 and NS -200. If East-West have not committed a Law 73C infraction - "not-A" - then the table score is retained as EW +650 and NS -650. What's the problem? The problem is that her splitting of the score means that she is asserting two contradictory notions are simultaneously true; Law 73C has been infracted and also Law 73C has not been infracted. The Laws As She Is Spoke, April 2013: >..... >Does anyone think it is good if decisions are inconsistent, as long as >the director feels good about them? >..... Walt Whitman (1819-1892): Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130405/6f99a263/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 5 09:37:19 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:37:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> >> > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it >> > is replaced by the intended call (under that law). ton: The sentence above is one in a larger message. There is nothing in the laws supporting the view given, as far as my English allows me to understand. An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even for a split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know about the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, the meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An unintended call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the definition is an intended call. ton From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 5 10:48:35 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:48:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > Law 27B1{b}, which starts with the words: "if, except as in (a)", is > > only relevant or applicable when an insufficient bid cannot be handled > > under Law 27B1{a}! > > Wrong. You are saying that because there is a possible nonbarring correction > by (a), (b) is irrelevant. I don't think you really believe that, but just in case, > consider this example. > 2H 1S > > 1S was meant as an opening bid and can be corrected to 2S without barring > partner via L27B1(a). But (b) still applies. A correction to 3S would probably be > allowed, as might a Michaels 3H. [Sven Pran] No, I am saying that once the offender has available a rectification under Law 27B1{a} and chooses that rectification then Law 27B1{b} is not applicable. But the offender may certainly select to ignore Law 27B1{a} and choose a different substituting call. In that case TD must proceed through the successive alternatives in Law 27 in order to give the correct ruling. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 5 12:30:18 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:30:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> > ton > > >> > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it > >> > is replaced by the intended call (under that law). > > ton: > > The sentence above is one in a larger message. > > There is nothing in the laws supporting the view given, as far as my English > allows me to understand. > > An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even for a > split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know about > the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, the > meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An unintended > call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the definition is an > intended call. > > ton [Sven Pran] Quite. But what is the consequence of an unintended call that is not legally rectified under Law 25A? The way I understand the laws, except as specified in Law 25A any kind of remark to the effect that a call was unintended is illegal communication between partners, and the information from such remarks is unauthorized for the partner? So until he has legal information to the contrary a player must treat every call from his partner as intended with all implied consequences? From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 5 13:24:49 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:24:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> Message-ID: <000c01ce31f0$2f9d8ed0$8ed8ac70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: vrijdag 5 april 2013 12:30 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid > ton > > >> > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when > >> > it is replaced by the intended call (under that law). > > ton: > > The sentence above is one in a larger message. > > There is nothing in the laws supporting the view given, as far as my English > allows me to understand. > > An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even > for a > split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know about > the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, > the meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An > unintended call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the > definition is an intended call. > > ton [Sven Pran] Quite. But what is the consequence of an unintended call that is not legally rectified under Law 25A? The way I understand the laws, except as specified in Law 25A any kind of remark to the effect that a call was unintended is illegal communication between partners, and the information from such remarks is unauthorized for the partner? So until he has legal information to the contrary a player must treat every call from his partner as intended with all implied consequences? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.3272 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6225 - datum van uitgifte: 04/04/13 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 5 13:30:39 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:30:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> Message-ID: <000d01ce31f1$0045b210$00d11630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > > >> > An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when > >> > it is replaced by the intended call (under that law). > ton: > > The sentence above is one in a larger message. > > There is nothing in the laws supporting the view given, as far as my English > allows me to understand. > > An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even > for a > split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know about > the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, > the meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An > unintended call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the > definition is an intended call. > > ton [Sven Pran] Quite. But what is the consequence of an unintended call that is not legally rectified under Law 25A? The way I understand the laws, except as specified in Law 25A any kind of remark to the effect that a call was unintended is illegal communication between partners, and the information from such remarks is unauthorized for the partner? So until he has legal information to the contrary a player must treat every call from his partner as intended with all implied consequences? ton: for sure it is UI. So it is impossible imo that a player is not going to accept the possibility to change an unintended call, since not doing so would lead to a disaster. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 5 13:54:28 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <515EBB74.8040905@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/04/2013 9:37, ton a ?crit : >>>> An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it >>>> is replaced by the intended call (under that law). > ton: > > The sentence above is one in a larger message. > > There is nothing in the laws supporting the view given, as far as my English > allows me to understand. > > An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even for a > split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know about > the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, the > meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An unintended > call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the definition is an > intended call. > I would extend the definition to things which are not cals, therefore taking the phrase as meaning un - (intended call) rather than (un-intended) - call e.g. if a player grumbles "three spades ! she held three spades !", not realizing that he can be heard, he didn't intend to call 3S, and this should be treated as an unintended call. There might be a PP for disturbing the game, but ths is another problem. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 5 13:59:00 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:59:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> Message-ID: <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/04/2013 12:30, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> ton >> >>>>> An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it >>>>> is replaced by the intended call (under that law). >> ton: >> >> The sentence above is one in a larger message. >> >> There is nothing in the laws supporting the view given, as far as my > English >> allows me to understand. >> >> An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even for > a >> split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know > about >> the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, the >> meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An unintended >> call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the definition is an >> intended call. >> >> ton > [Sven Pran] > Quite. > But what is the consequence of an unintended call that is not legally > rectified under Law 25A? I didn't follow the whole thread, but is this very plausible.? A player picks the wrong pack of bidding cards, then says 'oops' and does NOT correct ? Who would do that, but a masochist ? Either the call is deemed unintended, andit'll be corrected, or it isn't, and the question loses its object. > > The way I understand the laws, except as specified in Law 25A any kind of > remark to the effect that a call was unintended is illegal communication > between partners, and the information from such remarks is unauthorized for > the partner? > > So until he has legal information to the contrary a player must treat every > call from his partner as intended with all implied consequences? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 6 15:52:18 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:52:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:48:35 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Law 27B1{b}, which starts with the words: "if, except as in (a)", is >> > only relevant or applicable when an insufficient bid cannot be handled >> > under Law 27B1{a}! >> >> Wrong. You are saying that because there is a possible nonbarring > correction >> by (a), (b) is irrelevant. I don't think you really believe that, but >> just > in case, >> consider this example. >> 2H 1S >> >> 1S was meant as an opening bid and can be corrected to 2S without >> barring >> partner via L27B1(a). But (b) still applies. A correction to 3S would > probably be >> allowed, as might a Michaels 3H. > > [Sven Pran] > No, I am saying that once the offender has available a rectification > under > Law 27B1{a} and chooses that rectification then Law 27B1{b} is not > applicable. > > But the offender may certainly select to ignore Law 27B1{a} and choose a > different substituting call. In that case TD must proceed through the > successive alternatives in Law 27 in order to give the correct ruling. The player deserves to be told the law *before* he decides on a replacement bid. That depends on the meaning of the (formerly) inadvertent bid. Which requires determining the meaning of an inadvertent insufficient bid. I am sorry I did not make that clear in my original posting. Again, I concede that you can just decide whatever makes you happy, but I am searching for a procedure. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 6 15:53:16 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:53:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 07:59:00 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 5/04/2013 12:30, Sven Pran a ?crit : >>> ton >>> >>>>>> An unintended call is only qualified as such under Law 25A when it >>>>>> is replaced by the intended call (under that law). >>> ton: >>> >>> The sentence above is one in a larger message. >>> >>> There is nothing in the laws supporting the view given, as far as my >> English >>> allows me to understand. >>> >>> An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even >>> for >> a >>> split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know >> about >>> the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, >>> the >>> meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An >>> unintended >>> call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the definition is an >>> intended call. >>> >>> ton >> [Sven Pran] >> Quite. >> But what is the consequence of an unintended call that is not legally >> rectified under Law 25A? > > I didn't follow the whole thread, but is this very plausible.? > > A player picks the wrong pack of bidding cards, then says 'oops' and > does NOT correct ? Who would do that, but a masochist ? > Either the call is deemed unintended, andit'll be corrected, or it > isn't, and the question loses its object. I think it is still a question for the original problem. No matter what terminology you prefer, one has to determine the meaning of 1C in the auction 1S 2H 1C 1C was inadvertent when the call was made -- he meant to pull 1NT out of the bidding box. I think the player might like to have his options explained to him before deciding whether or not to change 1C to 1NT. That requires determining the meaning of 1C. The problem of an insufficient bid is creating UI for partner, it seems counterintuitive as a strategy to create more UI by changing the bid to 1NT. From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 6 17:29:37 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:29:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > Again, I concede that you can just decide whatever makes you happy, but I > am searching for a procedure. [Sven Pran] The correct procedure is to explain the applicable laws to the offender, not to tell him what will eventually be your ruling unless this ruling is clear already from the outset. It is the offender's own responsibility to choose his rectification when he has a choice (after being explained his alternatives). In this case he shall be explained (among his other alternatives) that if both his 1C insufficient bid and the lowest ranking available bid in clubs eventually are accepted by the Director as incontrovertibly not artificial bids then Law 27B1{a} will apply to his rectification if he selects that alternative. Of course if the director is in doubt on this question he will usually rule that whatever the 1c IB is, it certainly is not incontrovertibly "not artificial". From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 6 17:48:56 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:48:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002601ce32de$3ffe9320$bffbb960$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > I think it is still a question for the original problem. No matter what > terminology you prefer, one has to determine the meaning of 1C in the > auction > > 1S 2H 1C > > 1C was inadvertent when the call was made -- he meant to pull 1NT out of > the bidding box. > I think the player might like to have his options explained to him before > deciding whether or not to change 1C to 1NT. That requires determining the > meaning of 1C. [Sven Pran] If the player claims inadvertency he has no choice but to change his bid accordingly (within the limits prescribed in Law 25A). And then whatever would be the meaning of the 1C bid is completely irrelevant. > > The problem of an insufficient bid is creating UI for partner, it seems > counterintuitive as a strategy to create more UI by changing the bid to 1NT. [Sven Pran] If the 1C bid is accepted as unintended so that Law 25A applies then there is no question about any information from this withdrawn call. If however, the player apparently begins thinking of the possibility to discard Law25A and instead have Law 27 applied then I would apply Law 27C and rule that he has changed his IB from 1C to 1NT so that Law 27B2 applies. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 6 17:57:35 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 11:57:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 11:29:37 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> Again, I concede that you can just decide whatever makes you happy, but >> I >> am searching for a procedure. > > [Sven Pran] > The correct procedure is to explain the applicable laws to the offender, I hope we agree that merely reading the law does not count as explaining it. We all know it is very difficult to understand at first. What, 5 minutes to explain it? > not > to tell him what will eventually be your ruling unless this ruling is > clear > already from the outset. Right, you have to decide on the meaning of 1C to know what your ruling will be. And he cannot possibly know what you will decide is the meaning of 1C. > > It is the offender's own responsibility to choose his rectification when > he > has a choice (after being explained his alternatives). > > In this case he shall be explained (among his other alternatives) that if > both his 1C insufficient bid and the lowest ranking available bid in > clubs > eventually are accepted by the Director as incontrovertibly not > artificial > bids then Law 27B1{a} will apply to his rectification if he selects that > alternative. I see. It is debatable, even on this list, whether 1C is incontrovertibly not artificial. You expect the player to guess? You aren't going to tell him your own opinion until after he bids 3C? > > Of course if the director is in doubt on this question he will usually > rule > that whatever the 1c IB is, it certainly is not incontrovertibly "not > artificial". I think your procedure sounds legal. It also sounds impractical. Faced with a real player who was bewildered by a reading of the laws, I suspect you would find something nicer to do. Bob From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 6 18:18:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:18:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <002901ce32e2$649cabf0$2dd603d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > The correct procedure is to explain the applicable laws to the > > offender, > > I hope we agree that merely reading the law does not count as explaining it. > We all know it is very difficult to understand at first. What, 5 minutes to > explain it? [Sven Pran] The director cannot waste 5 minutes of the players' time on each call because of an irregularity. > > not > > to tell him what will eventually be your ruling unless this ruling is > > clear already from the outset. > > Right, you have to decide on the meaning of 1C to know what your ruling will > be. [Sven Pran] No, In this specific case I must just decide if the 1C bid is incontrovertibly not artificial. If I am in the slightest doubt on that then I must rule that it is (possibly) artificial. > > And he cannot possibly know what you will decide is the meaning of 1C. [Sven Pran] I shall never be bothered to tell him my decision on the meaning of 1C for the question on whether the bid is incontrovertibly not artificial. I shall tell him whether or not I consider the bid incontrovertibly not artificial - period. > > > > > > > It is the offender's own responsibility to choose his rectification > > when he has a choice (after being explained his alternatives). > > > > > In this case he shall be explained (among his other alternatives) that > > if both his 1C insufficient bid and the lowest ranking available bid > > in clubs eventually are accepted by the Director as incontrovertibly > > not artificial bids then Law 27B1{a} will apply to his rectification > > if he selects that alternative. > > I see. It is debatable, even on this list, whether 1C is incontrovertibly not > artificial. You expect the player to guess? You aren't going to tell him your > own opinion until after he bids 3C? [Sven Pran] And the admitted fact that the question is debatable makes it clear that whatever the call is it is not incontrovertibly not artificial. As I wrote here: > > Of course if the director is in doubt on this question he will usually > > rule that whatever the 1c IB is, it certainly is not incontrovertibly > > "not artificial". > > I think your procedure sounds legal. It also sounds impractical. Faced with a > real player who was bewildered by a reading of the laws, I suspect you would > find something nicer to do. [Sven Pran] Would you prefer a more "practical" procedure that will delay the event 5 minutes at each call for the Director? Forget it. From blml at arcor.de Sun Apr 7 07:21:08 2013 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 07:21:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <515C0EA5.8070703@ulb.ac.be> References: <515C0EA5.8070703@ulb.ac.be> <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1619684992.1739656.1365312068378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > ISTM that one issue has not been addressed by either the Td or the > Committee. > > Issue 1 : misinformation. Handled and found to exist; > > Issue 3 : possible errors by NS. Handled and not found to be egregious etc. > > But what about issue 2 ? What about the lnk between Mi and damage ? Once > it has been determined that a Heart lead wouldn't been more probable > with the right information, all that remains is the question whether the > right information would make North play Clubs after the SA or after the > HK. As long as this hasn't been answered to the positive, there is no > link, whence no redress. > And IMOBO there is no such link : East could as well hold AQxx(x) > diamonds and KQx clubs with or without 4 spades. So it boils down to > South's carding, and I fail to understand how it would have been > different. The fact that South might be stranded into playing a > non-significant card is true in both cases. And here, can't South play > the 10 in all cases ? The main point is the following: In the world where declarer has at most three spades (the MI W gave to S), S does not want to play the discouraging DT on trick two, as N might interpret the DT as a suit preference signal for spades. In the world where no statement was made during the bidding whether declarer can have four spades (E/W's actual agreement), S might play the DT on trick two, as the risk is now lower that N might interpret the DT as a suit preference signal for spades. I think to decide whether to buy or reject this point, a detailed understanding of N/S's carding methods is needed. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 8 00:26:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE9035@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." TLASIS: >>1C was inadvertent when the call was made -- he meant to pull 1NT out >>of the bidding box. >> >>I think the player might like to have his options explained to him before >>deciding whether or not to change 1C to 1NT. Sven Pran: >If the player claims inadvertency he has no choice but to change his bid >accordingly (within the limits prescribed in Law 25A). >..... TLASIS: >>That requires determining the meaning of 1C. Richard Hills: A Humpty Dumpty use of the word "meaning". A unintended call retracted under Law 25A is deemed never to have happened, hence has zero "meaning". Definitions: Unintended - involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action. Sven Pran: >..... >And then whatever would be the meaning of the 1C bid is completely >irrelevant. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th October 2011, item 7: When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under this Law it is a Director's error and Law 82C applies. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130407/de0e5909/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 8 00:54:05 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:54:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEB095@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 25A2: No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call. Ton Kooijman: >..... >An unintended call is one the player did not intent to make, not even for a >split second. That is the qualification. And since nobody should know about >the unintended status unless the player himself explains it as such, the >meaning for the others is as shown on the convention card. An unintended >call is not a psyche because a psyche according to the definition is an >intended call. > >ton Richard Hills: Indeed. Eddie Kantar once made an unintended call which he failed to correct before his partner had responded. The Rueful Rabbit result was that they arrived in a making slam when they would otherwise have stopped in game. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130407/ae2d78c0/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 8 09:01:33 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:01:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <006001ce3426$e7981b30$b6c85190$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert: The player deserves to be told the law *before* he decides on a replacement bid. That depends on the meaning of the (formerly) inadvertent bid. Which requires determining the meaning of an inadvertent insufficient bid. I am sorry I did not make that clear in my original posting. Again, I concede that you can just decide whatever makes you happy, but I am searching for a procedure. ton: One of the two: I do not understand you or the reverse. I go for the latter. An unintended insufficient bid does not have a meaning*. If a player draws attention to his UIB in time he may change it without any further rectification for his side. If he draws attention to it too late for rectification the UIB apparently has been accepted by his LHO. But then his remark creates UI and his partner is restricted in his bidding. But partner cannot be forced to explain the meaning of it, since a partnership normally has not an agreement about the meaning of an insufficient bid. * this might not be completely true. If a player puts down the 1H bidding card and immediately screams 'no sorry' he probably tells the table that he has opening values. But normally this will not create extra problems, since the intended call will tell the same. So let us persist in saying that an UB does not carry information. ton From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 8 15:09:06 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:09:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:48:35 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>>> Law 27B1{b}, which starts with the words: "if, except as in (a)", is >>>> only relevant or applicable when an insufficient bid cannot be handled >>>> under Law 27B1{a}! >>> >>> Wrong. You are saying that because there is a possible nonbarring correction >>> by (a), (b) is irrelevant. I don't think you really believe that, but >>> just in case, >>> consider this example. >>> 2H 1S >>> >>> 1S was meant as an opening bid and can be corrected to 2S without >>> barring >>> partner via L27B1(a). But (b) still applies. A correction to 3S would probably be >>> allowed, as might a Michaels 3H. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> No, I am saying that once the offender has available a rectification >> under >> Law 27B1{a} and chooses that rectification then Law 27B1{b} is not >> applicable. >> >> But the offender may certainly select to ignore Law 27B1{a} and choose a >> different substituting call. In that case TD must proceed through the >> successive alternatives in Law 27 in order to give the correct ruling. > > The player deserves to be told the law *before* he decides on a > replacement bid. That depends on the meaning of the (formerly) inadvertent > bid. Which requires determining the meaning of an inadvertent insufficient > bid. I am sorry I did not make that clear in my original posting. There is no such thing as "the meaning of an... inadvertent bid", insufficient or not. A genuinely inadvertent call is a random noise without any defined meaning, and any rectification procedure must presume that it had no meaning, intended or otherwise. It is no different than if the player had sneezed instead of calling. Would it make sense to restrict his subsequent call based on the director's determination of the "meaning" of his sneeze? That seems to be what Bob is asking for here. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 8 15:27:39 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:27:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <82F3AC07-E705-4706-B601-D28CA27F04A6@starpower.net> On Apr 6, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> Again, I concede that you can just decide whatever makes you happy, but I >> am searching for a procedure. > > [Sven Pran] > The correct procedure is to explain the applicable laws to the offender, not > to tell him what will eventually be your ruling unless this ruling is clear > already from the outset. > > It is the offender's own responsibility to choose his rectification when he > has a choice (after being explained his alternatives). > > In this case he shall be explained (among his other alternatives) that if > both his 1C insufficient bid and the lowest ranking available bid in clubs > eventually are accepted by the Director as incontrovertibly not artificial > bids then Law 27B1{a} will apply to his rectification if he selects that > alternative. > > Of course if the director is in doubt on this question he will usually rule > that whatever the 1c IB is, it certainly is not incontrovertibly "not > artificial". A call that "certainly is not incontrovertably 'not artificial'" is possibly artificial by the rules of grammar. TFLB defines an "artificial call" as "a bid, double or redouble that conveys information..." A genuinely inadvertent call has no meaning and conveys no information, and thus cannot be an "artificial call" as we define the term. Cf. "sneeze". Since an inadvertent insufficient bid is by definition meaningless, any legal substitute call will have "a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid", and thus be allowable without further rectification per L27B1(b) (if we get that far). Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 8 15:48:53 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:48:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <82F3AC07-E705-4706-B601-D28CA27F04A6@starpower.net> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> <82F3AC07-E705-4706-B601-D28CA27F04A6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801ce345f$cfcbf1f0$6f63d5d0$@online.no> > Eric Landau [...] > A call that "certainly is not incontrovertably 'not artificial'" is possibly artificial > by the rules of grammar. TFLB defines an "artificial call" as "a bid, double or > redouble that conveys information..." A genuinely inadvertent call has no > meaning and conveys no information, and thus cannot be an "artificial call" as > we define the term. Cf. "sneeze". [Sven Pran] The Director is not asked to judge if the call to be withdrawn was artificial, he is to judge if the call was incontrovertibly not artificial. > Since an inadvertent insufficient bid is by definition meaningless, any legal > substitute call will have "a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid", > and thus be allowable without further rectification per L27B1(b) (if we get > that far). [Sven Pran] If the inadvertent (insufficient) bid is legally rectified as such under Law 25A then that is fine, end of story. When it comes to the possible application of Law 27B1{b} then a requirement is that (according to the partnership understandings) there must exist no hand justifying the replacement call which would not have justified the insufficient bid HAD THIS BEEN LEGAL! In my opinion this finally disposes of the argument that any replacement call satisfies the requirement in L27B1(b) to be more precise than a call without meaning. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 8 17:17:14 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:17:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1619684992.1739656.1365312068378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <515C0EA5.8070703@ulb.ac.be> <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <1619684992.1739656.1365312068378.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <5162DF7A.20908@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/04/2013 7:21, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheinerwrote: >> ISTM that one issue has not been addressed by either the Td or the >> Committee. >> >> Issue 1 : misinformation. Handled and found to exist; >> >> Issue 3 : possible errors by NS. Handled and not found to be egregious etc. >> >> But what about issue 2 ? What about the lnk between Mi and damage ? Once >> it has been determined that a Heart lead wouldn't been more probable >> with the right information, all that remains is the question whether the >> right information would make North play Clubs after the SA or after the >> HK. As long as this hasn't been answered to the positive, there is no >> link, whence no redress. >> And IMOBO there is no such link : East could as well hold AQxx(x) >> diamonds and KQx clubs with or without 4 spades. So it boils down to >> South's carding, and I fail to understand how it would have been >> different. The fact that South might be stranded into playing a >> non-significant card is true in both cases. And here, can't South play >> the 10 in all cases ? > The main point is the following: > In the world where declarer has at most three spades (the MI W gave to S), S does not > want to play the discouraging DT on trick two, as N might interpret > the DT as a suit preference signal for spades. In the world where > no statement was made during the bidding whether declarer can have > four spades (E/W's actual agreement), S might play the DT on trick two, as the risk is > now lower that N might interpret the DT as a suit preference signal for spades. > > I think to decide whether to buy or reject this point, a detailed > understanding of N/S's carding methods is needed. > > So South states that if East holds 3-4 spades, the D10 (if notforced) means "clubs", while if he has only 3 it means "spades" ? It will indeed need more investigations. I've some doubts. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 9 04:00:41 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:00:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEB28B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >There is no such thing as "the meaning of an... inadvertent bid", insufficient >or not. A genuinely inadvertent call is a random noise without any defined >meaning, and any rectification procedure must presume that it had no >meaning, intended or otherwise. It is no different than if the player had >sneezed instead of calling. Would it make sense to restrict his subsequent >call based on the director's determination of the "meaning" of his sneeze? Richard Hills: "Inadvertent" is the ambiguous word of the 1997 Lawbook's Law 25A. "Unintentional" is the unambiguous word of the 2007 Lawbook's Law 25A (and the 2007 Definitions), making Eric's sneeze analogy obviously correct. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Jane Austen & Seth Grahame-Smith: "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130409/7507be82/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 10 02:22:33 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 20:22:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:09:06 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:48:35 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>>>> Law 27B1{b}, which starts with the words: "if, except as in (a)", is >>>>> only relevant or applicable when an insufficient bid cannot be >>>>> handled >>>>> under Law 27B1{a}! >>>> >>>> Wrong. You are saying that because there is a possible nonbarring >>>> correction >>>> by (a), (b) is irrelevant. I don't think you really believe that, but >>>> just in case, >>>> consider this example. >>>> 2H 1S >>>> >>>> 1S was meant as an opening bid and can be corrected to 2S without >>>> barring >>>> partner via L27B1(a). But (b) still applies. A correction to 3S would >>>> probably be >>>> allowed, as might a Michaels 3H. >>> >>> [Sven Pran] >>> No, I am saying that once the offender has available a rectification >>> under >>> Law 27B1{a} and chooses that rectification then Law 27B1{b} is not >>> applicable. >>> >>> But the offender may certainly select to ignore Law 27B1{a} and choose >>> a >>> different substituting call. In that case TD must proceed through the >>> successive alternatives in Law 27 in order to give the correct ruling. >> >> The player deserves to be told the law *before* he decides on a >> replacement bid. That depends on the meaning of the (formerly) >> inadvertent >> bid. Which requires determining the meaning of an inadvertent >> insufficient >> bid. I am sorry I did not make that clear in my original posting. > > There is no such thing as "the meaning of an... inadvertent bid", > insufficient or not. A genuinely inadvertent call is a random noise > without any defined meaning, and any rectification procedure must > presume that it had no meaning, intended or otherwise. It is no > different than if the player had sneezed instead of calling. Would it > make sense to restrict his subsequent call based on the director's > determination of the "meaning" of his sneeze? That seems to be what Bob > is asking for here. I am starting to see problems this answer. If the inadvertent bid has no meaning, then any replacement bid will be more precise in meaning and hence nonbarring. So the player could pass without barring partner. But his partner knows the passer has some values, because he was going to make a bid. That information could be useful. The potential misinformation in the inadvertent bid should be large. But, at least in theory, partner can infer that the 1C is inadvertent -- that is the only way a replacement call of pass could be nonbarring. Consider 1C P 1H 4S 4D/P The player tells the director that the 4D bid was inadvertent, so the director rules that the substitution of a pass is nonbarring. Can't partner infer the the opener has enough points to force to game, probably with heart support? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 10 02:56:58 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:56:58 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEB3B4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 27A1: Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at ++the option of offender's LHO++. It is accepted if that player calls. Ton Kooijman, interesting statement: >..... >If he draws attention to it too late for rectification the UIB >apparently has been accepted by his LHO. >..... Law 25A1: ++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 second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law. Richard Hills: It seems that Ton believes that the timing of Law 27A1 over- rides the timing of Law 25A1. I have the opposite belief. I suggest that the 2017 Drafting Committee create a cross- reference to resolve this ambiguity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html "...true believers are urged to dress as pirates because of their founder's discovery of a causal relationship between global warming and a decline in the number of buccaneers in the past 200 years..." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130410/8e773acd/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 10 10:09:10 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:09:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEB3B4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEB3B4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002c01ce35c2$ae7b0b30$0b712190$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Law 27A1: Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at ++the option of offender's LHO++. It is accepted if that player calls. Ton Kooijman, interesting statement: >..... >If he draws attention to it too late for rectification the UIB >apparently has been accepted by his LHO. >..... Law 25A1: ++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 second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law. Richard Hills: It seems that Ton believes that the timing of Law 27A1 over- rides the timing of Law 25A1. I have the opposite belief. ton: I don't think I said so. As long as partner does not make a call thereafter an unintended call may be replaced. But if it is also insufficient and LHO has made a call thereafter it is accepted and L 27 does not apply anymore. No work for the LC ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130410/2a5e6f55/attachment-0001.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 10 10:21:57 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:21:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert wrote: ....... That depends on the meaning of the (formerly) inadvertent bid. Which requires determining the meaning of an inadvertent insufficient bid. ton: Do you think to understand the meaning of the word 'unintended' here? I have my doubts. ton From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 10 10:44:53 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:44:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust Message-ID: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than an alternative single raise. While this may be quite alright in Australia, with the usual provision about psychic partnership history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some jurisdictions. Is that true? Cheers Tony (Sydney) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 10 11:05:30 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:05:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <005801ce35ca$8cd1aae0$a67500a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: if I understand this well, I doubt whether this contribution to bridge from Ron can be called positive. To be honest: my feeling about it is stronger than expressed. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Tony Musgrove Verzonden: woensdag 10 april 2013 10:45 Aan: BLML Onderwerp: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than an alternative single raise. While this may be quite alright in Australia, with the usual provision about psychic partnership history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some jurisdictions. Is that true? Cheers Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.3272 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6234 - datum van uitgifte: 04/09/13 From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 10 11:36:17 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:36:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <005801ce35ca$8cd1aae0$a67500a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> <005801ce35ca$8cd1aae0$a67500a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <51653291.9010405@skynet.be> I have feelings similar to Ton's, but I would express them differently. It is quite allright to use the tactic of asking partner a question, tyring to make the opponents believe one has values that correspond to a real interest in his holdings ... PROVIDED: one describes the question as nothing more than a question, promising no values by itself. If needed, a proviso that one may also ask the question with zilch could be useful. If Ron Klinger gives ample warning to opponents, then indeed such an enquiry might be praiseworthy. But in no case should the enquiry be called "psychic". Even if performed for the very first time, the risk is so small that frequency should not matter. The bid asks a question and promises nothing, and the opponents should be aware of that. I always explain such calls as "he wants to know what I have". Herman. ton schreef: > ton: > > if I understand this well, I doubt whether this contribution to bridge from > Ron can be called positive. > To be honest: my feeling about it is stronger than expressed. > > ton > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Tony > Musgrove > Verzonden: woensdag 10 april 2013 10:45 > Aan: BLML > Onderwerp: [BLML] Psyching Ogust > > In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ron Klinger praised his > partner's psychic 2NT enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as > being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than an alternative single > raise. > > While this may be quite alright in Australia, with the usual provision about > psychic partnership history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe other > forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some > jurisdictions. > > Is that true? > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2013.0.3272 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6234 - datum van uitgifte: > 04/09/13 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6235 - Release Date: 04/09/13 > > From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Apr 10 12:11:17 2013 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:11:17 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: If 2NT is a psyche then presumably its meaning is a strong bid which would be invitational to game. Unless that 2NT also related to a specific suit then it would appear to me that psyching such a bid is contrary to the ABF regulation: "In response to any opening bid the responder is prohibited from psyching any bid which: (a) Is conventionally a game try or a game force and (b) Neither relates to a specific suit or suits nor shows a balanced hand." On 10 April 2013 20:44, Tony Musgrove wrote: > In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, > Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT > enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as > being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than > an alternative single raise. > > While this may be quite alright in Australia, with > the usual provision about psychic partnership > history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe > other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some > jurisdictions. > > Is that true? > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130410/6eaf03b6/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Apr 10 13:11:49 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:11:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions? Message-ID: <516548F5.2070302@aol.com> Following bidding: 1sp pass 2he dbl* and continuation arriving at 4 spades. *for minors, at least 4-4. Lead of a trump and at the third trick when the opening leader is again on lead his partner says: "I doubled hearts." Aside from scolding (warning, penalising his partner for the comment) do you take any other action regarding the lead to the next trick? Ciao, JE From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 10 13:25:27 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:25:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions? In-Reply-To: <516548F5.2070302@aol.com> References: <516548F5.2070302@aol.com> Message-ID: <004201ce35de$1acc1fc0$50645f40$@online.no> > Jeff Easterson > Following bidding: > > 1sp pass 2he dbl* > and continuation arriving at 4 spades. > > *for minors, at least 4-4. > > Lead of a trump and at the third trick when the opening leader is again on > lead his partner says: "I doubled hearts." > > Aside from scolding (warning, penalising his partner for the comment) do you > take any other action regarding the lead to the next trick? [Sven Pran] Sure, the remark is deliberate UI. It might be suggesting a heart lead and it might be a reminder that he wants a minor led. The Director may not impose any restriction on the lead to the next trick, but regardless of what is led now (other than another trump), if successful for the defense, should result in an adjusted score. From lskelso at ihug.com.au Wed Apr 10 13:49:52 2013 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:49:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <516551E0.1010807@ihug.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130410/8e08caa1/attachment.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Apr 10 14:43:35 2013 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:43:35 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <516551E0.1010807@ihug.com.au> References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> <516551E0.1010807@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: Ah thanks Laurie. I see now that the document on the ABF website has some colour coding of NZ/Australian regulations. It wasn't clear to me that the document was coded like that and even less so when I just went to the document on the ABF site and did a search for psyche. I assumed wrongly that the regulation I was copying was an ABF one given I was at www.abf.com.au On 10 April 2013 23:49, Laurie Kelso wrote: > Hello Wayne > > What you have quoted is actually a NZB Regulation. This particular > wording doesn't appear in the ABF Regulations. > > The closest the ABF gets to barring psyches is the following: > > "The psyching of a conventional bid, which is unequivocally forcing and > systematically indicative of the > strongest possible opening hand (e.g., a Game Forcing 2C or a Precision > 1C) is strictly forbidden." > > Regards > Laurie > > > On 10/04/2013 8:11 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > If 2NT is a psyche then presumably its meaning is a strong bid which would > be invitational to game. Unless that 2NT also related to a specific suit > then it would appear to me that psyching such a bid is contrary to the ABF > regulation: > > "In response to any opening bid the responder is prohibited from psyching > any bid > which: > (a) Is conventionally a game try or a game force > and > (b) Neither relates to a specific suit or suits nor shows a > balanced hand." > > > On 10 April 2013 20:44, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, >> Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT >> enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as >> being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than >> an alternative single raise. >> >> While this may be quite alright in Australia, with >> the usual provision about psychic partnership >> history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe >> other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some >> jurisdictions. >> >> Is that true? >> >> Cheers >> >> Tony (Sydney) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Wayne Burrows > Palmerston North > New Zealand > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing listBlml at rtflb.orghttp://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130410/600e97c5/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 10 15:26:48 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:26:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:21:57 -0400, ton wrote: > Robert wrote: ....... > That depends on the meaning of the (formerly) > inadvertent bid. Which requires determining the meaning of an > inadvertent insufficient bid. > > ton: > > Do you think to understand the meaning of the word 'unintended' here? > I have my doubts. > > ton There is only one way to define unintended (ignoring Sven's opinion). You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, this is not hypnothetical. 1S 2H 1C The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did not see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are nonbarring by L27B1(b)? How do you rule? Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 10 16:30:56 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:30:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions? In-Reply-To: <516548F5.2070302@aol.com> References: <516548F5.2070302@aol.com> Message-ID: <516577A0.5030903@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/04/2013 13:11, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Following bidding: > > 1sp pass 2he dbl* > and continuation arriving at 4 spades. > > *for minors, at least 4-4. > > Lead of a trump and at the third trick when the opening leader is again > on lead his partner says: "I doubled hearts." > > Aside from scolding (warning, penalising his partner for the comment) do > you take any other action regarding the lead to the next trick? At this very moment there is nothing to do but take notice of the remark, which constitutes blatant UI. No one law allows me to force / disallow a lead (L12 : I may not invent penalties). If opening leader plays a Heart and partner ruffs, or if he plays a minor and it works, the score will almost surely be adjusted. If he leads a trump, or if he leads a minor while not having any more trumps, no penalty, but a PP and a lecture on information are necessary. Best regards, Alain From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 10 16:49:07 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:49:07 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:44:53 +1000." <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <20130410144908.03770A8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> Tony Musgrove wrote: > In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, > Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT > enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as > being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than > an alternative single raise. > > While this may be quite alright in Australia, with > the usual provision about psychic partnership > history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe > other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some > jurisdictions. > > Is that true? Psyching Ogust is OK in the ACBL. The following is prohibited: 2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings. but Ogust does not fall into any of these categories. -- Adam From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 10 17:12:40 2013 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:12:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> <516551E0.1010807@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <1365606760.89128.YahooMailNeo@web87702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> It has been ages since I last posted, but this topic caught my eye. I am very surprised by the Australian regulation which prohibits psyches of strong forcing opening bids. Which jurisdictions besides the EBU have no restrictions on which bids may be psyched? ? >________________________________ > From: Wayne Burrows >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013, 13:43 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching Ogust > > >Ah thanks Laurie. I see now that the document on the ABF website has some colour coding of NZ/Australian regulations. > >It wasn't clear to me that the document was coded like that and even less so when I just went to the document on the ABF site and did a search for psyche. I assumed wrongly that the regulation I was copying was an ABF one given I was at www.abf.com.au > > > > >On 10 April 2013 23:49, Laurie Kelso wrote: > >Hello Wayne >> >>What you have quoted is actually a NZB Regulation.? This particular wording doesn't appear in the ABF Regulations.? >> >>The closest the ABF gets to barring psyches is the following: >> >>"The psyching of a conventional bid, which is unequivocally forcing and systematically indicative of the >>strongest possible opening hand (e.g., a Game Forcing 2C or a Precision 1C) is strictly forbidden." >> >>Regards >>Laurie >> >> >> >>On 10/04/2013 8:11 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>If 2NT is a psyche then presumably its meaning is a strong bid which would be invitational to game. Unless that 2NT also related to a specific suit then it would appear to me that psyching such a bid is contrary to the?ABF regulation: >>> >>>"In response to any opening bid the responder is prohibited from psyching any bid >>>which: >>>(a) Is conventionally a game try or a game force >>>and >>>(b) Neither relates to a specific suit or suits nor shows a >>>balanced hand." >>> >>> >>> >>>On 10 April 2013 20:44, Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> >>>In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, >>>>Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT >>>>enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as >>>>being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than >>>>an alternative single raise. >>>> >>>>While this may be quite alright in Australia, with >>>>the usual provision about psychic partnership >>>>history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe >>>>other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some >>>>jurisdictions. >>>> >>>>Is that true? >>>> >>>>Cheers >>>> >>>>Tony (Sydney) >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Blml mailing list >>>>Blml at rtflb.org >>>>http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Wayne Burrows >>>Palmerston North >>>New Zealand >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ 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 >> >> > > >-- >Wayne Burrows >Palmerston North >New Zealand > >_______________________________________________ >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/20130410/c2b6e489/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 10 17:38:21 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:38:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > There is only one way to define unintended (ignoring Sven's opinion). [Sven Pran] You obviously completely misunderstand my opinion. I am fully aware of the literal meaning of "unintended", but the important fact is that a call in a bridge auction is never (legally) treated as unintended unless it is retracted and replaced under Law 25A. > > You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, this is > not hypnothetical. > > 1S 2H 1C > > > The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did not > see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are nonbarring by > L27B1(b)? How do you rule? [Sven Pran] 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his partner has not yet subsequently called).) The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended 1NT bid. Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" of the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 10 18:06:59 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:06:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> Message-ID: <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> Sven, I understand what you are saying, but please think of the following: - a player bids 2D over 1NT-2Sp, not having seen that opponent has overcalled 2Sp; TD will allow him to change to 3Di or 3He, depending o which of the two shows hearts; - a player bids 2D over the same auction, not having seen any of the opening bids; TD will not allow any change (DI being artificial, say Multi) - a player bids 2D over 1NT-2Sp, intending to bid 3Di, natural, and mispulling; The third 2Di is unintentional, but what is its meaning? If it is supposed to be the same meaning as ...whatever you may think it is... then which of the first two 2Di would you ascribe to the third 2Di? The only correct meaning of the word "meaning" in the laws is the meaning the bid would have had had the auction gone in the manner the player thought it had. And therefore, the third 2Di does not have any meaning. OK? Herman. Sven Pran schreef: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> There is only one way to define unintended (ignoring Sven's opinion). > > [Sven Pran] > You obviously completely misunderstand my opinion. > I am fully aware of the literal meaning of "unintended", but the important > fact is that a call in a bridge auction is never (legally) treated as > unintended unless it is retracted and replaced under Law 25A. > >> >> You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, this > is >> not hypnothetical. >> >> 1S 2H 1C >> >> >> The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did not >> see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are nonbarring by >> L27B1(b)? How do you rule? > > [Sven Pran] > 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted > without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his > partner has not yet subsequently called).) > The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended > 1NT bid. > Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" of > the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6235 - Release Date: 04/09/13 > > From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 10 18:36:27 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:36:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@! skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401ce3609$8c7c3940$a574abc0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sven, I understand what you are saying, but please think of the following: > > - a player bids 2D over 1NT-2Sp, not having seen that opponent has > overcalled 2Sp; TD will allow him to change to 3Di or 3He, depending o which > of the two shows hearts; > - a player bids 2D over the same auction, not having seen any of the opening > bids; TD will not allow any change (DI being artificial, say Multi) > - a player bids 2D over 1NT-2Sp, intending to bid 3Di, natural, and mispulling; > > The third 2Di is unintentional, but what is its meaning? [Sven Pran] So long as the 2Di bid is accepted (by the Director) as unintended it will simply be replaced under Law 25A by the intended 3Di bid. The "meaning" of the 2Di unintended bid is completely irrelevant as that bid is considered never made. > If it is supposed to be the same meaning as ...whatever you may think it is... > then which of the first two 2Di would you ascribe to the third 2Di? [Sven Pran] If the 2Di bid is not accepted as unintended then that is for the Director to judge under the actual circumstances. I have no (and cannot possibly have any answer here as I don't know the circumstances or the relevant partnership agreements. > > The only correct meaning of the word "meaning" in the laws is the meaning > the bid would have had had the auction gone in the manner the player > thought it had. > > And therefore, the third 2Di does not have any meaning. > > OK? [Sven Pran] If it is accepted and treated as an unintended call (Law 25A applies) then yes, otherwise no. From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Apr 10 20:07:50 2013 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:07:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130410144908.03770A8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130410144908.03770A8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5165AA76.3030304@comcast.net> On 4/10/13 10:49 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, >> Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT >> enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as >> being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than >> an alternative single raise. >> >> While this may be quite alright in Australia, with >> the usual provision about psychic partnership >> history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe >> other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some >> jurisdictions. >> >> Is that true? > Psyching Ogust is OK in the ACBL. The following is prohibited: > > 2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional > responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less > than 2NT, to natural openings. > > but Ogust does not fall into any of these categories. > > -- Adam Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem to be analogous to the Klinger case. --bp From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 10 21:18:38 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:18:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <5165AA76.3030304@comcast.net> References: <20130410144908.03770A8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> <5165AA76.3030304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000701ce3620$350b4ef0$9f21ecd0$@online.no> > Robert Park [...] > Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or > garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I > believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to a > Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem > to be analogous to the Klinger case. [Sven Pran] If with scrambling Stayman you mean what I believe you mean I frankly cannot see any reason why the bid 2C after partner's 1NT opening bid should be forbidden for a player holding say: xxxx - xxxx - xxxx - x (nil HCP!) intending to pass whatever respond he gets from opener? AFAIK this has been a classic escape bid for decades. From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 10 21:33:13 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:33:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:07:50 EDT." <5165AA76.3030304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20130410193315.662EDA8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Park wrote: > On 4/10/13 10:49 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > >> In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, > >> Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT > >> enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as > >> being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than > >> an alternative single raise. > >> > >> While this may be quite alright in Australia, with > >> the usual provision about psychic partnership > >> history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe > >> other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some > >> jurisdictions. > >> > >> Is that true? > > Psyching Ogust is OK in the ACBL. The following is prohibited: > > > > 2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional > > responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less > > than 2NT, to natural openings. > > > > but Ogust does not fall into any of these categories. > > > > -- Adam > > Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or > garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I > believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to > a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem > to be analogous to the Klinger case. Ummm--what does that have to do with psyching? If your agreement is that 2C absolutely, 100% of the time, promises an invitational hand or better, then bidding 2C with a weak hand would be a psych. But that's not the agreement of most players (although I've played it that way, in an "Extended Stayman" context where opener had eight different possible rebids available instead of the usual three). -- Adam From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 10 21:54:38 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:54:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000801ce345f$cfcbf1f0$6f63d5d0$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <002401ce32db$8cf81be0$a6e853a0$@online.no> <82F3AC07-E705-4706-B601-D28CA27F04A6@starpower.net> <000801ce345f$cfcbf1f0$6f63d5d0$@online.no> Message-ID: We have two very similar methods of determining the meaning of an insufficient bid. When they are applied to a bid that is also unintended, they yield the answer that the meaning of the unattended bid is the meaning of the intended bid. This seems like a good answer to me. It sounds strange to say that the meaning of 1C is 6-9 HCP (the meaning of the intended 1NT). But it sounds less strange to say that is the meaning *for the purposes of L27B1(b)". I can't see any problems. If the replacement bid is the same or a more precise meaning than the intended bid, there can be no correct additional information in the unintended bid. And we would be giving the player nothing for keeping his unintended bid -- he could get the same nonbarring options by first correcting the unintended bid to the intended bid. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 10 22:17:34 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:17:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, this > is not hypnothetical. > > 1S 2H 1C > > The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did not > see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are nonbarring by > L27B1(b)? How do you rule? It depends. Are his oppos aware the 1C was "described as unintended"? If so, are they aware that he intended to bid 1NT? At what point did the TD/oppos become aware of the irregularity? Did the TD accept the claim of unintended call? Any legal call at this point is "nonbarring by L27B1(b)"; that is the wrong question. The right question is whether we will ever get to using L27B1(b). In reality, the actual ruling is likely to depend on something that should be totally irrelevant: whether the local protocol allows the TD to remove the player from the table and question him privately or requires him to resolve the issue at the table. There is no one simple answer to Bob's question. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 10 22:24:54 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:24:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <5165AA76.3030304@comcast.net> References: <20130410144908.03770A8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> <5165AA76.3030304@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 4/10/13 10:49 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Psyching Ogust is OK in the ACBL. The following is prohibited: >> >> 2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional >> responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less >> than 2NT, to natural openings. >> >> but Ogust does not fall into any of these categories. > > Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or > garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I > believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to > a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem > to be analogous to the Klinger case. "Stayman... permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to a Stayman bidder" is simply a partnership agreement, subject to the usual disclosure. It has nothing at all to do with psyching. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Apr 10 22:28:54 2013 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:28:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130410193315.662EDA8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130410193315.662EDA8C881@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net> On 4/10/13 3:33 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > >> On 4/10/13 10:49 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >>> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> >>>> In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, >>>> Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT >>>> enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as >>>> being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than >>>> an alternative single raise. >>>> >>>> While this may be quite alright in Australia, with >>>> the usual provision about psychic partnership >>>> history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe >>>> other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some >>>> jurisdictions. >>>> >>>> Is that true? >>> Psyching Ogust is OK in the ACBL. The following is prohibited: >>> >>> 2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional >>> responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less >>> than 2NT, to natural openings. >>> >>> but Ogust does not fall into any of these categories. >>> >>> -- Adam >> Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or >> garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I >> believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to >> a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem >> to be analogous to the Klinger case. > Ummm--what does that have to do with psyching? Exactly! And your comment would seem to apply to Klinger's conventional 2NT response to a weak 2-bid, would it not? > If your agreement is > that 2C absolutely, 100% of the time, promises an invitational hand or > better, then bidding 2C with a weak hand would be a psych. But that's > not the agreement of most players (although I've played it that way, > in an "Extended Stayman" context where opener had eight different > possible rebids available instead of the usual three). > > -- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 11 01:51:43 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:51:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:28:54 EDT." <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Park wrote: > On 4/10/13 3:33 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert Park wrote: > > > >> On 4/10/13 10:49 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>> Tony Musgrove wrote: > >>> > >> Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or > >> garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I > >> believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to > >> a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem > >> to be analogous to the Klinger case. > > Ummm--what does that have to do with psyching? > Exactly! And your comment would seem to apply to Klinger's conventional > 2NT response to a weak 2-bid, would it not? OK, you set us up pretty well. We all took your comment seriously. But you raise a good point. A psychic call is defined as a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length"; and if a bid is an asking bid, it's not a statement of honor strength or suit length at all and thus can't really be a psychic. Ogust 2NT is an asking bid, so in my view it can't really be a psych at all. I missed that when someone asked about different jurisdictions--I was paying attention to looking for the rules about psychs and missed that point. I don't really blame Klinger or anyone else for calling it a psychic. In a loose sense, I guess it is, because the asker is asking a "question" solely for the opponents' benefit, and the asker doesn't care about the response at all. But it doesn't fit the legal definition of a psychic, and thus I don't think it can be regulated as one. (Although the way the new Laws are written, I'm not sure.) It's still different from Stayman, though, because it's common knowledge that a Stayman bidder could have a weak hand, so you're not fooling the opponents. Also, it serves a different purpose. The purpose of garbage Stayman is to escape out of notrump and hopefully into a less-disastrous suit contract, not to play games with the opponents' minds. -- Adam From lali808 at gmail.com Thu Apr 11 05:39:40 2013 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:39:40 -1000 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net> <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: So is bidding 2C Stayman with no major, not playing a system that needs to go thru Stayman w/o a major, with the sole purpose of warding off a major suit lead because responder has x and xxx in the majors allowed? or is that considered a tactical or ok psyche bid? On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert Park wrote: > > > On 4/10/13 3:33 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Robert Park wrote: > > > > > >> On 4/10/13 10:49 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >>> Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >>> > > >> Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or > > >> garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) > is, I > > >> believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed > to > > >> a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus > seem > > >> to be analogous to the Klinger case. > > > > Ummm--what does that have to do with psyching? > > > Exactly! And your comment would seem to apply to Klinger's conventional > > 2NT response to a weak 2-bid, would it not? > > OK, you set us up pretty well. We all took your comment seriously. > > But you raise a good point. A psychic call is defined as a > "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit > length"; and if a bid is an asking bid, it's not a statement of honor > strength or suit length at all and thus can't really be a psychic. > Ogust 2NT is an asking bid, so in my view it can't really be a psych > at all. I missed that when someone asked about different > jurisdictions--I was paying attention to looking for the rules about > psychs and missed that point. > > I don't really blame Klinger or anyone else for calling it a psychic. > In a loose sense, I guess it is, because the asker is asking a > "question" solely for the opponents' benefit, and the asker doesn't > care about the response at all. But it doesn't fit the legal > definition of a psychic, and thus I don't think it can be regulated as > one. (Although the way the new Laws are written, I'm not sure.) > > It's still different from Stayman, though, because it's common > knowledge that a Stayman bidder could have a weak hand, so you're not > fooling the opponents. Also, it serves a different purpose. The > purpose of garbage Stayman is to escape out of notrump and hopefully > into a less-disastrous suit contract, not to play games with the > opponents' minds. > > -- Adam > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130411/8314545c/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 11 08:49:38 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:49:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <51665D02.4080707@skynet.be> Adam Beneschan schreef: > > Robert Park wrote: > >> On 4/10/13 3:33 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >>> Robert Park wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/10/13 10:49 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >>>>> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>>>> >>>> Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or >>>> garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I >>>> believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to >>>> a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem >>>> to be analogous to the Klinger case. > >>> Ummm--what does that have to do with psyching? > >> Exactly! And your comment would seem to apply to Klinger's conventional >> 2NT response to a weak 2-bid, would it not? > > OK, you set us up pretty well. We all took your comment seriously. > > But you raise a good point. A psychic call is defined as a > "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit > length"; and if a bid is an asking bid, it's not a statement of honor > strength or suit length at all and thus can't really be a psychic. > Ogust 2NT is an asking bid, so in my view it can't really be a psych > at all. I missed that when someone asked about different > jurisdictions--I was paying attention to looking for the rules about > psychs and missed that point. > > I don't really blame Klinger or anyone else for calling it a psychic. > In a loose sense, I guess it is, because the asker is asking a > "question" solely for the opponents' benefit, and the asker doesn't > care about the response at all. But it doesn't fit the legal > definition of a psychic, and thus I don't think it can be regulated as > one. (Although the way the new Laws are written, I'm not sure.) > > It's still different from Stayman, though, because it's common > knowledge that a Stayman bidder could have a weak hand, so you're not > fooling the opponents. Also, it serves a different purpose. The > purpose of garbage Stayman is to escape out of notrump and hopefully > into a less-disastrous suit contract, not to play games with the > opponents' minds. > But isn't that the point of this whole thread? KLinger's Ogust is doing exactly the same thing - should it not be disclosed to opponents as such? The whole point of Klinger calling it psyching is that it is misleading to opponents, but the only reason it's misleading is because he explains it differently. And that is not a psyche, but an illegal use of undisclosed agreement. Herman. > -- Adam > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6236 - Release Date: 04/10/13 > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 11 10:01:27 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:01:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: References: <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net> <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002701ce368a$c4ee2050$4eca60f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> But you raise a good point. A psychic call is defined as a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length"; and if a bid is an asking bid, it's not a statement of honor strength or suit length at all and thus can't really be a psychic. ton: The above statement is plain wrong. Many asking bids also tell a lot about strength. The normal meaning of 2NT after a weak 5card showing a major with 2H/S is to find out whether it is possible to play game. As 2C was used to find out which game to play after a !NT opening. And if this is on your convention card I do not like using 2NT for other purposes, for example as a psyche. The WBF and many NBO's have followed that and call this a protected psyche. Partner shows his minor on the three level and you can pass, only the opponents can go wrong. A partnership using it does not offer full disclosure and I am sorry for Ron Klinger but it should not be encouraged to do so. ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130411/156a6114/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 11 10:26:34 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:26:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.n o> Message-ID: <003801ce368e$471f1b80$d55d5280$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> [Sven Pran] You obviously completely misunderstand my opinion. I am fully aware of the literal meaning of "unintended", but the important fact is that a call in a bridge auction is never (legally) treated as unintended unless it is retracted and replaced under Law 25A. > > You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, > this is > not hypnothetical. > > 1S 2H 1C > > > The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did > not see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are > nonbarring by L27B1(b)? How do you rule? [Sven Pran] 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his partner has not yet subsequently called).) The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended 1NT bid. Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" of the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. ton: YES From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 11 10:57:29 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:57:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (no subject) Message-ID: <004301ce3692$98cdc3b0$ca694b10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hello, In another context I just received a mail which is interesting for the Klinger article. Go the link below. ton In dit verband brengt Norberto Bocchi ook een interessant standpunt naar voren in zijn laatste artikel op "New in Bridge": http://newinbridge.com/news/2013/apr/sepp-blatter-not-boss groeten, Marc van Beijsterveldt Wedstrijdzaken Nederlandse Bridge Bond, Kennedylaan 9, 3533 KH Utrecht Telefoon NBB 030-2759999, doorkiesnummer 030-2759968, fax 030-2759900 E-mail: marc.van.beijsterveldt at bridge.nl Overige e-mail en doorkiesnummers NBB: www.bridge.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130411/73d80728/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2903 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130411/73d80728/attachment-0001.jpe From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 11 10:59:15 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:59:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <003801ce368e$471f1b80$d55d5280$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.n o> <003801ce368e$471f1b80$d55d5280$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:26:34 -0400, ton wrote: > > [Sven Pran] > You obviously completely misunderstand my opinion. > I am fully aware of the literal meaning of "unintended", but the > important > fact is that a call in a bridge auction is never (legally) treated as > unintended unless it is retracted and replaced under Law 25A. > >> >> You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, >> this > is >> not hypnothetical. >> >> 1S 2H 1C >> >> >> The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did >> not see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are >> nonbarring by L27B1(b)? How do you rule? > > [Sven Pran] > 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted > without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his > partner has not yet subsequently called).) The 1C bid is cancelled > (considered never made) and replaced by the intended 1NT bid. > Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" > of > the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. > > ton: > > YES Really? Here we have "The 1C bid is cancelled." As Sven previous posted "If the player claims inadvertency he has no choice but to change his bid accordingly (within the limits prescribed in Law 25A)." (And: "The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended 1NT bid.") But the laws are quite clear -- the player "may" change his unintended bid. And there is substantial benefit to not changing it if the director thinks the unintended bid is meaningless (for purposes of L27B1(b). > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Apr 11 11:22:45 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:22:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "meaning": depends which law you are trying to apply In-Reply-To: <003801ce368e$471f1b80$d55d5280$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.n o> <003801ce368e$471f1b80$d55d5280$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: It is a red herring to ask the meaning of an unintended bid or insufficient bid without first saying what law you are trying to apply For the purposes of L20F, an insufficient bid has no meaning -- players are not required to explain the meaning of their insufficient bids. For purposes of L27B1, meaning must be assigned to the insufficient bid. There are different ways to do this. Ask the player what he intended. Find out the imaginary auction in his head that he thought he was bidding to. For purposes of L20F, we do not care about imaginary auctions in the person's head. Example. If the player doesn't see the opening bid in 1S 2C The "meaning" of 2C (for L20F) is a club overcall. But if the player doesn't see the meaning of the opening bid in 2S 2C the "meaning" of 2C (for L27B1) is a 2C opener. Same thing for unintended bids. TECHNICALLY L20F does not actually use the word "meaning". Neither does L75. Reference is made to the meaning of an *agreement* in L40. As far as I can see, the only reference to the meaning of a bid is in L27B1(b). But the defnition there IMO clearly follows L20F. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Apr 11 11:27:35 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:27:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (no subject) References: <004301ce3692$98cdc3b0$ca694b10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: New and interesting site for me. Thanks for that link Ton. Larry > In another context I just received a mail > which is interesting for the > Klinger article. Go the link below. > > > > ton > > > > In dit verband brengt Norberto Bocchi ook een > interessant standpunt naar > voren in zijn laatste artikel op "New in > Bridge": > > http://newinbridge.com/news/2013/apr/sepp-blatter-not-boss > > groeten, > > Marc van Beijsterveldt > Wedstrijdzaken > > > Nederlandse Bridge Bond, Kennedylaan 9, 3533 > KH Utrecht > Telefoon NBB 030-2759999, doorkiesnummer > 030-2759968, fax 030-2759900 > E-mail: marc.van.beijsterveldt at bridge.nl > Overige e-mail en doorkiesnummers NBB: > > www.bridge.nl > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 11 11:33:53 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:33:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.n o> <003801ce368e$471f1b80$d55d5280$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <005201ce3697$ae57bbf0$0b0733d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert: >> You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, >> this > is >> not hypnothetical. >> >> 1S 2H 1C >> >> >> The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and >> did not see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are >> nonbarring by L27B1(b)? How do you rule? ton: I might at last have a clue of the problem you wanted to present. Which could be my fault (the 'at last' I mean). Are you saying that it is better for the 1C bidder not to change his call into his intended call? After which the TD has to ask his LHO whether he accepts the 1C? And if not he can make any legal call? Also including a pass? If so you have presented a beautiful case which will go into my files. Thanks. But be aware of the following: If LHO does accept the insufficient bid (1C) the fact that it is unintended is UI for his partner. Which creates a complicated situation. 1C only can show an opening hand and his partner seems to be forced to bid game eventually (opponents should make some bids). From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 15:20:13 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:20:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <0BE2FD7B-68B6-4931-B67F-462AD4DD8543@starpower.net> On Apr 10, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > >> On 4/10/13 3:33 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>> Robert Park wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, but this rule does not seem to be applied to scrambling (or >>>> garbage) Stayman, where a conventional 2C bid (asking about shape) is, I >>>> believe, permitted with well less than the values usually attributed to >>>> a Stayman bidder. Scrambling and garbage Stayman 2C bids would thus seem >>>> to be analogous to the Klinger case. >>> >>> Ummm--what does that have to do with psyching? >> >> Exactly! And your comment would seem to apply to Klinger's conventional >> 2NT response to a weak 2-bid, would it not? > > OK, you set us up pretty well. We all took your comment seriously. > > But you raise a good point. A psychic call is defined as a > "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit > length"; and if a bid is an asking bid, it's not a statement of honor > strength or suit length at all and thus can't really be a psychic. > Ogust 2NT is an asking bid, so in my view it can't really be a psych > at all. I missed that when someone asked about different > jurisdictions--I was paying attention to looking for the rules about > psychs and missed that point. > > I don't really blame Klinger or anyone else for calling it a psychic. > In a loose sense, I guess it is, because the asker is asking a > "question" solely for the opponents' benefit, and the asker doesn't > care about the response at all. But it doesn't fit the legal > definition of a psychic, and thus I don't think it can be regulated as > one. (Although the way the new Laws are written, I'm not sure.) > > It's still different from Stayman, though, because it's common > knowledge that a Stayman bidder could have a weak hand, so you're not > fooling the opponents. Also, it serves a different purpose. The > purpose of garbage Stayman is to escape out of notrump and hopefully > into a less-disastrous suit contract, not to play games with the > opponents' minds. I don't think that our disclosure protocol allows for a "pure" asking bid. If a bid is described purely in terms of its schedule of responses, it is legitimate to ask for disclosure of partnership understanding with respect to the kinds of hands on which the asking bid might be used, and as a TD I would require the asking-bidder's partner to make a best effort to comply. In particular, an understanding that allows an asking bid to be used by a player who has no constructive use for the information to be shown by the reply must be disclosed. Consider the well-known tactic of bidding 4NT over partner's preemptive opening, asking for key cards, with nothing but a fit and a desire to interfere with the opponent's auction and perhaps buy the contract in a cheap save. If your partnership has seen this move before, it is not sufficient to tell your opponents only that 4NT "asks for key cards". You owe the additional disclosure that partner *either* cares how many key cards you have or is simply preempting further. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 15:24:59 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:24:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: References: <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net> <20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Lali wrote: > So is bidding 2C Stayman with no major, not playing a system that needs to go thru Stayman w/o a major, with the sole purpose of warding off a major suit lead because responder has x and xxx in the majors allowed? or is that considered a tactical or ok psyche bid? The way the ACBL sees it, it is an acceptable psychic bid the first time you do it (or maybe even the second time, if it's been over a decade since the first), after which it becomes a potentially tactical bid by agreement, subject to disclosure. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130411/bc8c2a29/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 16:05:47 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:05:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.no> Message-ID: <591C23E8-5769-4248-8DA3-8548348C9FFD@starpower.net> On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Robert Frick > >> There is only one way to define unintended (ignoring Sven's opinion). > > [Sven Pran] > You obviously completely misunderstand my opinion. > I am fully aware of the literal meaning of "unintended", but the important > fact is that a call in a bridge auction is never (legally) treated as > unintended unless it is retracted and replaced under Law 25A. > >> You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, this is >> not hypnothetical. >> >> 1S 2H 1C >> >> The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did not >> see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are nonbarring by >> L27B1(b)? How do you rule? > > [Sven Pran] > 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted > without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his > partner has not yet subsequently called).) > The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended > 1NT bid. > Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" of > the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. TFLB goes out of its way to include the literal meaning of "unintended" in its Definitions, so I think we can assume the writers meant us to take the word literally. I reject Sven's notion that any call which is not changed under L25A1 must legally be treated as intended. If the conditions of L25A1 apply, "a player *may* [emphasis mine] substitute his intended call..."; he is under no obligation to do so (even if the conditions allowing him to are satisfied!), and if he doesn't, his unintended call remains unintended by the supplied definition. You can't require a player to fabricate an "intended meaning" for an unintended call, nor can you require every unintended call to be "retracted and replaced under L25A." There will be calls made at times that are neither intended nor retracted, and there must be some way to handle those situations without imposing some arbitrary "intended meaning" for a call that lacks one. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 11 16:55:29 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:55:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:20:13 EDT." <0BE2FD7B-68B6-4931-B67F-462AD4DD8543@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > I don't think that our disclosure protocol allows for a "pure" > asking bid. This doesn't make sense to me. In theory, it's certainly possible that a partnership could agree bid X in a certain auction is a request for certain information, and doesn't really say anything specific about what the X bidder might hold. We can *presume* that the X bidder holds a hand in which the information he's asking will help him decide where to place the contract (*). But if all we need to disclose are our agreements, and if someone asks "What kind of hand does this show", the correct answer, I think, is "He has a hand that makes him believe that finding out such-and-such information will help him make a decision". Sounds weaselly, I know. But requiring that the bidder's partner give more information that isn't part of the agreement, is requiring that he give information about his general bridge knowledge and about his own deductive processes, and the Laws explicitly don't require that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it almost sounds like you're saying that such an agreement would be disallowed because it can't be explained using the "disclosure protocol". That, I don't see. If we do say that an asking bid X shows "a hand where he believes finding out the answer to X will help him decide what to do", then what happens when the player bids X without actually caring about the response? Then it's misleading, and in a loose sense one could call it a psych. (And I think you're right that there's a disclosure issue if this happens repeatedly.) But I still don't think it fits the definition of a psych, since it's not, per se, a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. It is, perhaps, a gross misstatement of a player's intentions (i.e. what he intends to do with the information). But the definition of a psychic call doesn't mention that. If that bothers people, maybe the definition should be changed. -- Adam (*) Not counting those who bid Blackwood without really having a clue what they plan to do with the information. From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 11 17:04:32 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:04:32 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:49:38 +0200." <51665D02.4080707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20130411150433.65C64A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > But isn't that the point of this whole thread? KLinger's Ogust is doing > exactly the same thing - should it not be disclosed to opponents as > such? The original post said: # While this may be quite alright in Australia, with # the usual provision about psychic partnership # history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe # other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some # jurisdictions. # Is that true? So no, I didn't think this was a thread about proper disclosure of agreements. I thought it was about the rules regarding psychics. After going back and looking over the rest of the thread, some of which I missed, I'm finding myself pretty confused about who exactly is saying what. Since I think I've said everything I have to say, I'm going to quit now, before I get any more confused. -- Adam From g3 at nige1.com Thu Apr 11 18:07:19 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:07:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130411150433.65C64A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130411150433.65C64A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <68999217AC0C47F886E54FCAD820E5DE@G3> Norbert Bochi makes a good point. Many sequences embody controlled "psychs" -- but only because of the way the calls are usually *explained*. Classic examples include third-hand "psychs" (with Drury), and many so-called tactical bids (e.g. "Long suit" trial bids that are sometimes bid on a shortage, and spurious "cue-bids", "splinters", and "exclusion" bids as lead-inhibiters. The problem virtually disappears with *correct explanation*. For example over a weak two, Ogust doesn't "show strength". A better explanation might be "it shows interest in opener's suit-quality and strength; commonly the first move on a strong hand but can be a tactical bid with any hand on which partner feels he can cope with the responses". With an honest explanation, you can employ Ogust (or Stayman or whatever) on a Yarborough, without any imputation of "psyching". Another good example is a two-club bid that some players now honestly disclose as 23+ flat or a game-force or a *weak two in diamonds*. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 18:40:28 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:40:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <1540D77C-B87F-48EB-AE4A-C648B4FE7898@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> I don't think that our disclosure protocol allows for a "pure" >> asking bid. > > This doesn't make sense to me. In theory, it's certainly possible > that a partnership could agree bid X in a certain auction is a request > for certain information, and doesn't really say anything specific > about what the X bidder might hold. We can *presume* that the X > bidder holds a hand in which the information he's asking will help him > decide where to place the contract (*). But if all we need to > disclose are our agreements, and if someone asks "What kind of hand > does this show", the correct answer, I think, is "He has a hand that > makes him believe that finding out such-and-such information will help > him make a decision". Sounds weaselly, I know. But requiring that > the bidder's partner give more information that isn't part of the > agreement, is requiring that he give information about his general > bridge knowledge and about his own deductive processes, and the Laws > explicitly don't require that. If someone asks, "What kind of hand does this show?" the correct answer may well be, "He has a hand that makes him believe that finding out such-and-such information will help him make a decision" -- unless, of course, you know from (explicit agreement or) prior experience that that may not be true. > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it almost sounds like you're saying > that such an agreement would be disallowed because it can't be > explained using the "disclosure protocol". That, I don't see. Not at all. If you know that he might make the call with a hand that has no reason to believe that finding out the requested information will help him make a decision you need only disclose your awareness that that might be the case to provide proper disclosure. > If we do say that an asking bid X shows "a hand where he believes > finding out the answer to X will help him decide what to do", then > what happens when the player bids X without actually caring about the > response? Then it's misleading, and in a loose sense one could call > it a psych. (And I think you're right that there's a disclosure issue > if this happens repeatedly.) But I still don't think it fits the > definition of a psych, since it's not, per se, a gross misstatement of > honor strength or suit length. It is, perhaps, a gross misstatement > of a player's intentions (i.e. what he intends to do with the > information). But the definition of a psychic call doesn't mention > that. If that bothers people, maybe the definition should be changed. I find it hard to see how making an asking bid on a hand that has no possible interest in the reply when your (sole disclosable) undertstanding as to the hands it might be used with is a hand on which the reply will help the asker make a decision would be anything other than a "gross misstatement" of the asker's actual holding. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 11 19:11:10 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:11:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:40:28 EDT." <1540D77C-B87F-48EB-AE4A-C648B4FE7898@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20130411171111.F1A4DA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > I find it hard to see how making an asking bid on a hand that has no > possible interest in the reply when your (sole disclosable) > undertstanding as to the hands it might be used with is a hand on > which the reply will help the asker make a decision would be > anything other than a "gross misstatement" of the asker's actual > holding. The Laws' definition of "psychic call" doesn't use the term "actual holding". They say "honor strength and/or suit length". Those are pretty specific terms. I think you have to have some legal theory of interpretation to argue that this should apply to the broad class of "any misrepresentation". By the way, one of my concerns is that if the definition of "psychic" with reference to asking bids starts getting too broad, it may affect signoff bids too. Say it goes 1NT-3NT, and someone asks me the meaning of 3NT. As far as I'm concerned, the only information 3NT conveys is "shut up". Yes, partner has other options, and I'm required to disclose any relevant information about what partner could have done in our system, and decided not to do. But does this mean that partner must have a hand that wasn't suitable for any of those options? If partner decides to bid 3NT with a seven-card heart suit, for whatever reason (maybe he wants a swing), is it really anyone's business why? Are we going to start calling it a psychic if dummy comes down and partner doesn't have the kind of hand the opponents were expecting? I don't know. But I do want to make sure we don't cross a line. That line is between the notions that (1) "full disclosure" means that the opponents have a right to know just as much as I do; and (2) "full disclosure" means that the opponents have a right to know what my partner is holding. Too many players think "full disclosure" means #2, and I don't want to encourage them. I think #1 is the correct principle; to me, that means that if partner has made a call that puts him in control--whether it's a signoff bid that asks me to shut up, or an asking bid that asks me to tell him something about my hand--then I really don't know, and don't need to know, anything about his holding. I just need to follow instructions. (The flaw in this argument is that we may still end up on defense.) How this applies to what's considered a "psychic" isn't clear to me, though. And I really am spending too much time on this, so I'm planning on quitting this thread, for real this time. -- Adam From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Apr 11 19:15:31 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:15:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <68999217AC0C47F886E54FCAD820E5DE@G3> References: <20130411150433.65C64A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> <68999217AC0C47F886E54FCAD820E5DE@G3> Message-ID: <5166EFB3.2050505@meteo.fr> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Norbert Bochi makes a good point. Many sequences embody controlled > "psychs" -- but only because of the way the calls are usually *explained*. > Classic examples include third-hand "psychs" (with Drury), and many > so-called tactical bids (e.g. "Long suit" trial bids that are sometimes bid > on a shortage, and spurious "cue-bids", "splinters", and "exclusion" bids as > lead-inhibiters. > i don't agree with nb that such deceptive bids should be automatically outlawed > The problem virtually disappears with *correct explanation*. For example > over a weak two, Ogust doesn't "show strength". A better explanation might > be "it shows interest in opener's suit-quality and strength; commonly the > first move on a strong hand but can be a tactical bid with any hand on which > partner feels he can cope with the responses". With an honest explanation, > you can employ Ogust (or Stayman or whatever) on a Yarborough, without any > imputation of "psyching". > correct explanation is indeed the solution. the key-point is to make available the amount of control by the tactical bidder: following an asking-bid, any partner's response and an apparent sign off, is partner allowed, encouraged or forbidden to go on? > Another good example is a two-club bid that some players now honestly > disclose as 23+ flat or a game-force or a *weak two in diamonds*. > the key-point in disclosure is: which hands will be worth a 2D answer. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Apr 11 19:32:13 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:32:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <591C23E8-5769-4248-8DA3-8548348C9FFD@starpower.net> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.no> <591C23E8-5769-4248-8DA3-8548348C9FFD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5166F39D.7030300@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick >> >> >>> There is only one way to define unintended (ignoring Sven's opinion). >>> >> [Sven Pran] >> You obviously completely misunderstand my opinion. >> I am fully aware of the literal meaning of "unintended", but the important >> fact is that a call in a bridge auction is never (legally) treated as >> unintended unless it is retracted and replaced under Law 25A. >> >> >>> You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, this is >>> not hypnothetical. >>> >>> 1S 2H 1C >>> >>> The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and did not >>> see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are nonbarring by >>> L27B1(b)? How do you rule? >>> >> [Sven Pran] >> 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted >> without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his >> partner has not yet subsequently called).) >> The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended >> 1NT bid. >> Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" of >> the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. >> > > TFLB goes out of its way to include the literal meaning of "unintended" in its Definitions, so I think we can assume the writers meant us to take the word literally. I reject Sven's notion that any call which is not changed under L25A1 must legally be treated as intended. If the conditions of L25A1 apply, "a player *may* [emphasis mine] substitute his intended call..."; he is under no obligation to do so (even if the conditions allowing him to are satisfied!), and if he doesn't, his unintended call remains unintended by the supplied definition. > > You can't require a player to fabricate an "intended meaning" for an unintended call, nor can you require every unintended call to be "retracted and replaced under L25A." There will be calls made at times that are neither intended nor retracted, and there must be some way to handle those situations without imposing some arbitrary "intended meaning" for a call that lacks one. > > and why not? if the law relating to unintended bids is not applied, the information that it is unintended is not available to anybody or if it comes to exist, is extraneous, and is UI for partner. and if partner doesn't know it is unintended, he might assume it is intended. in your scenario, a player makes a random bid, sticks to it, makes his partner know it is a random bid and the show goes on. jpr > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 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 _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130411/f002384d/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 20:47:44 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:47:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130411171111.F1A4DA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130411171111.F1A4DA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> I find it hard to see how making an asking bid on a hand that has no >> possible interest in the reply when your (sole disclosable) >> undertstanding as to the hands it might be used with is a hand on >> which the reply will help the asker make a decision would be >> anything other than a "gross misstatement" of the asker's actual >> holding. > > The Laws' definition of "psychic call" doesn't use the term "actual > holding". They say "honor strength and/or suit length". Those are > pretty specific terms. I think you have to have some legal theory of > interpretation to argue that this should apply to the broad class of > "any misrepresentation". Certainly not *any* misrepresentation, only "a 'gross misstatement' of the asker's actual holding". Given that, the difference strikes me as semantic. How can one define a "holding" without any consideration (admittedly possibly only implicit) of "honor strength and/or suit length"? > By the way, one of my concerns is that if the definition of "psychic" > with reference to asking bids starts getting too broad, it may affect > signoff bids too. Say it goes 1NT-3NT, and someone asks me the > meaning of 3NT. As far as I'm concerned, the only information 3NT > conveys is "shut up". Yes, partner has other options, and I'm > required to disclose any relevant information about what partner could > have done in our system, and decided not to do. But does this mean > that partner must have a hand that wasn't suitable for any of those > options? If partner decides to bid 3NT with a seven-card heart suit, > for whatever reason (maybe he wants a swing), is it really anyone's > business why? Are we going to start calling it a psychic if dummy > comes down and partner doesn't have the kind of hand the opponents > were expecting? You can state your agreement on 1NT-3NT in terms of partner's holding plainly and unambiguously: It shows any hand that wants to place the contract at 3NT. You are not required to have an agreement as to what that class of hands is (although, of course, if you do you must disclose it). WTP? > I don't know. But I do want to make sure we don't cross a line. That > line is between the notions that > > (1) "full disclosure" means that the opponents have a right to know > just as much as I do; and > (2) "full disclosure" means that the opponents have a right to know > what my partner is holding. > > Too many players think "full disclosure" means #2, and I don't want to > encourage them. I think #1 is the correct principle; to me, that > means that if partner has made a call that puts him in > control--whether it's a signoff bid that asks me to shut up, or an > asking bid that asks me to tell him something about my hand--then I > really don't know, and don't need to know, anything about his holding. > I just need to follow instructions. (The flaw in this argument is > that we may still end up on defense.) How this applies to what's > considered a "psychic" isn't clear to me, though. And I really am > spending too much time on this, so I'm planning on quitting this > thread, for real this time. "Ask v. tr. 1. To put a question to. 2. To seek information about; inquire about. 3. To request of or for; solicit. 4.a. To require or call for, b. To expect or demand." [AHD]. A "bid that asks me to tell him something about my hand" uses "asks" in the sense of 1 or 2; there is some kind of question being "asked". A bid that "asks me to shut up" uses "asks" in the sense of 3 or 4; it means the same thing as "tells me to shut up", differing only insofar as it might be considered a more courteous formulation. These are in no way equivalent or even similar, and there's no justification for the laws treating them as if they were. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 11 21:24:46 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:24:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <00b501ce36ea$3a82c960$af885c20$@xs4all.nl> I tried to read all messages about his, but fail to understand most of them. To start with I do not know the meaning of Ogust in the country where this problem originated. Normally Ogust is some sort of 2NT enquiry after a weak two checking suit quality etc. If that is indeed the case, and all normal answers to Ogust(normally at least 4) can happen, and you bid it with a bad hand I cannot see the problem. So if someone can explain to me what the problem is I will think again. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: woensdag 10 april 2013 10:45 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ron Klinger praised his partner's psychic 2NT enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than an alternative single raise. While this may be quite alright in Australia, with the usual provision about psychic partnership history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some jurisdictions. Is that true? Cheers Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 21:31:31 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:31:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5166F39D.7030300@meteo.fr> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.no> <591C23E8-5769-4248-8DA3-8548348C9FFD@starpower.net> <5166F39D.7030300@met eo.fr> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2013, at 1:32 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted >>> without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his >>> partner has not yet subsequently called).) >>> The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended >>> 1NT bid. >>> Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" of >>> the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. >> TFLB goes out of its way to include the literal meaning of "unintended" in its Definitions, so I think we can assume the writers meant us to take the word literally. I reject Sven's notion that any call which is not changed under L25A1 must legally be treated as intended. If the conditions of L25A1 apply, "a player *may* [emphasis mine] substitute his intended call..."; he is under no obligation to do so (even if the conditions allowing him to are satisfied!), and if he doesn't, his unintended call remains unintended by the supplied definition. >> >> You can't require a player to fabricate an "intended meaning" for an unintended call, nor can you require every unintended call to be "retracted and replaced under L25A." There will be calls made at times that are neither intended nor retracted, and there must be some way to handle those situations without imposing some arbitrary "intended meaning" for a call that lacks one. > and why not? if the law relating to unintended bids is not applied, the information that it is unintended is not available to anybody or if it comes to exist, is extraneous, and is UI for partner. and if partner doesn't know it is unintended, he might assume it is intended. A bid which is unintended by the definition in TFLB is unintended regardless of what the bidder's partner knows or assumes. Nothing I can find in TFLB suggests that a manifestly unintended bid, by definition, should be treated as if it were something entirely else. > in your scenario, a player makes a random bid, sticks to it, makes his partner know it is a random bid and the show goes on. True. Of course, if he gratuitously "makes his partner know it", the show goes on directly to L16B. (It is still not clear to me whether partner "knew it" in the original thread case, which may be confusing the discussion.) The alternative scenario requires us to read "may substitute his intended call... but only if he does so..." as if it read "must substitute his intended call... if he can do so...". If I pull a wrong bid card, notice it without pause for thought and call the director, even if the director determines upon applying L25A1 that I may "substitute [my] intended call for [my] unintended call", I find nothing in TFLB that prohibits me from declining to do so. Needless to say, if my "intended call" was insufficient, it would seem rather likely that I would want to decline to do so. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130411/55598d16/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 21:41:38 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <00b501ce36ea$3a82c960$af885c20$@xs4all.nl> References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> <00b501ce36ea$3a82c960$af885c20$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:24 PM, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > I tried to read all messages about his, but fail to understand most of them. > > To start with I do not know the meaning of Ogust in the country where this > problem originated. > > Normally Ogust is some sort of 2NT enquiry after a weak two checking suit > quality etc. > If that is indeed the case, and all normal answers to Ogust(normally at > least 4) can happen, and you bid it with a bad hand I cannot see the > problem. > > So if someone can explain to me what the problem is I will think again. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Tony Musgrove > > In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ron Klinger praised his > partner's psychic 2NT enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major opening as > being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than an alternative single > raise. > > While this may be quite alright in Australia, with the usual provision about > psychic partnership history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and maybe other > forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some > jurisdictions. As I see it, the problem has, in effect, come down to this: The auction has gone 2S-P-2NT and you inquire as to the partnership agreement about 2NT. Opener tells you that it asks for a further description of the 2S opening via a scale of artificial responses. You then ask what kinds of hands might responder make that bid with. Is opener obliged to answer to the best of his ability, or is your question improper and out of order? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 11 21:52:05 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:52:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> <00b501ce36ea$3a82c960$af885c20$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <00bf01ce36ee$0afb70d0$20f25270$@xs4all.nl> If the 2NT does not systematically promise anything your answer is easy. I am not na?ve by the way. Suppose I open 2H, partner enquires 2NT, I answer 3C(let us say bad/bad), partner bids 4H. Now my RHO bids 4S, in which I happen to have QTx. Now if I do *not* double I have not explained properly, because then it seems we play this sequence as absolutely killing, in which case opponents should have known earlier. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: donderdag 11 april 2013 21:42 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching Ogust On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:24 PM, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > I tried to read all messages about his, but fail to understand most of them. > > To start with I do not know the meaning of Ogust in the country where > this problem originated. > > Normally Ogust is some sort of 2NT enquiry after a weak two checking > suit quality etc. > If that is indeed the case, and all normal answers to Ogust(normally > at least 4) can happen, and you bid it with a bad hand I cannot see > the problem. > > So if someone can explain to me what the problem is I will think again. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Tony Musgrove > > In today's column of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ron Klinger praised > his partner's psychic 2NT enquiry following his (Ron's) weak 2 major > opening as being more likely to inhibit opponent's bidding than an > alternative single raise. > > While this may be quite alright in Australia, with the usual provision > about psychic partnership history, I believe that psyching Ogust (and > maybe other forcing bids) is strictly prohibited in some > jurisdictions. As I see it, the problem has, in effect, come down to this: The auction has gone 2S-P-2NT and you inquire as to the partnership agreement about 2NT. Opener tells you that it asks for a further description of the 2S opening via a scale of artificial responses. You then ask what kinds of hands might responder make that bid with. Is opener obliged to answer to the best of his ability, or is your question improper and out of order? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 11 22:21:01 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:21:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <00bf01ce36ee$0afb70d0$20f25270$@xs4all.nl> References: <000601ce35c7$abf9ec50$03edc4f0$@optusnet.com.au> <00b501ce36ea$3a82c960$af885c20$@xs4all.nl> <00bf01ce36ee$0afb70d0$20f25270$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > If the 2NT does not systematically promise anything your answer is easy. That "2NT does not systematically promise anything" properly describes your explicit systemic agreement. But you remain obliged to additionally describe any further understandings reached "implicitly through mutual experience or awareness" [L40A1(a)]. There is no exception to that obligation for some special class of bids that "[don't] systemically promise anything". And, as is so often the case when implicit mutual understandings meet mandated disclosure protocols, finding a proper answer may be far from easy. > I am not na?ve by the way. > Suppose I open 2H, partner enquires 2NT, I answer 3C(let us say bad/bad), > partner bids 4H. Now my RHO bids 4S, in which I happen to have QTx. > Now if I do *not* double I have not explained properly, because then it > seems we play this sequence as absolutely killing, in which case opponents > should have known earlier. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > > As I see it, the problem has, in effect, come down to this: > > The auction has gone 2S-P-2NT and you inquire as to the partnership > agreement about 2NT. Opener tells you that it asks for a further > description of the 2S opening via a scale of artificial responses. You then > ask what kinds of hands might responder make that bid with. Is opener > obliged to answer to the best of his ability, or is your question improper > and out of order? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Apr 11 22:30:06 2013 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:30:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: References: <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net><20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <95BBFDDE5B144F6E902F314A2EB282C0@CiborKomputer> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching Ogust On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Lali wrote: So is bidding 2C Stayman with no major, not playing a system that needs to go thru Stayman w/o a major, with the sole purpose of warding off a major suit lead because responder has x and xxx in the majors allowed? or is that considered a tactical or ok psyche bid? The way the ACBL sees it, it is an acceptable psychic bid the first time you do it (or maybe even the second time, if it's been over a decade since the first), after which it becomes a potentially tactical bid by agreement, subject to disclosure. [KC] Twice times in my life I raised weak 1NT to 3NT on a balanced Yarborough - once it was a 1-count, the other time it was a 0-count. It happened in 2 different partnerships and each time was a success (went all pass). Are you suggesting that if this had happened in the same partnership then from then on 1NT - 3NT would require an alert in ACBL? Mon Dieu. Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 11 22:52:24 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:52:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <95BBFDDE5B144F6E902F314A2EB282C0@CiborKomputer> References: <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net><20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> <95BBFDDE5B144F6E902F314A2EB282C0@CiborKomputer> Message-ID: <006301ce36f6$798272d0$6c875870$@online.no> > Konrad Ciborowski [...] > So is bidding 2C Stayman with no major, not playing a system that needs to > go thru Stayman w/o a major, with the sole purpose of warding off a major > suit lead because responder has x and xxx in the majors allowed? or is that > considered a tactical or ok psyche bid? > > The way the ACBL sees it, it is an acceptable psychic bid the first time you do > it (or maybe even the second time, if it's been over a decade since the first), > after which it becomes a potentially tactical bid by agreement, subject to > disclosure. > > [KC] > > Twice times in my life I raised weak 1NT to 3NT on a balanced Yarborough - > once it was a 1-count, the other time it was a 0-count. It happened in 2 > different partnerships and each time was a success (went all pass). > > Are you suggesting that if this had happened in the same partnership then > from then on 1NT - 3NT would require an alert in ACBL? Mon Dieu. [Sven Pran] In my system the sequence 1NT - 4NT is limit raise as invitation to 6. If we need to use 4NT as asking for aces we can for instance go through a "dummy Stayman": 1NT - 2C 2?? - 4NT The 2C bid is of course alerted, but does anybody claim that this special use of Stayman (on the average occurring once every leap year) must be explicitly disclosed with each alert and explanation of the 2C bid? From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Apr 12 08:00:49 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:00:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.no> <591C23E8-5769-4248-8DA3-8548348C9FFD@starpower.net> <5166F39D.7030300@met eo.fr> Message-ID: <5167A311.7030404@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 11, 2013, at 1:32 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort > > > wrote: > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>> 1C is unintended (which is another way of stating that the player reacted >>>> without any pause for thought as required for Law 25A to apply, and his >>>> partner has not yet subsequently called).) >>>> The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the intended >>>> 1NT bid. >>>> Law 27 is now invoked from the insufficient bid of 1NT and the "meaning" of >>>> the 1NT IB will (probably) be that of 1NT in the auction 1S - PASS - 1NT. >>> TFLB goes out of its way to include the literal meaning of "unintended" in its Definitions, so I think we can assume the writers meant us to take the word literally. I reject Sven's notion that any call which is not changed under L25A1 must legally be treated as intended. If the conditions of L25A1 apply, "a player *may* [emphasis mine] substitute his intended call..."; he is under no obligation to do so (even if the conditions allowing him to are satisfied!), and if he doesn't, his unintended call remains unintended by the supplied definition. >>> >>> You can't require a player to fabricate an "intended meaning" for an unintended call, nor can you require every unintended call to be "retracted and replaced under L25A." There will be calls made at times that are neither intended nor retracted, and there must be some way to handle those situations without imposing some arbitrary "intended meaning" for a call that lacks one. >>> >> and why not? if the law relating to unintended bids is not applied, >> the information that it is unintended is not available to anybody or >> if it comes to exist, is extraneous, and is UI for partner. and if >> partner doesn't know it is unintended, he might assume it is intended. > > A bid which is unintended by the definition in TFLB is unintended > regardless of what the bidder's partner knows or assumes. Nothing I > can find in TFLB suggests that a manifestly unintended bid, by > definition, should be treated as if it were something entirely else. > >> in your scenario, a player makes a random bid, sticks to it, makes >> his partner know it is a random bid and the show goes on. > > True. Of course, if he gratuitously "makes his partner know it", the > show goes on directly to L16B. (It is still not clear to me whether > partner "knew it" in the original thread case, which may be confusing > the discussion.) how could otherwise partner learn it was unintended? jpr > > The alternative scenario requires us to read "may substitute his > intended call... but only if he does so..." as if it read "must > substitute his intended call... if he can do so...". If I pull a > wrong bid card, notice it without pause for thought and call the > director, even if the director determines upon applying L25A1 that I > may "substitute [my] intended call for [my] unintended call", I find > nothing in TFLB that prohibits me from declining to do so. > > Needless to say, if my "intended call" was insufficient, it would seem > rather likely that I would want to decline to do so. > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 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 _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130412/6d84488c/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 12 08:56:20 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:56:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5167B014.4030902@skynet.be> Good analysis, Adam. Permit me to make a comment: Adam Beneschan schreef: > > Eric wrote: > > >> I don't think that our disclosure protocol allows for a "pure" >> asking bid. > > This doesn't make sense to me. In theory, it's certainly possible > that a partnership could agree bid X in a certain auction is a request > for certain information, and doesn't really say anything specific > about what the X bidder might hold. We can *presume* that the X > bidder holds a hand in which the information he's asking will help him > decide where to place the contract (*). But if all we need to > disclose are our agreements, and if someone asks "What kind of hand > does this show", the correct answer, I think, is "He has a hand that > makes him believe that finding out such-and-such information will help > him make a decision". Sounds weaselly, I know. But requiring that > the bidder's partner give more information that isn't part of the > agreement, is requiring that he give information about his general > bridge knowledge and about his own deductive processes, and the Laws > explicitly don't require that. > No, but the laws do require that opponents know about past tendencies, and they do require that deductions that are not GBK be disclosed. If a player never bids Stayman with a hand that is certain for game, even if he has a four-card major, the opponents are entitled to know this. > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it almost sounds like you're saying > that such an agreement would be disallowed because it can't be > explained using the "disclosure protocol". That, I don't see. > Of course not. > If we do say that an asking bid X shows "a hand where he believes > finding out the answer to X will help him decide what to do", then > what happens when the player bids X without actually caring about the > response? Then it's misleading, and in a loose sense one could call > it a psych. (And I think you're right that there's a disclosure issue > if this happens repeatedly.) But I still don't think it fits the > definition of a psych, since it's not, per se, a gross misstatement of > honor strength or suit length. It is, perhaps, a gross misstatement > of a player's intentions (i.e. what he intends to do with the > information). But the definition of a psychic call doesn't mention > that. If that bothers people, maybe the definition should be changed. > It's certainly not a psyche, and the opponents are entitled to know that the possibility exists. But we have to be careful of the swing of disclosure. Sometimes a player says too much, and the partner happens not to have that particular hand. The player is admonished by the TD, and the next time he will say too little, since in fact the extra information was true 99% of the time, and now it's no longer disclosed. > -- Adam > > (*) Not counting those who bid Blackwood without really having a clue > what they plan to do with the information. Yet they did want to know at the time, so it needs to be told like that. Herman. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 12 09:25:08 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:25:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <5167B014.4030902@skynet.be> References: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> <5167B014.4030902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01ce374e$dde433a0$99ac9ae0$@optusnet.com.au> Suppose your partner opens a weak 2S (old fashioned 6 card suit), and you would normally raise to 3S with any weak 3 card support. The columnist actually +recommended+, that the better and more preemptive action is to bid 2NT (supposedly asking, and would be bid with good hands as well). So he is almost suggesting it as a systemic improvement. We are now in the territory denigrated by Ton and his reference to Norberto Bocchi's article. I understand that you can explain it as either a weak raise to 3S, or a good enquiry type of hand, and you can supply a relative frequency based on partnership history. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 12 10:29:49 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:29:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <001c01ce374e$dde433a0$99ac9ae0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> <5167B014.4030902@skynet.be> <001c01ce374e$dde433a0$99ac9ae0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5167C5FD.1070704@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove schreef: > Suppose your partner opens a weak 2S (old fashioned > 6 card suit), and you would normally raise to 3S with > any weak 3 card support. The columnist actually > +recommended+, that the better and more preemptive > action is to bid 2NT (supposedly asking, and would be > bid with good hands as well). So he is almost suggesting > it as a systemic improvement. We are now in the > territory denigrated by Ton and his reference > to Norberto Bocchi's article. > > I understand that you can explain it as either a weak > raise to 3S, or a good enquiry type of hand, and you > can supply a relative frequency based on partnership > history. > Of course if you explain it like that it loses all its pre-emptive qualities. So I doubt if it would be recommended if the extra explanation is required. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6238 - Release Date: 04/11/13 > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 12 10:50:59 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:50:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <5167C5FD.1070704@skynet.be> References: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> <5167B014.4030902@skynet.be> <001c01ce374e$dde433a0$99ac9ae0$@optusnet.com.au> <5167C5FD.1070704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003f01ce375a$dae0c130$90a24390$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> The columnist actually > +recommended+, that the better and more preemptive > action is to bid 2NT (supposedly asking, and would be bid with good > hands as well). So he is almost suggesting it as a systemic > improvement. We are now in the territory denigrated by Ton and his > reference to Norberto Bocchi's article. ton: it could be a systematic improvement, but that demands it to be explained as such. The way it was presented I got the impression that Ron Klinger liked the psyche as such. Well I don't and in my territory it would not be accepted. Eric talks about the first time being done (approach in the acbl). It is never the first time, even if it is. Sorry then. ton From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Apr 12 13:39:29 2013 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:39:29 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> Hi all Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are using L12 except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) bill Matchpoints Brd 3 N Dlr S S QJ52 Vul EW H T4 D JT52 C Q65 W E S T983 S A7 H 986 H AJ7532 D 74 D 6 C J842 C AKT9 S S K64 H KQ D AKQ983 C 73 W N E S - - - 1C (1) P 1H (2) X 3D P P 3H P P 4D P P P (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 12 13:52:19 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:52:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <001e01ce3774$309b6f30$91d24d90$@online.no> bill kemp > Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. > Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are using L12 > except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) > > bill > > Matchpoints > Brd 3 N > Dlr S S QJ52 > Vul EW H T4 > D JT52 > C Q65 > W E > S T983 S A7 > H 986 H AJ7532 > D 74 D 6 > C J842 C AKT9 > S > S K64 > H KQ > D AKQ983 > C 73 > > W N E S > - - - 1C (1) > P 1H (2) X 3D > P P 3H P > P 4D P P > P > > (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) > (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) > > Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 > Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 [Sven Pran] The 1H bid should of course also have been alerted, but who called attention to (this) irregularity, when, and with what damage claim? From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Apr 12 14:24:17 2013 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:24:17 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <001e01ce3774$309b6f30$91d24d90$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> <001e01ce3774$309b6f30$91d24d90$@online.no> Message-ID: <5167FCF1.90708@iinet.net.au> On 12/04/2013 7:52 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > bill kemp >> Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. >> Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are using > L12 >> except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) >> >> bill >> >> Matchpoints >> Brd 3 N >> Dlr S S QJ52 >> Vul EW H T4 >> D JT52 >> C Q65 >> W E >> S T983 S A7 >> H 986 H AJ7532 >> D 74 D 6 >> C J842 C AKT9 >> S >> S K64 >> H KQ >> D AKQ983 >> C 73 >> >> W N E S >> - - - 1C (1) >> P 1H (2) X 3D >> P P 3H P >> P 4D P P >> P >> >> (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) >> (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) >> >> Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 >> Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 > [Sven Pran] > The 1H bid should of course also have been alerted, but who called attention > to (this) irregularity, when, and with what damage claim? The 1H bid and explanation were discovered when dummy was faced. E claimed that with a X after the 1H if W did not take action over 3H given the correct information then she could well bid 4H over 4D. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130412/437dc4bb/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 12 15:09:43 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:09:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <006301ce36f6$798272d0$6c875870$@online.no> References: <5165CB86.1070502@comcast.net><20130410235145.B6305A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> <95BBFDDE5B144F6E902F314A2EB282C0@CiborKomputer> <006301ce36f6$798272d0$6c875870$@online.no> Message-ID: <9AC5CC2E-1CD8-4F4D-AE66-7EE6BE1B2D4A@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > In my system the sequence 1NT - 4NT is limit raise as invitation to 6. > > If we need to use 4NT as asking for aces we can for instance go through a > "dummy Stayman": > > 1NT - 2C > 2?? - 4NT > > The 2C bid is of course alerted, but does anybody claim that this special > use of Stayman (on the average occurring once every leap year) must be > explicitly disclosed with each alert and explanation of the 2C bid? In my system, after 1NT-2C opener bids a four-card major if he has one. But 2C can start various strong sequences in which the 2C bidder does not care about opener's reply. We alert 2C, and describe it as, "Nominally asking for four-card majors, but also used to start a number of invitational or better sequences where we don't care about the response." If we were to describe our 2C as simply "asking partner to show four-card majors" we would be telling the literal truth, but would still consider ourselves to be acting unethically. Technically, Sven owes his opponents the disclosure that his partner's 2C doesn't necessarily mean that he cares about the response, but as a practical matter, if the sequence above is the only exception, no harm will befall him provided he makes sure to inform the opponents of this quirk in his agreements after the 4NT rebid has come up but before they lead. In the ACBL, it is common to play 1NT-2NT artificial, so that all natural notrump invitations must start with 2C. The ACBL's disclosure protocol for this particular method does not require an alert to 2C, but does require an alert to the the 2NT rebid, with the disclosure that partner may have had no interest in opener's four-card majors for his 2C bid. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 12 15:24:07 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:24:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <5167C5FD.1070704@skynet.be> References: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> <5167B014.4030902@skynet.be> <001c01ce374e$dde433a0$99ac9ae0$@optusnet.com.au> <5167C5FD.1070704@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 12, 2013, at 4:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tony Musgrove schreef: > >> Suppose your partner opens a weak 2S (old fashioned >> 6 card suit), and you would normally raise to 3S with >> any weak 3 card support. The columnist actually >> +recommended+, that the better and more preemptive >> action is to bid 2NT (supposedly asking, and would be >> bid with good hands as well). So he is almost suggesting >> it as a systemic improvement. We are now in the >> territory denigrated by Ton and his reference >> to Norberto Bocchi's article. >> >> I understand that you can explain it as either a weak >> raise to 3S, or a good enquiry type of hand, and you >> can supply a relative frequency based on partnership >> history. > > Of course if you explain it like that it loses all its pre-emptive > qualities. So I doubt if it would be recommended if the extra > explanation is required. Somewhat OT, but worth pointing out that a (fully disclosed, of course) reply to a weak two-bid that can be either pre-emptive or constructive depending on what responder holds is likely to have superior "pre-emptive qualities" to one which guarantees a weak hand. I'm confident that Tony's columnist was indeed "suggesting it as a systemic improvement" rather than as a ploy to exploit a perceived loophole in the disclosure rules. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Apr 12 15:39:21 2013 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 21:39:21 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <5167FCF1.90708@iinet.net.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> <001e01ce3774$309b6f30$91d24d90$@online.no> <5167FCF1.90708@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <51680E89.2000102@iinet.net.au> On 12/04/2013 8:24 PM, bill kemp wrote: > On 12/04/2013 7:52 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> bill kemp >>> Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. >>> Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are using >> L12 >>> except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) >>> >>> bill >>> >>> Matchpoints >>> Brd 3 N >>> Dlr S S QJ52 >>> Vul EW H T4 >>> D JT52 >>> C Q65 >>> W E >>> S T983 S A7 >>> H 986 H AJ7532 >>> D 74 D 6 >>> C J842 C AKT9 >>> S >>> S K64 >>> H KQ >>> D AKQ983 >>> C 73 >>> >>> W N E S >>> - - - 1C (1) >>> P 1H (2) X 3D >>> P P 3H P >>> P 4D P P >>> P >>> >>> (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) >>> (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) >>> >>> Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 >>> Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 >> [Sven Pran] >> The 1H bid should of course also have been alerted, but who called attention >> to (this) irregularity, when, and with what damage claim? > > The 1H bid and explanation were discovered when dummy was faced. E > claimed that with a X after the 1H if W did not take action over 3H > given the correct information then she could well bid 4H over 4D. I am not a member of the club and was not there. It seems to me that a double after the 4D. If partner can't bid then it is likely that the HA will make giving 4 tricks {or forcing partner to 4H) >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- > Best wishes > Helen and Bill Kemp > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130412/2f47229f/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Apr 12 17:20:09 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:20:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Am 12.04.2013, 13:39 Uhr, schrieb bill kemp : > Hi all > Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. > Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are > using L12 except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) > > bill > > Matchpoints > Brd 3 N > Dlr S S QJ52 > Vul EW H T4 > D JT52 > C Q65 > W E > S T983 S A7 > H 986 H AJ7532 > D 74 D 6 > C J842 C AKT9 > S > S K64 > H KQ > D AKQ983 > C 73 > > W N E S > - - - 1C (1) > P 1H (2) X 3D > P P 3H P > P 4D P P > P > > (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) > (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) > > Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 > Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 > _______________________________________________ I'd like to know the meaning of DBL. If 1H is interpreted as natural, the DBL would normally be T/O which does not very well fit the actual E hand - so maybe E knew or suspected all the time that 1H was conventional. I do not buy E's assertion that she might have bid 4H over 4D with the correct explanation; doubling 4D makes more sense, but my ruling would depend on my assessment whether E tries a double shot or genuinely tried to play in 3H over a natural 1H by LHO, facing a near-worthless dummy (W and N share about 8 HCP, and I suppose 1D would have been the negative over 1C so 1H shows some values). Regards, Petrus From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 12 17:36:30 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:36:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <51680E89.2000102@iinet.net.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> <001e01ce3774$309b6f30$91d24d90$@online.no> <5167FCF1.90708@iinet.net.au> <51680E89.2000102@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <516829FE.4010805@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/04/2013 15:39, bill kemp a ?crit : > On 12/04/2013 8:24 PM, bill kemp wrote: >> On 12/04/2013 7:52 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> bill kemp >>>> Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. >>>> Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are using >>> L12 >>>> except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) >>>> >>>> bill >>>> >>>> Matchpoints >>>> Brd 3 N >>>> Dlr S S QJ52 >>>> Vul EW H T4 >>>> D JT52 >>>> C Q65 >>>> W E >>>> S T983 S A7 >>>> H 986 H AJ7532 >>>> D 74 D 6 >>>> C J842 C AKT9 >>>> S >>>> S K64 >>>> H KQ >>>> D AKQ983 >>>> C 73 >>>> >>>> W N E S >>>> - - - 1C (1) >>>> P 1H (2) X 3D >>>> P P 3H P >>>> P 4D P P >>>> P >>>> >>>> (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) >>>> (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) >>>> >>>> Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 >>>> Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 >>> [Sven Pran] >>> The 1H bid should of course also have been alerted, but who called attention >>> to (this) irregularity, when, and with what damage claim? >> >> The 1H bid and explanation were discovered when dummy was faced. E >> claimed that with a X after the 1H if W did not take action over 3H >> given the correct information then she could well bid 4H over 4D. > I am not a member of the club and was not there. It seems to me that a > double after the 4D. If partner can't bid then it is likely that the > HA will make giving 4 tricks {or forcing partner to 4H) The interesting part here is that East apparently knew that 1H was artificial, else double is absurd. Did he fear at some time that West wouldn't understand what happened ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130412/532f4e6a/attachment.html From nistler at bridgehands.com Fri Apr 12 17:35:00 2013 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:35:00 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130411171111.F1A4DA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130411171111.F1A4DA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: > Eric wrote: > >> I find it hard to see how making an asking bid on a hand that has no >> possible interest in the reply when your (sole disclosable) >> undertstanding as to the hands it might be used with is a hand on >> which the reply will help the asker make a decision would be >> anything other than a "gross misstatement" of the asker's actual >> holding. I have always felt that the so-called "Dump Ogust" 2 Notrump psychic queries were in the same genre as: 2S - 3N With a bust hand and long Spades, planning a Rapier "Thrust and flee" when doubled or... 2S - (X) - 3H Again with a bust hand, long Spades and shortage in the Heart suit, None of these bids come up often enough to be considered fielding a psych nor is the weak opening partner complicit in the psyche. Playing with the big boys, we are aware of these sorts of shenanigans and skulduggery's from some opponents and may throw in a couple sporty bids ourselves. But no doubt, some directors take a harsher view and provide redress to the "NOS" when playing against newcomers and the na?ve. Michael From g3 at nige1.com Fri Apr 12 19:44:59 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:44:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <03204685F3BC48FE829EB043E57E0751@G3> [Bill Kemp] Matchpoints Brd 3 N Dlr S S QJ52 Vul EW H T4 D JT52 C Q65 W E S T983 S A7 H 986 H AJ7532 D 74 D 6 C J842 C AKT9 S S K64 H KQ D AKQ983 C 73 W N E S - - - 1C (1) P 1H (2) X 3D P P 3H P P 4D P P P (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 {Nige1] IMO East seems to have known that 1H was artificial but feared that if he "protected himself" by asking it would be regarded a "pro question" for the benefit of West. East may have been confused by the impenetrable morass of relevant laws and regulations. Nevertheless my sympathies lie with him. It seems unlikely that *East* would bid 4H himself but *West* might well have raised 3H to 4H, had West been apprised of what was happening. IMO, the director should consider that possibility, whether or not EW suggest it. IMO, on available facts, the director should rule that EW were damaged and adjust the score to 4H= for them. From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Apr 12 20:29:05 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:29:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <03204685F3BC48FE829EB043E57E0751@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> <03204685F3BC48FE829EB043E57E0751@G3> Message-ID: <014801ce37ab$9d5546f0$d7ffd4d0$@xs4all.nl> Well, NS are of course the bad guys here, but giving EW 4H= is perhaps a bit overgenerous. It is not *so* easy to bid 4H after this beginning. It also is a pretty marginal contract. My feeling is some weighted score is probably best. Something like half of 4H making, and some other results. Depends heavily on strength of field. EW should for sure end up with at least 60%. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: vrijdag 12 april 2013 19:45 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI [Bill Kemp] Matchpoints Brd 3 N Dlr S S QJ52 Vul EW H T4 D JT52 C Q65 W E S T983 S A7 H 986 H AJ7532 D 74 D 6 C J842 C AKT9 S S K64 H KQ D AKQ983 C 73 W N E S - - - 1C (1) P 1H (2) X 3D P P 3H P P 4D P P P (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 {Nige1] IMO East seems to have known that 1H was artificial but feared that if he "protected himself" by asking it would be regarded a "pro question" for the benefit of West. East may have been confused by the impenetrable morass of relevant laws and regulations. Nevertheless my sympathies lie with him. It seems unlikely that *East* would bid 4H himself but *West* might well have raised 3H to 4H, had West been apprised of what was happening. IMO, the director should consider that possibility, whether or not EW suggest it. IMO, on available facts, the director should rule that EW were damaged and adjust the score to 4H= for them. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 13 01:02:19 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:02:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <005201ce3697$ae57bbf0$0b0733d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f 970$5011ec50$@online.n o> <003801ce368e$471f1b80$d55d5280$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <005201ce3697$ae57bbf0$0b0733d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:33:53 -0400, ton wrote: > Robert: > >>> You cannot avoid the problem. Which occurred at the table last week, >>> this >> is >>> not hypnothetical. >>> >>> 1S 2H 1C >>> >>> >>> The 1C was described as unintended. He meant to reach for 1NT (and >>> did not see the 2H). That is how I define unintended. What bids are >>> nonbarring by L27B1(b)? How do you rule? > > ton: > > I might at last have a clue of the problem you wanted to present. Which > could be my fault (the 'at last' I mean). > > Are you saying that it is better for the 1C bidder not to change his call > into his intended call? Sometimes. > After which the TD has to ask his LHO whether he > accepts the 1C? And if not he can make any legal call? Also including a > pass? If the unintended bid has no meaning for purposes of L27B1. But I think there are better choices. > > If so you have presented a beautiful case which will go into my files. > Thanks. > > But be aware of the following: If LHO does accept the insufficient bid > (1C) > the fact that it is unintended is UI for his partner. Which creates a > complicated situation. 1C only can show an opening hand and his partner > seems to be forced to bid game eventually (opponents should make some > bids). They usually don't accept an unintended bid. But if they did.... it wouldn't be UI, partner wouldn't even know the 1C was unintended if it was accepted. Right, partner might assume that the player had a 1C opening, which could lead to a bad result. But if the player meant to make a 1D opening, it is probably not a problem. I think we are agreeing that it would often be good gamble to leave the unintended bid unchanged, if you learn that the director rules an unintended bid as meaningless for purposes of L27B1. For example 1S P 2C 4H 2C I did not see the 4H bid *and* pulled the wrong card. I would have wanted to double 4H. So I leave my bid unchanged and hope I can change it to a double. Worst case my LHO accepts my call and we at least get to find your best game, with a lot of room to communicate. And 1C P 1S 5D 4H If my 4H is unintended, I am probably happy to risk my LHO accepting it. If it isn't accepted, I can pass, and my partner knows I have a strong hand with spade support. L27B1(b) did not anticipate the possibility that the withdrawn bid would be so informative, so apparently there is no rectification for partner using that UI. Bob From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Apr 13 03:05:10 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 21:05:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: What would West have done differently if he were properly informed? By the time of East's 3H bid, West should know that the double was natural. And at the end of the auction, West should only bid 4H if he expects to make it; he is vulnerable, and expects to be doubled given that N-S have more than half the deck (South's 3D showed extras). West has nothing for East except the heart support, as the doubleton diamond is a duplicated value; therefore, he should expect 4H to go down one doubled, which is not a good save against 4D at this vulnerability. (In fact, looking only at the E-W hands and the auction, 4H is odds-against; it only makes because hearts are 2-2 and the weaker North hand has the CQ.) Thus the table result stands. If E-W were not vulnerable, I would rule that West could reasonably have bid 4H, and adjust the score to 4Hx making. ----- Original Message ----- From: "bill kemp" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 7:39 AM Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI > Hi all > Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. > Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are > using L12 except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) > > bill > > Matchpoints > Brd 3 N > Dlr S S QJ52 > Vul EW H T4 > D JT52 > C Q65 > W E > S T983 S A7 > H 986 H AJ7532 > D 74 D 6 > C J842 C AKT9 > S > S K64 > H KQ > D AKQ983 > C 73 > > W N E S > - - - 1C (1) > P 1H (2) X 3D > P P 3H P > P 4D P P > P > > (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) > (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) > > Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 > Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Apr 13 03:33:07 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 21:33:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <6C0980A0F8CB45D9BA3813E9496B3FCE@erdos> >From the followups, I see that that *East* claimed that he was not properly informed. However, I don't see how the misinformation affected East's decision not to double 4D. He must have already known that 1H was not natural when he doubled it and then bid 3H; if North actually has four hearts, someone will double 3H and beat it given East's lack of heart spots. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Grabiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI > What would West have done differently if he were properly informed? By the > time > of East's 3H bid, West should know that the double was natural. And at the > end > of the auction, West should only bid 4H if he expects to make it; he is > vulnerable, and expects to be doubled given that N-S have more than half the > deck (South's 3D showed extras). West has nothing for East except the heart > support, as the doubleton diamond is a duplicated value; therefore, he should > expect 4H to go down one doubled, which is not a good save against 4D at this > vulnerability. (In fact, looking only at the E-W hands and the auction, 4H is > odds-against; it only makes because hearts are 2-2 and the weaker North hand > has > the CQ.) > > Thus the table result stands. If E-W were not vulnerable, I would rule that > West could reasonably have bid 4H, and adjust the score to 4Hx making. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "bill kemp" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 7:39 AM > Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI > > >> Hi all >> Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. >> Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are >> using L12 except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) >> >> bill >> >> Matchpoints >> Brd 3 N >> Dlr S S QJ52 >> Vul EW H T4 >> D JT52 >> C Q65 >> W E >> S T983 S A7 >> H 986 H AJ7532 >> D 74 D 6 >> C J842 C AKT9 >> S >> S K64 >> H KQ >> D AKQ983 >> C 73 >> >> W N E S >> - - - 1C (1) >> P 1H (2) X 3D >> P P 3H P >> P 4D P P >> P >> >> (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) >> (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) >> >> Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 >> Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at tameware.com Sat Apr 13 04:36:27 2013 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:36:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I would love to comment on this case but I cannot. We have a principle that "The committee speaks with one voice" so the writeup is the only official word. I wrote the case up quickly -- we heard it early Thursday morning and it was published in Saturday's bulletin. I will update the writeup for the casebook and add some facts that were inadvertently omitted. If I can I'll arrange for the update to be published independently, since we might not the casebook for a year or more. On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > *Event: *Vanderbilt > *Session: *Afternoon, March 21, 2013 > *Subject: *Misinformation > *Bd: *21..................*Sabine Auken* > *Vul: *N?S................?A3 > *Dlr: *North..............?KT4 > ........................?987432 > ........................?JT > *G**e**ir Helgemo**.................................**Tor Helness* > ?T962........................................?KQJ7 > ?AQ762.......................................?98 > ?---.........................................?AKQJ > ?9852........................................?K76 > *........................**Roy Welland* > ........................?854 > ........................?J53 > ........................?T65 > ........................?AQ43 > > *West**......**North**.....**East**......**South* > ---.......Pass......1?........Pass > 1?........Pass......2NT.......Pass > 3?(1).....Pass......3NT(2)....Pass > Pass......Pass > > (1) Shows five hearts and, according to East?s > explanation, denies four spades; forcing. > (2) West to South: No three hearts or four spades. > East to North: No three hearts. > > *Contract: *3NT by East > > *Opening lead: *?5 > > *Table result: *Making three, North?South minus 400 > > *Director ruling: *Making three, North?South > minus 400 > > *Committee ruling: *Down one, North?South plus 50 > > *The facts: *The director was summoned at the end > of the hand. West told South that 3NT denied three > hearts or four spades. East said he may or may not > hold four spades. South said he might have led a heart > with the correct information. > > Five expert players were polled and all said that a > heart lead was out of the question. > > North won the opening lead with the ?A and led > the ?8 (second highest, by agreement). East won the > trick perforce and South played the ?6. East then > led the ?9 to the queen, losing to North?s ?K. North > led another diamond. East led a second heart, South > played the ?J and declarer ducked, making three. > After the dinner break, South said he would have > played the ?10 (upside-down carding) on the first > round of diamonds had he been given the correct > information. > > *The ruling: *The director ruled that South is > unlikely to choose a heart opening lead. Despite > further discussion of the play and the director?s > attempt to discuss the hand at the session, South never > mentioned the play of the ?10. Therefore the ?10 play > was ruled unlikely and the table result stands, 3NT, > making three, East?West plus 400. > > *The appeal: *South explained that his defense > was predicated on the information that East had at > most three spades. All his efforts were channeled into > making sure his partner not play a second spade. The > ?8 promised a higher card, so he knew declarer could > not come to nine tricks without help. North?South > give suit preference in the first suit declarer plays, so > he was concerned that covering the ?8 with the ?J > might be interpreted as suit preference for spades. He > was likewise concerned that discouraging with the > ?10 might result in partner playing spades. He also > asserted that although he understood that none of the > players polled chose a heart lead, he leads declarer?s > short suit much more often than most players. He > noted that had he covered the ?8 or discouraged > with the ?10, the contract would almost certainly > have been defeated, and that both those plays would > have been substantially more attractive with correct > information. > > East?West told the Committee that while they > have no system notes, their agreement is in fact the > one East provided to North, that 3? asks only about > heart support, and that West?s explanation to South > was erroneous. East?West also asserted that North > ought to have known that her defense would prove > ineffective. She was playing declarer for three spades. > East?West open 1? with 4?4 in the minors, so East?s > shape was by implication 3=2=5=3. South?s play of > the ?6 was thus likely to have been forced, and could > not be relied on as a signal. East?West also noted that > covering the ?9 could be dangerous, sparing declarer > a heart guess when he holds 10 9 doubleton and needs > only a second heart trick for his contract. > > North?South countered that with ?KQJx, > declarer would almost certainly have unblocked > before leading a heart, and also that with ?109, he > would likely have started with the 10 to entice a > cover. > > *The decision: *The committee had no reason to > doubt East?West?s testimony that East?s explanation > was correct and West?s incorrect. > > The facts of the case made it clear that the > misinformation made a heart lead less attractive than > it would have been with correct information, but the > committee agreed with the TD that a heart lead was > unlikely in any case. > > The facts of the case also made it clear that the > winning defense would be more attractive had South > had correct information. In effect he was defending > in ?three spade world? and gave no consideration to > ?four spade world.? > > The committee discussed whether the North? > South argument was timely, in that the argument > regarding South?s carding was advanced only after > the dinner break and that the initial basis for the > appeal was only the possibility of a different opening > lead. We found that North?South had no need to > make the basis for their appeal known to the TD, just > the fact that they wish to appeal. North?South might > indeed have only realized at dinner the implications > of the correct information on South?s defense, but the > argument they made stands or falls on its own. > South might have a stronger case if he > immediately told the TD how and why he would have > defended differently with different information, but > that is not what he is, or ought to be, concentrating > on during the session or even before the short dinner > break. > > East ought to have realized when he saw the > dummy that South had likely received inaccurate > information. At that point, he could have and > probably should have informed South of the actual > East?West agreement. Not many players would > realize this, and the committee judged that the failure > to do so did not warrant a procedural penalty. > Neither North?s nor South?s defense may have > been best, even given the information they had, > but the Laws do not require perfect play in order > to receive redress for damage. In particular, the > mistakes, if any, did not rise to the level of ?serious > error? per Law 12. > > The committee found that MI was present and > that it led to damage. We judged that given accurate > information, the most favorable result that was likely > for North?South was plus 50, and that this was also > the most unfavorable result that was at all probable > for East?West. Accordingly, we adjusted the score per > Law 12, to 3NT by East, down one, East?West minus 50. > > *DIC: *Olin Hubert > > *Chairperson: *Adam Wildavsky > *Committee members: *Michael Huston, Craig > Allen, Craig Ganzer and Chris Moll > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20130413/37a6715e/attachment-0001.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Sat Apr 13 19:28:36 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:28:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <004301ce3692$98cdc3b0$ca694b10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Yes, a good site and Norberto's columns are always interesting, but not sure why so many get it wrong: Auken had the appeal and ultimate win in the round of 16 and had to win 3 more very tough matches to win the event. Many seem to think it was later in the event (fewer teams left). Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Larry Sent: 04/11/2013 5:28 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] (no subject) New and interesting site for me. Thanks for that link Ton. Larry > In another context I just received a mail > which is interesting for the > Klinger article. Go the link below. > > > > ton > > > > In dit verband brengt Norberto Bocchi ook een > interessant standpunt naar > voren in zijn laatste artikel op "New in > Bridge": > > http://newinbridge.com/news/2013/apr/sepp-blatter-not-boss > > groeten, > > Marc van Beijsterveldt > Wedstrijdzaken > > > Nederlandse Bridge Bond, Kennedylaan 9, 3533 > KH Utrecht > Telefoon NBB 030-2759999, doorkiesnummer > 030-2759968, fax 030-2759900 > E-mail: marc.van.beijsterveldt at bridge.nl > Overige e-mail en doorkiesnummers NBB: > > www.bridge.nl > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jimfox00 at cox.net Sat Apr 13 19:39:57 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:39:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 21st March 2013 Vanderbilt appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE3422@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: There has been an occurrence in the US Masters Golf Tournament that in some ways is similar to the subject case in the sense of ?timing? of committees, rulings, etc. Mmbridge -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130413/052f0311/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 15 03:21:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:21:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EECF66@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >No work for the LC > >ton (1) North opens 1S. (2) East unintentionally overcalls 1C (the 1C bidding card was misplaced by the previous East into the slot reserved for Pass cards). (3) South intentionally responds 1H, to save bidding space. Without pause for thought East now wishes to change her unintended 1C overcall into her originally intended call of Pass. How would the WBF LC rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130415/51f4f083/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Apr 15 07:44:36 2013 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:44:36 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5167F271.80204@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <516B93C4.5000006@iinet.net.au> Thank you all for the Poll The angst mentioned in my original email was caused by Wests husband sending out emails to senior directors. This is not a problem if the facts aren't changed but they were. His email started the auction with South bidding 1D which would be 11+ and allowed much more leeway for East. The original TD took a poll of senior players at the time and none of them were prepared to bid to 4H, so the table result stood. West was a grand master with an aggressive bidding style and above the "peer" group. In social discussions with the club's chief director 2 days after the session I said that I would have been prepared to give EW a portion of the MP for 4H (reached by W taking out the 4DX) and the rest as the MP for 4D (but I wouldn't disagree with 4DX and 5DX being in the mix). Taking Hans's view 50% of the mp for 4H + 50% of the MP for 4D would give EW 65.8% of the MP. It would not have changed their position in the session or the outright best wishes bill On 13/04/2013 9:05 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > What would West have done differently if he were properly informed? By the time > of East's 3H bid, West should know that the double was natural. And at the end > of the auction, West should only bid 4H if he expects to make it; he is > vulnerable, and expects to be doubled given that N-S have more than half the > deck (South's 3D showed extras). West has nothing for East except the heart > support, as the doubleton diamond is a duplicated value; therefore, he should > expect 4H to go down one doubled, which is not a good save against 4D at this > vulnerability. (In fact, looking only at the E-W hands and the auction, 4H is > odds-against; it only makes because hearts are 2-2 and the weaker North hand has > the CQ.) > > Thus the table result stands. If E-W were not vulnerable, I would rule that > West could reasonably have bid 4H, and adjust the score to 4Hx making. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "bill kemp" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 7:39 AM > Subject: [BLML] Judgement decision - MI > > >> Hi all >> Judgement decision at a club which caused some angst about a month ago. >> Can I take a poll please on where this is going. If necessary we are >> using L12 except for L12C.1.(e)and (f) >> >> bill >> >> Matchpoints >> Brd 3 N >> Dlr S S QJ52 >> Vul EW H T4 >> D JT52 >> C Q65 >> W E >> S T983 S A7 >> H 986 H AJ7532 >> D 74 D 6 >> C J842 C AKT9 >> S >> S K64 >> H KQ >> D AKQ983 >> C 73 >> >> W N E S >> - - - 1C (1) >> P 1H (2) X 3D >> P P 3H P >> P 4D P P >> P >> >> (1) 15-18HCP any distribution (alerted) >> (2) 5-8 HCP any distribution (not alerted) >> >> Table Result 4D by S 9 Tricks NS -50 >> Director 4D by S 9 tricks NS -50 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130415/d5f1d2d5/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 15 09:26:12 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:26:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EECF66@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EECF66@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000f01ce39aa$820e4580$862ad080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Richard: (1) North opens 1S. (2) East unintentionally overcalls 1C (the 1C bidding card was misplaced by the previous East into the slot reserved for Pass cards). (3) South intentionally responds 1H, to save bidding space. Without pause for thought East now wishes to change her unintended 1C overcall into her originally intended call of Pass. How would the WBF LC rule? ton: The LC makes bridge laws and leaves it to the TD's to rule. You are lucky that I am a TD. East is allowed to pass, the 1H is taken back and South is free to make any call he wants. Whatever information comes from the 1H bid is unauthorized for EW. The laws are so easy!!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130415/5736d3f9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 19 02:26:17 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:26:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEF275@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Adam Beneschan, April 2013: >>>..... >>>But I do want to make sure we don't cross a line. That line is >>>between the notions that >>> >>>(1) "full disclosure" means that the opponents have a right to know >>>just as much as I do; and >>> >>>(2) "full disclosure" means that the opponents have a right to know >>>what my partner is holding. >>> >>>Too many players think "full disclosure" means #2, and I don't want >>>to encourage them. I think #1 is the correct principle; to me, that >>>means that if partner has made a call that puts him in control - >>>whether it's a signoff bid that asks me to shut up, or an asking bid >>>that asks me to tell him something about my hand -- then I really don't >>>know, and don't need to know, anything about his holding. I just need >>>to follow instructions. >>>..... Richard Hills, April 2013: >>Yes and No. >> >>Yes, the Laws in general and Laws 40A3 and 75C in particular support >>Adam's principle (1) over the Boyd-Robinson principle (2). >> >>No, I do not agree a captaincy-taking asking bid - for example Stayman >>- necessarily fails to describe the asker's holding according to either >>implicit or explicit partnership understanding. In the Ali-Hills methods >>Stayman lacks a specific understanding about strength (varying from zero >>to 29hcp), BUT the Stayman bidder by explicit partnership understanding >>guarantees at least one four-card major. Book of ACBL, Chapter Two, Verses Nine through Twenty-One: >And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Stop >Card. Then shalt thou count to ten seconds, no more, no less. Ten >shall be the seconds thou shalt count, and the seconds of the >counting shall be ten. Eleven seconds shalt thou not count, neither >count thou nine seconds, excepting that thou then proceed to ten >seconds. Twelve seconds is right out. Once the number ten, being the >tenth number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Law 16B2 Director >Call of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall >snuff it." Adam Beneschan, December 2009: I think this applies only if your opponents are bunnies... -- Adam UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130419/552170a7/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Sat Apr 20 21:06:27 2013 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:06:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01ce39aa$820e4580$862ad080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EECF66@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL>, <000f01ce39aa$820e4580$862ad080$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Comeon guys! It makes sense to test the laws when we get into intent. But the example should be believeable. The 1 club bidding card was left in the pass part of the bidding box by the last player at this position?OK. East now looks at the bidding box to pick his desired card to indicate a Pass. 1 Club is twice the size and of competely different shape from the Pass card he is used to, stands out clearly from the correct cards, and is white as opposed to green. So he picks this card to indicate his desire to pass, and places it in the called position. And then, AFTER the time it takes for South to call 1 Heart he finds that he did something unintentional. " Without pause for thought"........pause after what? Seeing the 1 Heart? Not looking at his call until then? Sure. East cannot take South's 1 Heart into account......? What about West taking a line of bidding/play that depends on East having Clubs.......? Still going to go along with unintentional instead of wrong level.....? If such weight is left to unintentional in place of WRONG then it's BEST TO STAY AT THE TABLE Looking for application of law by taking this posed scenario, I would much rather that Law 12 A 1 be applied. I agree with Ton on considering intent in player's actions, but this one is too far off the wall for me. Penalty for not following the laws should still be part of this game, and errors which devolve in benefit to the opponents in bidding should also count along with those which take place in play. Kojak PS. Why is East a women.......? From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl To: blml at rtflb.org Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:26:12 +0200 Subject: Re: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard: (1) North opens 1S.(2) East unintentionally overcalls 1C (the 1C bidding card was misplacedby the previous East into the slot reserved for Pass cards).(3) South intentionally responds 1H, to save bidding space. Without pause for thought East now wishes to change her unintended 1Covercall into her originally intended call of Pass. How would the WBF LC rule? ton:The LC makes bridge laws and leaves it to the TD?s to rule. You are lucky that I am a TD. East is allowed to pass, the 1H is taken back and South is free to make any call he wants. Whatever information comes from the 1H bid is unauthorized for EW. The laws are so easy!!! _______________________________________________ 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/20130420/5fe9d0ed/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 20 22:34:46 2013 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:34:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan References: Message-ID: <51738BAC.5030903@skynet.be> You should be able to rely on anyone to get their own principles right, Grattan! But in this case I agree with Kojak, his principles are sound. Glad to hear from both of you! Herman. Grattan schreef: > Grattan Skype: grattan.endicott > ************************************************** > > You can rely on Kojak to get his principles right. > > ************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *WILLIAM SCHODER > *Sent:* 20 April 201320:06 > *To:* blml > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Comeon guys! It makes sense to test the laws when we get into intent. > But the example should be believeable. > > The 1 club bidding card was left in the pass part of the bidding box > by the last player at this position?OK. > East now looks at the bidding box to pick his desired card to > indicate a Pass. 1 Club is twice the size and of competely different > shape from the Pass card he is used to, stands out clearly from > the correct cards, and is white as opposed to green. So he picks this > card to indicate his desire to pass, and places it in the called > position. And then, AFTER the time it takes for South to call 1 Heart > he finds that he did something unintentional. " Without pause for > thought"........pause after what? Seeing the 1 Heart? Not looking at > his call until then? Sure. > > East cannot take South's 1 Heart into account......? What about West > taking a line of bidding/play that depends on East having Clubs.......? > Still going to go along with unintentional instead of wrong level.....? > If such weight is left to unintentional in place of WRONG then it's BEST > TO STAY AT THE TABLE > > Looking for application of law by taking this posed scenario, I would > much rather that Law 12 A 1 be applied. I agree with Ton on > considering intent in player's actions, but this one is too far off the > wall for me. Penalty for not following the laws should still be part of > this game, and errors which devolve in benefit to the opponents in > bidding should also count along with those which take place in play. > > Kojak > > PS. Why is East a women.......? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 201309:26:12+0200 > Subject: Re: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard: > > (1) North opens 1S. > > (2) East unintentionally overcalls 1C (the 1C bidding card was misplaced > > by the previous East into the slot reserved for Pass cards). > > (3) South intentionally responds 1H, to save bidding space. > > Without pause for thought East now wishes to change her unintended 1C > > overcall into her originally intended call of Pass. > > How would the WBF LC rule? > > ton: > > The LC makes bridge laws and leaves it to the TD?s to rule. > > You are lucky that I am a TD. > > East is allowed to pass, the 1H is taken back and South is free to make > any call he wants. > > Whatever information comes from the 1H bid is unauthorized for EW. > > The laws are so easy!!! > > > _______________________________________________ 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 > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6259 - Release Date: 04/20/13 > From gampas at aol.com Mon Apr 22 16:50:42 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:50:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> There has been considerable discussion on BBO forum regarding the meaning of Law 16B. Particularly the clause "using the methods of the partnership". In the example on there you open 2NT on the following hand: AKxx Kx AKx AJ10x and partner alerts this and explains it on request as 5-5 in the minors, 6-10. This is of course UI to you, and you know have to carefully avoid taking advantage of this. Specifically, you have to select from LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. LAs are defined as bids that would be given serious consideration by peers of the player, *using the partnership methods* (my emphasis), of which some would select it. I therefore polled five players, and told them "you open 2NT, 5-5 in the minors, 6-10" on the hand given. Partner bids 3D, which means that she prefers diamonds to clubs." What do you do now? What other bids do you seriously consider". The pollees picked Pass and 3NT, with the latter most popular. Some eminent posters on BBO forum disagree with this approach, and argue that LAs are not selected using the partnership methods, but using the methods the player perceived, which would make 3H an LA. They say that Law 16B is clearly wrong. We all agree that in selecting between the LAs, the player must avoid selecting one demonstrably suggested by the UI. But there is univeral disagreement over the method of selecting the LAs. If 16B does not mean what it clearly says, then there should be an urgent correction, as all "forget" situations will be handled using LAs decided using the partnership methods. Paul Lamford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130422/7a300d58/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Apr 22 17:27:02 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:27:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> Message-ID: <041601ce3f6d$da088660$8e199320$@xs4all.nl> Sorry, but this is too easy. You clearly opened 2NT intending it to be just a big balanced hand. Your partner bids 3D, which for you (undoubtedly?) is a transfer. There cannot be any other bid except 3H from you now. The fallacy in your argument is that you think you are still in your partnership methods, while actually the problem is that you forgot yours. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of PL Sent: maandag 22 april 2013 16:51 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness There has been considerable discussion on BBO forum regarding the meaning of Law 16B. Particularly the clause "using the methods of the partnership". In the example on there you open 2NT on the following hand: AKxx Kx AKx AJ10x and partner alerts this and explains it on request as 5-5 in the minors, 6-10. This is of course UI to you, and you know have to carefully avoid taking advantage of this. Specifically, you have to select from LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. LAs are defined as bids that would be given serious consideration by peers of the player, using the partnership methods (my emphasis), of which some would select it. I therefore polled five players, and told them "you open 2NT, 5-5 in the minors, 6-10" on the hand given. Partner bids 3D, which means that she prefers diamonds to clubs." What do you do now? What other bids do you seriously consider". The pollees picked Pass and 3NT, with the latter most popular. Some eminent posters on BBO forum disagree with this approach, and argue that LAs are not selected using the partnership methods, but using the methods the player perceived, which would make 3H an LA. They say that Law 16B is clearly wrong. We all agree that in selecting between the LAs, the player must avoid selecting one demonstrably suggested by the UI. But there is univeral disagreement over the method of selecting the LAs. If 16B does not mean what it clearly says, then there should be an urgent correction, as all "forget" situations will be handled using LAs decided using the partnership methods. Paul Lamford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130422/f22e3fcc/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 22 17:35:38 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:35:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> Message-ID: <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> Well, it is clear that, if you interpret the law as literally written, the law cannot function. Of course in the case below we should distinguish between two cases: a) the player knows he's bidding 5-5 in the minors, but selects 2NT anyway - now he receives no UI and is free to act - but of course it will be difficult for him to prove this b) the player is awakened by the UI. Now the LAs should be determined using the methods of the partnership, as perceived by the bidder, and the identification of what bids are suggested should be based on the partnership agreements as partner believes them to be. Maube you have a point, Paul, that the laws do not say this clearly enough. Herman. PL schreef: > There has been considerable discussion on BBO forum regarding the > meaning of Law 16B. Particularly the clause "using the methods of the > partnership". In the example on there you open 2NT on the following hand: > AKxx Kx AKx AJ10x and partner alerts this and explains it on request as > 5-5 in the minors, 6-10. This is of course UI to you, and you know have > to carefully avoid taking advantage of this. Specifically, you have to > select from LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. > > LAs are defined as bids that would be given serious consideration by > peers of the player, *using the partnership methods* (my emphasis), of > which some would select it. I therefore polled five players, and told > them "you open 2NT, 5-5 in the minors, 6-10" on the hand given. Partner > bids 3D, which means that she prefers diamonds to clubs." What do you do > now? What other bids do you seriously consider". The pollees picked Pass > and 3NT, with the latter most popular. Some eminent posters on BBO forum > disagree with this approach, and argue that LAs are not selected using > the partnership methods, but using the methods the player perceived, > which would make 3H an LA. They say that Law 16B is clearly wrong. We > all agree that in selecting between the LAs, the player must avoid > selecting one demonstrably suggested by the UI. But there is univeral > disagreement over the method of selecting the LAs. > > If 16B does not mean what it clearly says, then there should be an > urgent correction, as all "forget" situations will be handled using LAs > decided using the partnership methods. > > Paul Lamford > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6263 - Release Date: 04/21/13 > From g3 at nige1.com Mon Apr 22 19:20:20 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:20:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <041601ce3f6d$da088660$8e199320$@xs4all.nl> References: <041601ce3f6d$da088660$8e199320$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <53C29613DFA147C9A0E11DC8B1A588C5@G3> [Hans van Staveren] Sorry, but this is too easy. You clearly opened 2NT intending it to be just a big balanced hand. Your partner bids 3D, which for you (undoubtedly?) is a transfer. There cannot be any other bid except 3H from you now. The fallacy in your argument is that you think you are still in your partnership methods, while actually the problem is that you forgot yours. [Nigel] The methods of the partnership remain the methods of the partnership, even when you accidentally misbid. In Lambert's case: You carelessly bid 2N. The mistake may have been a mechanical error or you may have misread the bidding or maybe you were thinking about something else. Partner's alert draws attention to your mistake but he bids before you can do anything about it. There is no doubt about your partnership agreement. From gampas at aol.com Mon Apr 22 23:23:46 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] Well, it is clear that, if you interpret the law as literally written, the law cannot function. [Paul Lamford] Not so. You select the LAs according to the actual partnership methods, as defined in 16B(b). It does not say "the perceived partnership methods" or the "mistaken partnership methods". Then you avoid selecting among them one that is demonstrably suggested by the UI you have. If the definition of an LA were changed, then the Law would operate as people want. What we really need is a pronouncement from the WBFLC. From gampas at aol.com Mon Apr 22 23:34:09 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <041601ce3f6d$da088660$8e199320$@xs4all.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <041601ce3f6d$da088660$8e199320$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <8D00DB8421702CA-1978-28948@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> [Hans van Staveren] The fallacy in your argument is that you think you are still in your partnership methods, while actually the problem is that you forgot yours. [Paul Lamford] The fallacy in your argument is that the definition of an LA is one given serious consideration by peers *using the partnership methods* (of which some would select it). Not using the methods you thought they were. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 23 00:07:21 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:07:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFE49@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009, item 3: " ..... Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law ..... " Paul Lamford: >..... >What we really need is a pronouncement from the WBFLC. Richard Hills: Law 75A is a more specific Law than the general Law 16B. What's the problem? Law 75A, initial phrase: "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement ..... " UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130422/094cb95a/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Apr 23 00:10:55 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:10:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <8D00DB8421702CA-1978-28948@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <041601ce3f6d$da08! 8660$8e199320$@xs4all.n l> <8D00DB8421702CA-1978-28948@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <044201ce3fa6$42bf2ff0$c83d8fd0$@xs4all.nl> Ok. You think about bridge. You take a decision. You are going to open 2NT with this balanced 21 HCP Hand. Your partner bids 3D. This must be transfer. You bid 3H. Some people on this list seem to suggest that since 3D *in the partnership methods* is not a transfer a call of 3H is not automatic. I will check the letter of the law tomorrow, but the spirit is 100% clear: you are not now(after the non-alert) allowed to take the 3D call as a pref for D over C. No TD on any serious level will agree with you. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lamford Sent: maandag 22 april 2013 23:34 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [Hans van Staveren] The fallacy in your argument is that you think you are still in your partnership methods, while actually the problem is that you forgot yours. [Paul Lamford] The fallacy in your argument is that the definition of an LA is one given serious consideration by peers *using the partnership methods* (of which some would select it). Not using the methods you thought they were. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Tue Apr 23 00:57:18 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFE49@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFE49@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <8D00DC3DFBA8E4E-1690-20ED0@webmail-d176.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009, item 3: ? ..... Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law ..... ? [Paul Lamford] Thanks for that minute Richard. I now agree that 75A overrides 16B and there is nothing more to this issue. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Apr 23 01:17:38 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:17:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFE49@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFE49@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard HILLS] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009, item 3: ? ..... Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law ..... ? Law 75A is a more specific Law than the general Law 16B. What?s the problem? Law 75A, initial phrase: ?Whether or not North?s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement ..... ? [Nigel] Brilliant, Richard! There have been more than 100 comment on this in the BBF forum. I think you you are the first person to point out the relevance of law 75, and how it settles the argument. It's a pity the laws are not better structured so that this is more obvious. As a quick fix, perhaps law 16B should contain a reference to L75. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 23 02:03:45 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:03:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ABDA - Bulletin Editor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFF78@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.abf.com.au/abda-bulletin-editor/ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130423/3b54f08d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 23 02:41:16 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:41:16 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFFAD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >Brilliant, Richard! There have been more than 100 comments on this in the >BBF forum. I think you are the first person to point out the relevance of >Law 75, and how it settles the argument. It's a pity the laws are not better >structured so that this is more obvious. As a quick fix, perhaps Law 16B >should contain a reference to Law 75. Current 2007 Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." Hypothetical 2017 Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference. In particular, a specific law overrides a general law whether or not there is a cross-reference between the two laws. For example, a player discovers at trick ten that she initially held fourteen cards. The Director may not use the general Law 6 to redeal the board as instead the specific Law 13 applies." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130423/c2c1a419/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Apr 23 03:42:40 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:42:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFFAD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFFAD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Current 2007 Introduction: ?Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference.? Hypothetical 2017 Introduction: ?Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference. In particular, a specific law overrides a general law whether or not there is a cross-reference between the two laws. For example, a player discovers at trick ten that she initially held fourteen cards. The Director may not use the general Law 6 to redeal the board as instead the specific Law 13 applies.? [Nigel] Good idea, Richard, but I think more cross-references and better structuring would reduce the necessity for such a warning. And thank you for fixing my typos before quoting my post :) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Apr 23 09:07:56 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:07:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> What we really need is a pronouncement from the WBFLC. ton: no you do not need that everybody should know how to interpret 'partnership methods'. In the example given you go to a player tell him that somebody opened 2NT showing 20-21 balanced and got the answer 3D which in the partnership agreements is a transfer. The consulted player will look at you asking whether you are insane and reluctantly is willing to tell you that he will bid 3H. So the partnership understanding applies for the call that is under scrutiny, trying to find out whether a LA exists. Don't take this as a pronouncement from the LC. If I tell my members that this seemed to be a problem on blml they will advise me to stop reading you. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 23 09:20:54 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:20:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <51763656.6020004@skynet.be> Paul Lamford schreef: > > [Herman de Wael] > Well, it is clear that, if you interpret the law as literally written, > the law cannot function. > > [Paul Lamford] > Not so. You select the LAs according to the actual partnership methods, > as defined in 16B(b). It does not say "the perceived partnership > methods" or the "mistaken partnership methods". Then you avoid > selecting among them one that is demonstrably suggested by the UI you > have. > I understand your point, but this means that the player in your example is free to bid something else than 3H. And the laws certainly cannot want that. Which is why I believe than when writing the laws, the lawmakers came to the definition of a LA and realized that they needed to tell the peers that they questioned what methods the player was utilizing, ot it would be impossible to ask them what the LAs were going to be. They forgot to add a "perceived" there, but neither did they add an "actual" to indicate the opposite view. Incidentally, I believe that in your example 3He is not only the only LA, but also the best bid to awaken partner. And although I don't believe a player is allowed to select the bid that most clearly exposes the mistake to partner, in this case, where there are no LAs, it is the bid to use. > If the definition of an LA were changed, then the Law would operate as > people want. > No, the only need is a clarification, not a change of definition. > What we really need is a pronouncement from the WBFLC. Maybe, yes. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 23 17:15:02 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:15:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5176A576.5030908@starpower.net> On 4/23/2013 3:07 AM, ton wrote: > no you do not need that everybody should know how to interpret 'partnership > methods'. > > In the example given you go to a player tell him that somebody opened 2NT > showing 20-21 balanced and got the answer 3D which in the partnership > agreements is a transfer. The consulted player will look at you asking > whether you are insane and reluctantly is willing to tell you that he will > bid 3H. > > So the partnership understanding applies for the call that is under > scrutiny, trying to find out whether a LA exists. Don't take this as a > pronouncement from the LC. If I tell my members that this seemed to be a > problem on blml they will advise me to stop reading you. I don't understand this. Ton seems to be saying that a partnership can have an explicit understanding that a 2NT opening shows 6-10 HCP with the minors while simultaneously having some sort of "partnership agreement" that if a 2NT were hypothetically to show 20-21 balanced then 3D would be a transfer. IOW, a partnership's methods may be deemed include responses to opening bids which are not included in the partnership's methods. I understand (and agree with) where Ton is trying to go, but you can't get there by assuming partnership understandings regarding responses to opening bids that the partnership doesn't play. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 23 17:28:48 2013 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:28:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Films References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFF78@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <580F7A5F81844AEAA6F7A35F6F3DBF8B@MARVIN> Richard, Alice has been taken away from me by her daughter, so I am resorting to films for consolation. I will go thru the Top 50 looking for some, thanks for that. Lately I have enjoyed Argo, Hitchcock, and Lincoln immensely. Marv From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Apr 23 17:45:28 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:45:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <5176A576.5030908@starpower.net> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5176A576.5030908@! starpower.net> Message-ID: <049501ce4039$948d12f0$bda738d0$@xs4all.nl> Ok. Last try, because, as Ton already suggested, it is getting close to the point where this list is not taken seriously anymore. The person that opened 2NT with this balanced 21 point hand clearly was under the impression that he described his hand pretty accurately. Theoretically he could plead he was psyching, bit that seems unlikely. Now, by the alert of his partner he gets the UI that he misbid. Had this been played with screens, and had his partner bid 3D, I can bet you an unlimited amount that he would have bid 3H, since he would just take it as a transfer. You can come up with any other story, and I know that if the partnership does not actually play 2NT as big balanced the 3D does not mean a transfer, but you know you are going to lose this bet. Now, if after the alert he bids something other than 3H he has clearly used the UI. Therefore, equally clearly, we are going to hit him with 16B1a. How the hell did this topic actually start? It is totally trivial, and only some sort of secretary bird could conceivably come up with the sort of reason that allows this person to bid anything but 3H. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: dinsdag 23 april 2013 17:15 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness On 4/23/2013 3:07 AM, ton wrote: > no you do not need that everybody should know how to interpret > 'partnership methods'. > > In the example given you go to a player tell him that somebody opened > 2NT showing 20-21 balanced and got the answer 3D which in the > partnership agreements is a transfer. The consulted player will look > at you asking whether you are insane and reluctantly is willing to > tell you that he will bid 3H. > > So the partnership understanding applies for the call that is under > scrutiny, trying to find out whether a LA exists. Don't take this as > a pronouncement from the LC. If I tell my members that this seemed to > be a problem on blml they will advise me to stop reading you. I don't understand this. Ton seems to be saying that a partnership can have an explicit understanding that a 2NT opening shows 6-10 HCP with the minors while simultaneously having some sort of "partnership agreement" that if a 2NT were hypothetically to show 20-21 balanced then 3D would be a transfer. IOW, a partnership's methods may be deemed include responses to opening bids which are not included in the partnership's methods. I understand (and agree with) where Ton is trying to go, but you can't get there by assuming partnership understandings regarding responses to opening bids that the partnership doesn't play. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 23 18:13:40 2013 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:13:40 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Films References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EEFF78@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <580F7A5F81844AEAA6F7A35F6F3DBF8B@MARVIN> Message-ID: <04AE10BB6D934BE1B36045CBBFF8892A@MARVIN> Sorry about this mistake. Pure carelessness - Marv > Richard, > > Alice has been taken away from me by her daughter, so I am resorting to > films for consolation. I will go thru the Top 50 looking for some, thanks > for that. Lately I have enjoyed Argo, Hitchcock, and Lincoln immensely. > > Marv > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 23 19:05:56 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:05:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <049501ce4039$948d12f0$bda738d0$@xs4all.nl> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5176A576.5030908@! starpower.net> <049501ce4039$948d12f0$bda738d0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <5176BF74.8020808@starpower.net> On 4/23/2013 11:45 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Ok. Last try, because, as Ton already suggested, it is getting close to the > point where this list is not taken seriously anymore. > > The person that opened 2NT with this balanced 21 point hand clearly was > under the impression that he described his hand pretty accurately. > Theoretically he could plead he was psyching, bit that seems unlikely. > Now, by the alert of his partner he gets the UI that he misbid. > Had this been played with screens, and had his partner bid 3D, I can bet you > an unlimited amount that he would have bid 3H, since he would just take it > as a transfer. > You can come up with any other story, and I know that if the partnership > does not actually play 2NT as big balanced the 3D does not mean a transfer, > but you know you are going to lose this bet. > > Now, if after the alert he bids something other than 3H he has clearly used > the UI. Therefore, equally clearly, we are going to hit him with 16B1a. > > How the hell did this topic actually start? It is totally trivial, and only > some sort of secretary bird could conceivably come up with the sort of > reason that allows this person to bid anything but 3H. I think we all agree that only some sort of secretary bird could conceivably come up with the sort of reasoning that *should allow* this person to bid anything but 3H. This topic actually started when Paul pointed out that the actual words of the actual L16B do not make it unambiguously clear that he is not allowed to bid anything but 3H. This debate isn't about what he should be allowed to do. It is about whether to reword the law to make sure that it actually says what we all agree on. This list discusses two things: whether the intent of the law is correct, or ought to be changed, and whether the wording of the law clearly and unambiguously reflects its intent, or needs to be revised for clarity. One needn't take discussions of the former seriously to be concerned about the latter. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > > On 4/23/2013 3:07 AM, ton wrote: > >> no you do not need that everybody should know how to interpret >> 'partnership methods'. >> >> In the example given you go to a player tell him that somebody opened >> 2NT showing 20-21 balanced and got the answer 3D which in the >> partnership agreements is a transfer. The consulted player will look >> at you asking whether you are insane and reluctantly is willing to >> tell you that he will bid 3H. >> >> So the partnership understanding applies for the call that is under >> scrutiny, trying to find out whether a LA exists. Don't take this as >> a pronouncement from the LC. If I tell my members that this seemed to >> be a problem on blml they will advise me to stop reading you. > > I don't understand this. Ton seems to be saying that a partnership can have > an explicit understanding that a 2NT opening shows 6-10 HCP with the minors > while simultaneously having some sort of "partnership agreement" that if a > 2NT were hypothetically to show 20-21 balanced then 3D would be a transfer. > IOW, a partnership's methods may be deemed include responses to opening bids > which are not included in the partnership's methods. > > I understand (and agree with) where Ton is trying to go, but you can't get > there by assuming partnership understandings regarding responses to opening > bids that the partnership doesn't play. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 24 00:51:03 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:51:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0105@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >..... >This list discusses two things: whether the intent of the law is >correct, or ought to be changed, and whether the wording of the law >clearly and unambiguously reflects its intent, or needs to be revised >for clarity. > >One needn't take discussions of the former seriously to be concerned >about the latter. Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b): A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership (or what the player initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership - see Law 75A), would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.* *Footnote: The call or play actually selected at the table is deemed to necessarily be a logical alternative, thus the Director is entitled to rule that any call or play selected at the table is an illegal logical alternative. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130423/b6bb4a5e/attachment-0001.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 24 09:49:35 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:49:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0105@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0105@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001801ce40c0$43ed80a0$cbc881e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b): A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership (or what the player initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership - see Law 75A), ton: I have to admit, this reads nicely would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.* *Footnote: The call or play actually selected at the table is deemed to necessarily be a logical alternative, thus the Director is entitled to rule that any call or play selected at the table is an illegal logical alternative. ton: you should admit that this is close to nonsense (but you probably know that), take your dictionary and read out what alternative means. This selected call could be an alternative for a case coming up at another table. ALMOST OFFICIAL UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.3272 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6268 - datum van uitgifte: 04/23/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130424/ddcfd1ea/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 24 15:20:42 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:20:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5177DC2A.4020200@aol.com> On 23/04/2013 08:07, ton wrote: > no you do not need that everybody should know how to interpret 'partnership > methods'. You do need that everybody should know how to interpret "partnership methods". Law 75A tells us how to interpret 16B. Without that, "partnership methods" is at the very least ambiguous. The majority of people on BBO thought it referred to the methods of the partnership as agreed in advance by the two players, rather than the methods perceived by the player when he made the bid. A correction to 16B would obviate the necessity to also read 75A to discover the error. From gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 24 15:32:36 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:32:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801ce40c0$43ed80a0$cbc881e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0105@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001801ce40c0$43ed80a0$cbc881e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5177DEF4.7060508@aol.com> On 24/04/2013 08:49, ton wrote: > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b): > > A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in > > question and using the methods of the partnership > > (or what the player > > initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership > > -- see Law 75A), > > ton: > > I have to admit, this reads nicely > That is excellent. It is good that ton is accepting that an improvement is needed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130424/11bc60ec/attachment.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Apr 25 00:40:51 2013 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:40:51 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0105@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0105@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On 24 April 2013 10:51, Richard HILLS wrote: > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b): > > A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in > question and using the methods of the partnership (or what the player > initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership > ? see Law 75A) > The obvious and IMO serious flaw in this ammendment is that there is no verifiable way to determine the methods of the partnership after a misbid. For example in the case at hand there is nothing to stop the player saying that 3D in his methods at the time he misbid was a major enquiry and 3NT was the response to show no major or if alternatively he had a major to claim that in his moment of aboration he thought they were playing 3NT showed the major or majors that he happened to hold. Whilst you might argue that such methods are obviously nonsense my point is simply that there is no objective measure of what a partnership's perceived methods are in an impossible auction. If for example you find it easy to dismiss those arguments then consider a similar misbid of 1NT where it is conceivable that 2D is played as a forcing Stayman or alternatively as a transfer. How do you objectively argue against a player who claims that he is playing forcing Stayman and gets a good or normal result after 2NT when he would have got an inferior result if he had believed he was playing transfers and bid 2H? There is a multitude of methods that the misbidding player can choose to play after the fact which may easily be manipulated to justify his actual action. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130424/1ef925ef/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 25 01:57:04 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:57:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0ADF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, poorly worded hypothetical footnote: >>*Footnote: The call or play actually selected at the table is deemed to >>necessarily be a logical alternative, thus the Director is entitled to rule >>that any call or play selected at the table is an illegal logical alternative. ton: >you should admit that this is close to nonsense (but you probably know >that), take your dictionary and read out what alternative means. This >selected call could be an alternative for a case coming up at another table. > >ALMOST OFFICIAL Richard Hills, poorly worded clarification: This hypothetical example has been discussed several times on blml --> At matchpoint pairs the field is in 4S, which on a single-dummy basis is certain to make ten tricks and likely to make eleven tricks. Poor bidding and UI at one table mean that 3S and 4S are the two logical alternatives, with 4S the UI-suggested illegal logical alternative. Since the UI suggests that 3S will be a cold bottom, the UI-receiver chooses the illogical alternative of bidding 6S. With every finesse working the field scores +680 while the UI-receiver scores a cold top of +1430. However, the last time this was discussed Grattan observed that this ploy was illegal under the current 2007 Lawbook, as the general Law 16B (which permits selection of an illogical alternative) was overridden by the specific Law 73C (which prohibits UI-assisted avoidance of cold bottoms): "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." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130424/d95c58ef/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 25 04:10:45 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:10:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> On 2013-04-22 11:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, it is clear that, if you interpret the law as literally written, > the law cannot function. That's far from clear to me! In fact, I was hoping (though far from expecting) that the LC had made an intentional change from our previous procedure in this area. As Wayne wrote, "cannot function" is a closer description of the present situation. In the current example, who is to say that 3D is a transfer rather than natural and forcing? Or something else entirely? I suppose in most jurisdictions "everyone" plays transfers in this auction, but in most auctions there won't be a single universal method. Which of the fantasy systems are we supposed to choose? If instead you take the law as literally written -- LAs are determined in the actual partnership methods -- that's nothing more than the Rubens school of handling this particular form of UI. What's wrong with that, aside from its being a change from past practice? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Apr 25 05:23:16 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:23:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Toronto NABC+ Case 10: Justice is seen to be done Message-ID: <46F8BF9A49204881BCD280861FA1B894@erdos> We have so many discussions criticizing rulings; it's just as important to point out when the ruling is right and well explained. You hold AQJ643 A8 Q84 KQ, at matchpoints You Pard 1S 2C 2S 4NT 5S ..6NT ? It's easy to say that you must pass because partner hesitated. However, that isn't what the law says, and it is important for players and committees to understand what the law actually says: you may not take an action which is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation over a logical alternative. So, what does 6NT demonstrably suggest? Partner might have been considering pass, 6S, or 7S, or 7NT. Given your hand, partner almost surely isn't considering a grand slam; she can't have a source of tricks because of your KQ of clubs. She also can't be considering a pass, as she wouldn't bid 6NT if she were, and she could hardly have a Blackwood bid with only one key card on this auction. Therefore, she must have been considering 6S, and choosing 6NT over 6S shows extra values, so the hesitation demonstrably suggests passing over bidding a grand slam. Since bidding the grand on this hand is a logical alternative (you have the KQ of clubs and the DQ which you haven't yet shown, and partner doesn't have a 4NT bid if you are missing an ace, as Kxx KQx KJx Axxx won't make a slam opposite a minimum), you should bid it. (If the hesitation does suggest one grand over the other, it suggests 7S over 7NT, so 7NT is definitely allowed.) The TD didn't work through this logic and correctly ruled the result back to 6NT. The committee explained this ruling well, and reinstated the 7NT bid. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 25 08:55:54 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:55:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0105@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5178D37A.9080005@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows schreef: > > > There is a multitude of methods that the misbidding player can choose to > play after the fact which may easily be manipulated to justify his > actual action. > Considering that the player thought he was playing those methods, it is safe to say that his partner also knows the system (even if ot playing them that particular day). That may be a second source of the assertion. And obviously, the director does not need to believe the player and rule based on a simple system that everyone knows. You are merely talking about the difficulty of ruling, not of the principle at stake here. Herman. From gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 25 14:22:30 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:22:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0ADF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EF0ADF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51792006.7080006@aol.com> On 25/04/2013 00:57, Richard HILLS wrote: > > However, the last time this was discussed Grattan observed that this ploy > > was illegal under the current 2007 Lawbook, as the general Law 16B (which > > permits selection of an illogical alternative) was overridden by the > specific > > Law 73C (which prohibits UI-assisted avoidance of cold bottoms): > I do not think that Law 16B is any more general than Law 73C. In fact I think it is more specific. Law 73 says that you should not take advantage of UI. Law 16B says exactly how you choose your bid. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130425/87ba1b76/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 25 14:38:29 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:38:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Well, I suppose any pair has agreements after a big 2NT (in the sequence 2C-2D-2NT or 2D-2M-2NT if playing Multi). Thus they do have actual partnership methods after 2NT (as perceived by the 2NT bidder). 2013/4/25 Steve Willner > On 2013-04-22 11:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Well, it is clear that, if you interpret the law as literally written, > > the law cannot function. > > That's far from clear to me! In fact, I was hoping (though far from > expecting) that the LC had made an intentional change from our previous > procedure in this area. > > As Wayne wrote, "cannot function" is a closer description of the present > situation. In the current example, who is to say that 3D is a transfer > rather than natural and forcing? Or something else entirely? I suppose > in most jurisdictions "everyone" plays transfers in this auction, but in > most auctions there won't be a single universal method. Which of the > fantasy systems are we supposed to choose? > > If instead you take the law as literally written -- LAs are determined > in the actual partnership methods -- that's nothing more than the Rubens > school of handling this particular form of UI. What's wrong with that, > aside from its being a change from past practice? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130425/41fa454e/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 25 15:34:43 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:34:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> On 2013-04-25 8:38 AM, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > I suppose any pair has agreements after a big 2NT (in the sequence > 2C-2D-2NT or 2D-2M-2NT if playing Multi). Usually right for 2NT specifically -- though not for some strong-club players, who may have no strong 2NT bid -- but why should it apply in other situations, where the pair may have no analogous agreement? On 2013-04-25 2:55 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Considering that the player thought he was playing those methods, it > is safe to say that his partner also knows the system Sorry, Herman, but this is bizarre. Even in the strong 2NT case, one partner may play transfers and the other natural, and each may be aware of what the other plays. Which one controls? And that's not the worst: what if one player has never played the system corresponding to the misbid? > the director does not need to believe the player and rule based on a > simple system that everyone knows. This is, of course, the practical answer: the director makes up some fantasy system and rules accordingly. The effect is that the player concerned, even if he understands the rules perfectly, has no idea which calls will be deemed legal and which won't. Is all this really better than the Rubens school? From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 25 15:51:51 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:51:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Toronto NABC+ Case 10: Justice is seen to be done In-Reply-To: <46F8BF9A49204881BCD280861FA1B894@erdos> References: <46F8BF9A49204881BCD280861FA1B894@erdos> Message-ID: <517934F7.1020805@nhcc.net> On 2013-04-24 11:23 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > You hold AQJ643 A8 Q84 KQ, at matchpoints > You Pard > 1S 2C > 2S 4NT > 5S ..6NT > ? > So, what does 6NT demonstrably suggest? You mean "what does the hesitation demonstrably suggest?" > Partner might have been considering > pass, 6S, or 7S, or 7NT. Or 5NT, showing all the keycards and offering opener the option of bidding a grand (or showing C-K, etc.). > she must have been considering 6S, and choosing 6NT over 6S > shows extra values, And thus the hesitation shows minimal values for the 6NT bid. This is a fine analysis if we ignore 5NT. I have the advantage of not having seen the other hands, so my interpretation would be that we have all the keycards, and responder was thinking about whether to tell opener that. Finally responder decided not to do so for fear of club weakness. Thus the hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding the grand, and doing so is illegal. I'm not sure which of these analyses is right, but at the table I'd be passing hesitation Blackwood without much thought but (with most partners) raising in-tempo Blackwood to the grand. Although, come to think of it, a partner who is capable of hesitation Blackwood is automatically in the minority of those not reliable enough to be raised to grand. From gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 25 15:53:51 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:53:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5179356F.8050800@aol.com> [Steve Willner] This is, of course, the practical answer: the director makes up some fantasy system and rules accordingly. The effect is that the player concerned, even if he understands the rules perfectly, has no idea which calls will be deemed legal and which won't. [Paul Lamford] I presume that if the player makes a misbid, he must have a rebid in mind, and would have understood his partner's responses. The practical problem is that the player can make up some system and the director will have no way of establishing what the misbidder thought the methods were. So, as someone pointed out, in our 2NT case, he can bid 3NT over 3D, arguing that he only completes with 3 cards, and he can also pass, arguing that he does not play transfers. If he is playing a strong club, there will be no way of proving how he plays with other partners. Compare and contrast the Rubens approach, where all the TD has to do is establish what the methods of the partnership are, often by means of a convention card, but otherwise by the balance of probabilities. Perhaps it is Law75A that needs changing, amending "whether or not" to "unless". It would then read: "Unless North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement " From du.breuil.laval at gmail.com Thu Apr 25 16:50:23 2013 From: du.breuil.laval at gmail.com (Laval Du Breuil) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:50:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Maps of Pair Movements Message-ID: Hi all, Many tears ago, I made a book on pair movements, with maps showing, on a single page, the set up of the room and the progression of pairs and boards for all rounds. The French version of this book was published and sold, but the English one never was. My health is so now very bad and I ceased working on bridge material. I want to offer this stuff freely to the bridge community. The first part of the book was made with Microsoft Word and the maps using Microsoft PowerPoint. I think the maps could be used in many contexts. If you want a PDF sample, just send me a private email. Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Quebec, Canada From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Apr 25 17:05:57 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:05:57 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Maps of Pair Movements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Laval, Yes please, I would be very interested in having a copy of this material. Best regards, Jack On 4/25/13 11:50 AM, "Laval Du Breuil" wrote: >Hi all, > >Many tears ago, I made a book on pair movements, with maps showing, >on a single page, the set up of the room and the progression of pairs and >boards for all rounds. The French version of this book was published and >sold, but the English one never was. > >My health is so now very bad and I ceased working on bridge material. >I want to offer this stuff freely to the bridge community. The first >part of the book >was made with Microsoft Word and the maps using Microsoft PowerPoint. >I think the maps could be used in many contexts. > >If you want a PDF sample, just send me a private email. > >Laval Du Breuil >Adstock, Quebec, Canada >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 25 17:25:27 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:25:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51794AE7.5060101@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > On 2013-04-25 8:38 AM, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: >> I suppose any pair has agreements after a big 2NT (in the sequence >> 2C-2D-2NT or 2D-2M-2NT if playing Multi). > > Usually right for 2NT specifically -- though not for some strong-club > players, who may have no strong 2NT bid -- but why should it apply in > other situations, where the pair may have no analogous agreement? > > On 2013-04-25 2:55 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Considering that the player thought he was playing those methods, it >> is safe to say that his partner also knows the system > > Sorry, Herman, but this is bizarre. Even in the strong 2NT case, one > partner may play transfers and the other natural, and each may be aware > of what the other plays. Which one controls? And that's not the worst: > what if one player has never played the system corresponding to the misbid? > >> the director does not need to believe the player and rule based on a >> simple system that everyone knows. > > This is, of course, the practical answer: the director makes up some > fantasy system and rules accordingly. The effect is that the player > concerned, even if he understands the rules perfectly, has no idea which > calls will be deemed legal and which won't. > > Is all this really better than the Rubens school? Yes it is, It's always difficult to know what the Director is going to accept, even if there is no problem about what system a player thinks he's playing. If the layer provides a sensible system that conforms to the hand he's just bid that bid on, I will generally believe him. Especially if he also attempts to make a sensible call in that system afterwards. You are also just trying to point out difficulties, which have nothing to do with the principles involved. I don't know the Rubens system,but I'm sure there will be similar difficulties under that one. Herman. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 25 19:04:52 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:04:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51794AE7.5060101@skynet.be> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> <51794AE7.5060101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <51796234.3020301@nhcc.net> On 2013-04-25 11:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > You are also just trying to point out difficulties, which have nothing > to do with the principles involved. If the principles are difficult to apply, perhaps different principles would be better. > I don't know the Rubens system, "Rubens school," and I thought we'd discussed it earlier. It's a bit more general, but in the current context, LAs would be decided based on the actual system in use, not some fantasy system. The effect would often be to allow players who have misbid to "wake up" from partner's alert or explanation. That's a radical change from current practice, and my own first reaction was extremely negative, but on further consideration it solves a lot of problems and seems to me far superior to the traditional approach. From nistler at bridgehands.com Thu Apr 25 22:51:11 2013 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:51:11 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Maps of Pair Movements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Laval, If you would like, I would be happy to put a copy of your files on my BridgeHands website for interested folks to download. Each day we get numerous downloads of our free bridge tallies, and from time to time we get emails from folks looking for extra movements besides the two and three table format posted on our site. Happy Bridge trails, Michael Nistler Support at BridgeHands.com Sent from my iPhone On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Laval From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 26 07:47:52 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:47:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51796234.3020301@nhcc.net> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> <51794AE7.5060101@skynet.be> <51796234.3020301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <517A1508.9060409@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > On 2013-04-25 11:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> You are also just trying to point out difficulties, which have nothing >> to do with the principles involved. > > If the principles are difficult to apply, perhaps different principles > would be better. > Only if you believe ease of application is more important than applying an underlying philosophy that seems to reflect what people believe the game should be like. Personally, I have never come across the difficulties you are throwing up here. The system a player thinks he's playing is usually a system that he, his partner, the opponents, and even the director know quite well. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 26 09:51:12 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:51:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools Message-ID: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> The discussion with Steve Wilner has given me insight into something that touches on the principles of DWS. A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid. Well, he can't be certain it's a misexplanation, but in any case it's a different explanation than what he intended. That is going to become clear when his hand gets shown, as that hand corresponds to the system he thought he was playing and not to the system his partner thinks they are playing. But that damage has already been done and it's a worry for after the board. It is worthwhile here to note that the player has no way of knowing which of the two systems is the true one. Very often, the player is reasonably certain which one it is, but every so often he will be in doubt. And there's no way of finding out now. He's not allowed to check the SC, he's not allowed to call the TD, nothing. Before the board is over however, the player needs to do three things: 1) he needs to make his next call. That call will be judged, afterwards, to see if it was influenced by the UI. As Steve notes, it is quite difficult for the player to judge what calls will be accepted by the TD (based on what his peers will estimate to be LAs) This is a difficult job, but not an impossible one. 2) he needs to explain to his opponents, before the opening lead (unless he happens to fall on the defending side), that his partner has made a misexplanation, if such is the case. I'll get to 3) later. Now let's look again at the problem of the player who does not know which is the true system. The laws (since 1997 IIRC) allow him to check his SC during the correction period. That way he can fulfill his obligations under number 2) quite easily. If the SC proves him right, he shall tell his opponents about the ME, if it turns out he has misbid, he can keep his cards hidden (if he's declare, not if he's dummy) and benefit a little longer from his unintentional misbid (he's usually in a bad contract, so this benefit should not worry us - and after all, he's done nothing illegal, just forgot his system). So there is no problem under point 2). Similarly, there is no problem under 1), at least under the majority interpretation. The Rubens school however, in its attempt to solve a problem which I don't believe exists, say that the true system shall determine the LAs the player has. Now what does our pour player in doubt need to do. It is true that it is difficult to judge whether his peers will accept some call a LA or not, but this task becomes impossible if the player does not even know which system the peers will be told is the true one when they're asked to select LAs. Which is why I believe the Rubens school is not a good way forward. I kept from you the third action our player needs to do before the board is over: 3) he needs to explain to his opponents, the meaning of those bids his partner makes after his misexplanation. And again, this becomes a problem for the player who does not know which of the two got it right to start with. Now here again there are two schools of thought: a majority school (a different set of people belonging to this majority than to the previous one), and a minority school dubbed dWS by some. Under the dWS, the player shall explain the system as his partner seems to think it is. In some cases, that may be difficult. But most of the time the player will know the system his partner thinks they're playing, and he'll be able to give an accurate description of partner's intentions. Whereas under the Majority view, the player needs to tell the opponents the "true" system. Which our player in doubt will need to make a stab at. My point being this: The WBF have correctly seen to it that obligation 2) can be fulfilled. The player is allowed to check his system before he needs to tell his opponents that an explanation was incorrect. The Majority view is that 1) can also be fulfilled. Under the Rubens School, the player has an insoluble problem, under the majority view, there is no such problem. And you can guess my opinion as to which school gives the best solution to problem 3) Under that school, a player has no dilemma as to what to explain, whereas under the majority view the player who is in doubt as to what the true system is, has no way of determining what he should tell his opponents. Herman. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 26 10:34:15 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:34:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <517A1508.9060409@skynet.be> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> <51794AE7.5060101@skynet.be> <51796234.3020301@nhcc.net> <517A1508! .9060409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002001ce4258$d6f21e30$84d65a90$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013 3:48 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness > > Steve Willner schreef: > > On 2013-04-25 11:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> You are also just trying to point out difficulties, which have nothing > >> to do with the principles involved. > > > > If the principles are difficult to apply, perhaps different principles > > would be better. > > > > Only if you believe ease of application is more important than applying > an underlying philosophy that seems to reflect what people believe the > game should be like. > Personally, I have never come across the difficulties you are throwing > up here. The system a player thinks he's playing is usually a system > that he, his partner, the opponents, and even the director know quite well. [] As I am frequently a last minute filler-inner, this scenario has played out for me several times. The correct system is then "undiscussed" and I carry on in the "system" which is the system in my universe. My only problem is that I usually do not alert 3D as a transfer. Perhaps I should and wake partner up. As I have brought up before, this happens all the time on BBO, where this argument apparently originated, and they seem to be quite happy to ignore UI. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Apr 26 11:05:32 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:05:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Maps of Pair Movements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <517A435C.8080209@meteo.fr> Laval Du Breuil a ?crit : > Hi all, > > Many tears ago, I made a book on pair movements, with maps showing, > on a single page, the set up of the room and the progression of pairs and > boards for all rounds. The French version of this book was published and > sold, but the English one never was. > what was the title of this book? maybe i have it on my shelves. > My health is so now very bad and I ceased working on bridge material. > I want to offer this stuff freely to the bridge community. The first > part of the book > was made with Microsoft Word and the maps using Microsoft PowerPoint. > I think the maps could be used in many contexts. > > If you want a PDF sample, just send me a private email. > if you agree, i could make it available on this web site: http://roquibridge.wordpress.com/page-de-garde/bon-a-savoir/ jpr > Laval Du Breuil > Adstock, Quebec, Canada > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 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 olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Apr 26 11:49:51 2013 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier beauvillain) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:49:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] RE : Maps of Pair Movements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2ABEA63D3CFD4F0F9944EF27B6473726@utilisateurPC> Hi, Is this connected to the materail you sent me some years away? May be it can be usefull to our TD Yes, please send me those, I wish you a better health, Olivier Beauvillain ANAB, French association of TDs -----Message d'origine----- De?: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Laval Du Breuil Envoy??: jeudi 25 avril 2013 16:50 ??: BLML Objet?: [BLML] Maps of Pair Movements Hi all, Many tears ago, I made a book on pair movements, with maps showing, on a single page, the set up of the room and the progression of pairs and boards for all rounds. The French version of this book was published and sold, but the English one never was. My health is so now very bad and I ceased working on bridge material. I want to offer this stuff freely to the bridge community. The first part of the book was made with Microsoft Word and the maps using Microsoft PowerPoint. I think the maps could be used in many contexts. If you want a PDF sample, just send me a private email. Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Quebec, Canada _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Aucun virus trouve dans ce message. Analyse effectuee par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.3272 / Base de donnees virale: 3162/6271 - Date: 24/04/2013 From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 13:21:25 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:21:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <002001ce4258$d6f21e30$84d65a90$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@skynet.be> <517890A5.7080203@nhcc.net> <517930F3.3000103@nhcc.net> <51794AE7.5060101@skynet.be> <51796234.3020301@nhcc.net> <517A1508! .9060409@skynet.be> <002001ce4258$d6f21e30$84d65a90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <517A6335.9060500@gmail.com> On 04/26/2013 04:34 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013 3:48 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness >> >> Steve Willner schreef: >>> On 2013-04-25 11:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> You are also just trying to point out difficulties, which have > nothing >>>> to do with the principles involved. >>> >>> If the principles are difficult to apply, perhaps different > principles >>> would be better. >>> >> >> Only if you believe ease of application is more important than > applying >> an underlying philosophy that seems to reflect what people believe the >> game should be like. >> Personally, I have never come across the difficulties you are throwing >> up here. The system a player thinks he's playing is usually a system >> that he, his partner, the opponents, and even the director know quite > well. > > [] > > As I am frequently a last minute filler-inner, this scenario has played > out > for me several times. The correct system is then "undiscussed" and I > carry on in the "system" which is the system in my universe. My only > problem is that I usually do not alert 3D as a transfer. Perhaps I > should > and wake partner up. > As I have brought up before, this happens all the time on BBO, where > this > argument apparently originated, and they seem to be quite happy to > ignore > UI. > A rather more charitable way of putting it, Tony, is that on BBO it's common to give a lot of leeway to pickup partnerships. The norm is that you get about two lines of system discussion with a partner whom you likely have never seen before. Yes, there's the information in their profile (very limited, for reasons of allocated space), but that's all you have to go on - and of course, in the normal 'club' play, there isn't a TD to call anyway. Yes, rules are different in BBO tournament play, but in tournaments there's at least a presumption that you might have some idea of whom you're partnering, and have established some common ground first (with a nod to those who sign up as reserves in case a player loses connection). As anyone who plays on BBO knows, there's a LOT of TFLB which isn't applied to online bridge. Some offline players may stick their noses in the air and say "Not proper bridge, then". That's up to them. For those such as myself, for whom online bridge is the *only* practical option, I'll be eternally grateful to the likes of Matt Clegg (OKBridge) and Fred Gitelman for enabling me to continue playing the game. If you come on to BBO and start waving TFLB around, you aren't going to enjoy the experience. If you start out with the idea that things ARE different, and it's just a case of getting used to the accommodations that need to be made to make a 10,000+ player game practical, given that the four players at the table may not even have a common language, then you might even find you like it. Brian. From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Fri Apr 26 16:35:59 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:35:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> Let me see if I've got it right: Until partners explanation I thought we agreed to play system A but after the explanation: a) I am still sure that our agreement was to play system A so partner's explanation is a mistaken explanation in my opinion b) I now remember that we agreed to play system B so my call was a mistaken call. c) I am no longer sure about our agreements, I cannot any longer decide whether we agreed to play A or B. Now, what are my responsibilities when explaining the meanings of those bid my partner makes after his explanation (Herman's point 3): Cases a and b are easy [a according to system A and b according to system B] but what about case c? Herman mentions two alternatives: the majority view: explain according to system A and the dWB view: explain according to system B but I would like to introduce the third one which I, in all modesty, call the right view: an honest answer; say you don't know. If opponents want to know they can call TD, you will sent away and partner explains. Of course this alternative gives UI to partner but we know how to deal with it. A huge advantage of this alternative over the other two is that we are not potentially lying about our agreements. Ryszard From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 26 17:14:38 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:14:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <000a01ce4290$c5bb3fb0$5131bf10$@online.no> > Ryszard Sliwinski > Let me see if I've got it right: > Until partners explanation I thought we agreed to play system A but after > the explanation: [Sven Pran] Your partner's explanation contains information that is unauthorized for you and you may not select any action (among logical alternatives) that could be suggested by this information. > a) I am still sure that our agreement was to play system A so partner's > explanation is a mistaken explanation in my opinion [Sven Pran] Law 20F5{a} applies > b) I now remember that we agreed to play system B so my call was a > mistaken call. [Sven Pran] Your knowledge is the result of unauthorized information and Law 20F5{a} applies. You are specifically prohibited from taking into the account the possibility that B might be the correct agreement until you understand this from legal information. > c) I am no longer sure about our agreements, I cannot any longer decide > whether we agreed to play A or B. [Sven Pran] Your doubt is the result of unauthorized information and Law 20F5{a} applies. You are specifically prohibited from taking into the account the possibility that B might be the correct agreement until you understand this from legal information. > > Now, what are my responsibilities when explaining the meanings of those > bid my partner makes after his explanation (Herman's point 3): > Cases a and b are easy [a according to system A and b according to system B] > but what about case c? > Herman mentions two alternatives: the majority view: explain according to > system A and the dWB view: explain according to system B but I would like to > introduce the third one which I, in all modesty, call the right view: an honest > answer; say you don't know. If opponents want to know they can call TD, you > will sent away and partner explains. > Of course this alternative gives UI to partner but we know how to deal with > it. A huge advantage of this alternative over the other two is that we are not > potentially lying about our agreements. > > Ryszard [Sven Pran] DwS is an attempt to reduce damage from misinformation by providing opponents with the corrected information as soon as possible even when this creates extraneous and unauthorized information to partner. The fallacy in DwS is that rectification for damage after irregularities (i.e. misinformation) is the Director's job, not the players'. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 26 17:55:31 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:55:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <000a01ce4290$c5bb3fb0$5131bf10$@online.no> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <000a01ce4290$c5bb3fb0$5131bf10$@online.no> Message-ID: <517AA373.8090805@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/04/2013 17:14, Sven Pran a ?crit : > [Sven Pran] DwS is an attempt to reduce damage from misinformation by > providing opponents with the corrected information as soon as possible > even when this creates extraneous and unauthorized information to > partner. The fallacy in DwS is that rectification for damage after > irregularities (i.e. misinformation) is the Director's job, not the > players'. ______________________________________________ Not arguing now 'pro' or 'contra', I think you're mistaken about the reasons. DwS aims at avoiding the need of rectification. In my view using DwS principles is only an attempt at avoiding tu SNAFU the board, something players have to do (that's why they have to signal irregularities ASAP), by not adding UI (about the misunderstanding) to MI. The problem being that calling the director at this stage would create UI too. When Mi will have had a negligible impact on bidding, the board will not need any rectification. Giving away UI about the misunderstanding will make this impossible 99 times out of 100. At least that's how it's seen in Brussels, where it enjoys some popularity. Best regards Alain From gampas at aol.com Fri Apr 26 18:38:18 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <8D010B397773341-1754-2077D@webmail-d254.sysops.aol.com> [ton] If I tell my members that this seemed to be a problem on blml they will advise me to stop reading you. [paull lamford] If I tell the BBO readers that Ton Kooiman was so dismissive of the problem, they will definitely not sign up to BLML. It is perhaps worth noting that the thread on BBO discussing this issue had around 150 replies, the most of any thread over the last year. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Apr 26 19:01:18 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:01:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <8D010B397773341-1754-2077D@webmail-d254.sysops.aol.com> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <8D010B397773341-1754-2077D@webmail-d254.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <517AB2DE.1060706@btinternet.com> On 26/04/2013 17:38, Paul Lamford wrote: > It is perhaps worth > noting that the thread on BBO discussing this issue had around 150 > replies, the most of any thread over the last year. Might it also be worth noting that 42 of them were from you? Gordon Rainsford From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 20:56:08 2013 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:56:08 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 23/04/2013 7:08 PM, "ton" wrote: > > > > What we really need is a pronouncement from the WBFLC. > > ton: > In the example given you go to a player tell him that somebody opened 2NT > showing 20-21 balanced and got the answer 3D which in the partnership > agreements is a transfer. > This is a leading question. The actual scenario is I opened 2nt with 20 points balanced and got the response 3d for which we have no partnership understanding. Only the opening bidder can know the range and the subsequent methods. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130426/93144e7e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 27 02:09:14 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:09:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 03:51:12 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > The discussion with Steve Wilner has given me insight into something > that touches on the principles of DWS. > > A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid. > Well, he can't be certain it's a misexplanation, but in any case it's a > different explanation than what he intended. That is going to become > clear when his hand gets shown, as that hand corresponds to the system > he thought he was playing and not to the system his partner thinks they > are playing. > But that damage has already been done and it's a worry for after the > board. > It is worthwhile here to note that the player has no way of knowing > which of the two systems is the true one. Very often, the player is > reasonably certain which one it is, but every so often he will be in > doubt. And there's no way of finding out now. He's not allowed to check > the SC, he's not allowed to call the TD, nothing. > > Before the board is over however, the player needs to do three things: > 1) he needs to make his next call. That call will be judged, afterwards, > to see if it was influenced by the UI. As Steve notes, it is quite > difficult for the player to judge what calls will be accepted by the TD > (based on what his peers will estimate to be LAs) This is a difficult > job, but not an impossible one. > > 2) he needs to explain to his opponents, before the opening lead (unless > he happens to fall on the defending side), that his partner has made a > misexplanation, if such is the case. > > I'll get to 3) later. > > Now let's look again at the problem of the player who does not know > which is the true system. The laws (since 1997 IIRC) allow him to check > his SC during the correction period. That way he can fulfill his > obligations under number 2) quite easily. If the SC proves him right, he > shall tell his opponents about the ME, if it turns out he has misbid, he > can keep his cards hidden (if he's declare, not if he's dummy) and > benefit a little longer from his unintentional misbid (he's usually in a > bad contract, so this benefit should not worry us - and after all, he's > done nothing illegal, just forgot his system). > > So there is no problem under point 2). > > Similarly, there is no problem under 1), at least under the majority > interpretation. The Rubens school however, in its attempt to solve a > problem which I don't believe exists, say that the true system shall > determine the LAs the player has. Now what does our pour player in doubt > need to do. It is true that it is difficult to judge whether his peers > will accept some call a LA or not, but this task becomes impossible if > the player does not even know which system the peers will be told is the > true one when they're asked to select LAs. > > Which is why I believe the Rubens school is not a good way forward. > > I kept from you the third action our player needs to do before the board > is over: > > 3) he needs to explain to his opponents, the meaning of those bids his > partner makes after his misexplanation. And again, this becomes a > problem for the player who does not know which of the two got it right > to start with. > > Now here again there are two schools of thought: a majority school (a > different set of people belonging to this majority than to the previous > one), and a minority school dubbed dWS by some. > > Under the dWS, the player shall explain the system as his partner seems > to think it is. In some cases, that may be difficult. But most of the > time the player will know the system his partner thinks they're playing, > and he'll be able to give an accurate description of partner's > intentions. > Whereas under the Majority view, the player needs to tell the opponents > the "true" system. Which our player in doubt will need to make a stab at. > > My point being this: > The WBF have correctly seen to it that obligation 2) can be fulfilled. > The player is allowed to check his system before he needs to tell his > opponents that an explanation was incorrect. > The Majority view is that 1) can also be fulfilled. Under the Rubens > School, the player has an insoluble problem, under the majority view, > there is no such problem. > And you can guess my opinion as to which school gives the best solution > to problem 3) Under that school, a player has no dilemma as to what to > explain, whereas under the majority view the player who is in doubt as > to what the true system is, has no way of determining what he should > tell his opponents. Hi Herman. When the auction is over and we are declaring, I can say "I meant my 3D bid to be natural". My impression is that the WBFLC tries to make this illegal. But no director will ever rule against me. And the opponents are always happy. Is this what you want? If a player wants to guess or claim that his partner's explanation was correct (always a good strategy whether true or not), that's fine with me. Did you want to disallow this? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 27 02:11:44 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:11:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <000a01ce4290$c5bb3fb0$5131bf10$@online.no> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <000a01ce4290$c5bb3fb0$5131bf10$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:14:38 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Ryszard Sliwinski >> Let me see if I've got it right: >> Until partners explanation I thought we agreed to play system A but > after >> the explanation: > > [Sven Pran] > Your partner's explanation contains information that is unauthorized for > you > and you may not select any action (among logical alternatives) that > could be > suggested by this information. > >> a) I am still sure that our agreement was to play system A so partner's >> explanation is a mistaken explanation in my opinion > > [Sven Pran] > Law 20F5{a} applies > >> b) I now remember that we agreed to play system B so my call was a >> mistaken call. > > [Sven Pran] > Your knowledge is the result of unauthorized information and Law 20F5{a} > applies. > You are specifically prohibited from taking into the account the > possibility > that B might be the correct agreement until you understand this from > legal > information. You probably didn't mean this, right? The WBFLC says you are supposed to use the UI to make the correct explanation of partner's call. And the rules require you to select the LA not suggested by the UI. That too is using the UI to make a decision. From gampas at aol.com Sat Apr 27 10:06:53 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <517AB2DE.1060706@btinternet.com> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <003f01ce35c4$77cf2790$676d76b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <517558CA.5090101@s kynet.be> <8D00DB6CEB1 9E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <001b01ce3ff1$47d7b430$d7871c90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <8D010B397773341-1754-2077D@webmail-d254.sysops.aol.com> <517AB2DE.1060706@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <8D011354FF40126-200C-23118@webmail-d260.sysops.aol.com> [Gordon Rainsford] On 26/04/2013 17:38, Paul Lamford wrote: > It is perhaps worth > noting that the thread on BBO discussing this issue had around 150 > replies, the most of any thread over the last year. Might it also be worth noting that 42 of them were from you? [Paul Lamford] That still means there were 108 other posts, about twice the average. It might be worth noting that when your opinion is not mainstream, as with "what is a demonstrable bridge reason?", you keep your posts to the minimum. I do the opposite. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Apr 27 12:16:00 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:16:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > ton: > In the example given you go to a player tell him that somebody opened 2NT > showing 20-21 balanced and got the answer 3D which in the partnership > agreements is a transfer. > This is a leading question. The actual scenario is I opened 2nt with 20 points balanced and got the response 3d for which we have no partnership understanding. Only the opening bidder can know the range and the subsequent methods. ton: OK, we accept that. But the partnership has to handle a balanced 20 count once in a while. How do you do that sir? And if really nothing is agreed about it, which I consider almost impossible, the TD goes to some players, shows the hand and tells them that they opened 2NT and got the response of 3D for which there is no agreement. What is your bid? And if a big majority passes that call is allowed. There is one other possibility. If this player can proof that 3D is an impossible bid in their methods the TD might reluctantly draw the conclusion that the player is allowed to discover his mistake. An example: 1D - 1NT pass - 2H 2H is alerted by North and explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130427/16026d2c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 27 12:21:11 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:21:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Let me see if I've got it right: > Until partners explanation I thought we agreed to play system A but after > the explanation: > a) I am still sure that our agreement was to play system A so partner's > explanation is a mistaken explanation in my opinion > b) I now remember that we agreed to play system B so my call was a mistaken > call. > c) I am no longer sure about our agreements, I cannot any longer decide > whether we agreed to play A or B. > you have got that right. > Now, what are my responsibilities when explaining the meanings of those bid > my partner makes after his explanation (Herman's point 3): > Cases a and b are easy [a according to system A and b according to system B] > but what about case c? indeed. > Herman mentions two alternatives: the majority view: explain according to > system A and the dWB view: explain according to system B > but I would like to introduce the third one which I, in all modesty, call > the right view: an honest answer; say you don't know. If opponents want to > know they can call TD, you will sent away and partner explains. There is no need for partner to explain. They alreay know everything. You have just told them both the true system and what partner was actually thinking. Since they can usually deduct what partner was thinking anyway, this solution is no different from the majority one, and equally wrong, IMHO, for the same reasons. > Of course this alternative gives UI to partner but we know how to deal with > it. A huge advantage of this alternative over the other two is that we are > not potentially lying about our agreements. > Indeed, but that is just the crux of the problem: is a player allowed to "lie" about the agreements, if this prevents partner from receiving UI and opponents from learning something they are not entitled to. I believe a player should be allowed to "lie" in this manner. > Ryszard > Herman. From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Sat Apr 27 22:44:29 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:44:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> We have the overriding rule: Requirement to respond to enquiries under law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings overrides 20 F5a. Thus, if we are sure that partner explanation is mistaken then we are obligated to explain his subsequent calls according to system A and not to system B. See the Minutes of WBFs law committee October 10, 2008 and also Ton's law commentary. Now, your approach (dWB-view) when we are uncertain about which system we are playing means that we are allowed to lie about our agreements in order to not give OI to partner. But this is breaking the overriding rule so it cannot be accepted. Observe that both the majority rule and dWB-rule are wrong on the same grounds - they both break against the above mentioned rule, while my view is in accordance with the rule. You are right that both the majority view and my view have the same effect of giving partner OI (and ev. informing the opponents about the misunderstanding) but there are of course not identical. You are also right that sending me out of the table is an empty gesture - I know perfectly well the meaning partner attaches to his subsequent calls (the meaning according to B).- But the point is that I do not know which agreements we have, A or B, and the opponents are entitled to information about our agreements and not about how my partner interprets his calls. And if my information allows the opponents to infer that we have a misunderstanding they are entitled to that but they do it on their own risk. See point 8 of the Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee October 8, 2010. The same point 8 gives me some leeway - I do not have to correct my partners explanation if I am uncertain who of us is right but this is not the same us deliberately lying about our agreements when explain partner's subsequent calls. One last point: when I am certain about our agreements and thus sure that partner's explanation is a MI then I have to explain his subsequent calls according to system A. This gives him (and often also the opponents) info that we have a misunderstanding. Situation is not much different when I am not so certain. The only difference is that I say i don't know when asked about the meaning of his subsequent call . Even then he receives the info about the misunderstanding. If your dWB-view were correct in uncertain cases it should maybe also be correct in certain cases but we know from the minutes that it is not so. . -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:21 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Let me see if I've got it right: > Until partners explanation I thought we agreed to play system A but > after the explanation: > a) I am still sure that our agreement was to play system A so > partner's explanation is a mistaken explanation in my opinion > b) I now remember that we agreed to play system B so my call was a > mistaken call. > c) I am no longer sure about our agreements, I cannot any longer > decide whether we agreed to play A or B. > you have got that right. > Now, what are my responsibilities when explaining the meanings of > those bid my partner makes after his explanation (Herman's point 3): > Cases a and b are easy [a according to system A and b according to > system B] but what about case c? indeed. > Herman mentions two alternatives: the majority view: explain according > to system A and the dWB view: explain according to system B but I > would like to introduce the third one which I, in all modesty, call > the right view: an honest answer; say you don't know. If opponents > want to know they can call TD, you will sent away and partner explains. There is no need for partner to explain. They alreay know everything. You have just told them both the true system and what partner was actually thinking. Since they can usually deduct what partner was thinking anyway, this solution is no different from the majority one, and equally wrong, IMHO, for the same reasons. > Of course this alternative gives UI to partner but we know how to deal > with it. A huge advantage of this alternative over the other two is > that we are not potentially lying about our agreements. > Indeed, but that is just the crux of the problem: is a player allowed to "lie" about the agreements, if this prevents partner from receiving UI and opponents from learning something they are not entitled to. I believe a player should be allowed to "lie" in this manner. > Ryszard > Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Apr 27 22:56:06 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:56:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> On 2013-04-27 4:44 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > But this is breaking the overriding rule so it > cannot be accepted. I haven't yet plowed through all the discussion, but isn't it about what the "overriding rule" should be? Using a claimed existing rule to say some proposed new rule is wrong seems ...um... illogical. From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Sat Apr 27 23:10:55 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 23:10:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> I do not understand. The overriding rule is in force by the Minutes of WBF Law Committee. What more proof do you need. We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the laws should be. So if an interpretation is at odds with the Minutes of Law committee then it is a wrong interpretation. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:56 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools On 2013-04-27 4:44 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > But this is breaking the overriding rule so it cannot be accepted. I haven't yet plowed through all the discussion, but isn't it about what the "overriding rule" should be? Using a claimed existing rule to say some proposed new rule is wrong seems ...um... illogical. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 28 01:47:08 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:47:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:10:55 -0400, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > I do not understand. The overriding rule is in force by the Minutes of > WBF > Law Committee. What more proof do you need. > We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the laws > should be. So if an interpretation is at odds with the Minutes of Law > committee then it is a wrong interpretation. Right. A good example is that many people think that you cannot look at your own convention card to help you give the correct explanation of partner's call. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Willner > Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:56 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools > > On 2013-04-27 4:44 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: >> But this is breaking the overriding rule so it cannot be accepted. > > I haven't yet plowed through all the discussion, but isn't it about what > the > "overriding rule" should be? Using a claimed existing rule to say some > proposed new rule is wrong seems ...um... illogical. > _______________________________________________ > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 28 09:50:54 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:50:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517CD4DE.6040001@skynet.be> Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > I do not understand. The overriding rule is in force by the Minutes of WBF > Law Committee. What more proof do you need. > We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the laws > should be. So if an interpretation is at odds with the Minutes of Law > committee then it is a wrong interpretation. > But both the Rubens and the De Wael School want to see that overriding rule changed. Therefore, stating that it is the overriding rule brings nothing extra to the discussion. Actually, your analysis (that it might be better for the player in doubt to shut up and leave the table) is a good one, but it lacks one aspect: why should we think that partner is certain? All this will bring is that the opponents get tot learn both intended meanings, and that is also achieved under the majority view. The "real" system is of no importance whatsoever, because all the opponents are interested in is the cards that the bidders may well hold for their bids. One of the two partners has misbid, so his cards have no relation to his bid, and the opponents are not entitled to know his cards (this small benefit is cancelled by the huge disadvantage of misbidding in the first place). Any other than the dWS actions will let the cat out of the bag: opponents will get to know something about the hand of the misbidder, the misbidder will learn of his mistake, and the opponents will learn that there has been a misundertanding. One other point about that: maybe some of you might think this is a good thing, and you have every right to think that. But remember this: this problem is triggered by an opponent asking a follow-up question. If that opponent does not ask (and very often there is no need to, since the previous explanation gives a good clue) then there is no reason to learn of the misunderstanding. If you want to give the opponents access to this misunderstanding, should you not give it to them at all times, and not just when they ask a question? And then we'll be in a totally different game, one without L20F5, for instance. Herman. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Apr 28 22:06:28 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:06:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> On 2013-04-27 5:10 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the laws > should be. I thought everyone but you was discussing how the laws should be, not what they are now. As you say, there's little if any doubt about the current interpretation. From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Sun Apr 28 23:08:01 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:08:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> Ok. My mistake. I misunderstood Herman. So now we are discussing possible change of the laws or more precisely a change of the interpretation of the laws. The dWB-interpretation allows us lie about our agreements for (what he considers) some higher cause (not giving partner a OI) . This is not a happy position for us straight guys. When asked a question we want to answer truthfully and we have problems with the rules which force us to do otherwise. And on more practical side, say I am asked by South about the meaning of partner's call (after partner's MI) and explain it as B because I know that B is what partner means by his call even if I perfectly well know that our agreement is A and not B. Now North looks at our CC and calls TD because CC says A and not B. And now what? -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:06 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools On 2013-04-27 5:10 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the laws > should be. I thought everyone but you was discussing how the laws should be, not what they are now. As you say, there's little if any doubt about the current interpretation. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 29 02:10:37 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:10:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] deadline for clarification statement Message-ID: Compare two situations In one case, declarer claims the rest and shows his hand. The defense objects, noting that in terms of top winners, declarer is one trick short. I assume at this point we do not allow a clarification statement. Last Thursday, declarer claimed, but before showing his hand he double-checked and realized *by himself* that in terms of winners, he was a trick short. He quickly thinks about a good line of play and offers a clarification statement ("I have the rest on a marked heart-spade squeeze"). From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Apr 29 02:43:29 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:43:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Lead penalty from failure to alert Message-ID: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> W N E S - - P P 1H X 2C 2S P P 2H The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, and South does not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to replace the call; he chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require or forbid a heart lead. After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise (a convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert and nobody asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts during the auction, and there should have been no lead penalty. Should either East or the director have does something about this possibility, which would have created UI once the meaning of the 2C bid was revealed? And if the lead penalty damaged E-W, should there be an adjustment? From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 29 09:19:49 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:19:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517E1F15.2010706@skynet.be> Well Richard, you want to answer truthfully. So when partner bids something that you know to mean A, you say it means B. Thereby also telling the opponents that you have had a bidding misunderstanding. What do you do if they simply answer "was that explanation correct?" Do you say "No, my stupid partner forgot our system once again"? Or do you lie (as in fact L20F5 instructs you to do)? My point is that answering according to system is exactly the same as saying "my stupid partner forgot our system". And therefore you should be allowed to say something else. Herman. Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Ok. My mistake. I misunderstood Herman. So now we are discussing possible > change of the laws or more precisely a change of the interpretation of the > laws. > The dWB-interpretation allows us lie about our agreements for (what he > considers) some higher cause (not giving partner a OI) . This is not a > happy position for us straight guys. When asked a question we want to > answer truthfully and we have problems with the rules which force us to do > otherwise. And on more practical side, say I am asked by South about the > meaning of partner's call (after partner's MI) and explain it as B because > I know that B is what partner means by his call even if I perfectly well > know that our agreement is A and not B. Now North looks at our CC and calls > TD because CC says A and not B. > And now what? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Willner > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:06 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools > > On 2013-04-27 5:10 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: >> We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the laws >> should be. > > I thought everyone but you was discussing how the laws should be, not what > they are now. As you say, there's little if any doubt about the current > interpretation. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: 04/28/13 > > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 29 09:21:52 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:21:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lead penalty from failure to alert In-Reply-To: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> Message-ID: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> David Grabiner schreef: > W N E S > - - P P > 1H X 2C 2S > P P 2H > > The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, and South does > not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to replace the call; he > chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require or forbid a heart lead. > > After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise (a > convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert and nobody > asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts during the auction, and > there should have been no lead penalty. NO. There is only no lead penalty if the disappeared suit is named _after_ it has disappeared! > Should either East or the director have > does something about this possibility, which would have created UI once the > meaning of the 2C bid was revealed? And if the lead penalty damaged E-W, should > there be an adjustment? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: 04/28/13 > > From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Apr 29 09:29:57 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:29:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Lead_penalty_from_failure_to_alert?= In-Reply-To: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> References: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1UWiX7-3xLTSS0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> Von: Herman De Wael > David Grabiner schreef: > > W N E S > > - - P P > > 1H X 2C 2S > > P P 2H > > > > The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, > > and South does not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to > > replace the call; he chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require > > or forbid a heart lead. > > > > > > After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise > > (a convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert > > and nobody asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts > > during the auction, and there should have been no lead penalty. > > > > NO. > There is only no lead penalty if the disappeared suit is named _after_ > it has disappeared! Peter: h????? Law 26 A1: "if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player there is no lead restriction, but see Law 16D." no _after_ ... before is sufficient. > > > Should either East or the director have > > > does something about this possibility, which would have created UI > > once the meaning of the 2C bid was revealed? And if the lead > > penalty damaged E-W, should there be an adjustment? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Apr 29 09:33:59 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:33:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lead penalty from failure to alert In-Reply-To: <1UWiX7-3xLTSS0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> References: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <1UWiX7-3xLTSS0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Agree with Peter, though we have this wrong in the norwegian translation. It would be illogical to have a lead penalty due to a withdrawn action regarding a suit the offending player specified in the legal auction. Thus the law makes perfect sense. WebRep Overall rating 2013/4/29 Peter Eidt > Von: Herman De Wael > > David Grabiner schreef: > > > W N E S > > > - - P P > > > 1H X 2C 2S > > > P P 2H > > > > > > The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, > > > and South does not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to > > > replace the call; he chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require > > > or forbid a heart lead. > > > > > > > > > After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise > > > (a convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert > > > and nobody asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts > > > during the auction, and there should have been no lead penalty. > > > > > > > NO. > > There is only no lead penalty if the disappeared suit is named _after_ > > it has disappeared! > > Peter: > > h????? > > Law 26 A1: > "if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player > there is no lead restriction, but see Law 16D." > > no _after_ ... before is sufficient. > > > > > > > Should either East or the director have > > > > > does something about this possibility, which would have created UI > > > once the meaning of the 2C bid was revealed? And if the lead > > > penalty damaged E-W, should there be an adjustment? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130429/cbe33570/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 29 09:36:45 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:36:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lead penalty from failure to alert In-Reply-To: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301ce44ac$4d2754d0$e775fe70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> David Grabiner schreef: > W N E S > - - P P > 1H X 2C 2S > P P 2H > > The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, and > South does not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to > replace the call; he chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require or forbid a heart lead. > > After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise (a > convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert and > nobody asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts during > the auction, and there should have been no lead penalty. hermandW: NO. There is only no lead penalty if the disappeared suit is named _after_ it has disappeared! ton: The way I understand what you are saying makes this statement not true. You then are stuck in a procedure we followed in a past century. From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 29 09:42:43 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:42:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lead penalty from failure to alert In-Reply-To: References: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <1UWiX7-3xLTSS0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001b01ce44ad$24941ac0$6dbc5040$@online.no> The word ?later? in Law 26 was deleted with the 1997 Laws. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Harald Berre Skj?ran Sendt: 29. april 2013 09:34 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Lead penalty from failure to alert Agree with Peter, though we have this wrong in the norwegian translation. It would be illogical to have a lead penalty due to a withdrawn action regarding a suit the offending player specified in the legal auction. Thus the law makes perfect sense. WebRep Overall rating 2013/4/29 Peter Eidt Von: Herman De Wael > David Grabiner schreef: > > W N E S > > - - P P > > 1H X 2C 2S > > P P 2H > > > > The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, > > and South does not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to > > replace the call; he chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require > > or forbid a heart lead. > > > > > > After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise > > (a convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert > > and nobody asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts > > during the auction, and there should have been no lead penalty. > > > > NO. > There is only no lead penalty if the disappeared suit is named _after_ > it has disappeared! Peter: h????? Law 26 A1: "if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player there is no lead restriction, but see Law 16D." no _after_ ... before is sufficient. > > > Should either East or the director have > > > does something about this possibility, which would have created UI > > once the meaning of the 2C bid was revealed? And if the lead > > penalty damaged E-W, should there be an adjustment? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130429/54ce2371/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 29 09:53:04 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:53:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lead penalty from failure to alert In-Reply-To: <1UWiX7-3xLTSS0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> References: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <1UWiX7-3xLTSS0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <517E26E0.6090403@skynet.be> ooops, sorry. I was working from memory and from a previous version of the law. my humblest apologies. Herman. Peter Eidt schreef: > Von: Herman De Wael >> David Grabiner schreef: >>> W N E S >>> - - P P >>> 1H X 2C 2S >>> P P 2H >>> >>> The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, >>> and South does not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to >>> replace the call; he chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require >>> or forbid a heart lead. >>> >>> >>> After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise >>> (a convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert >>> and nobody asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts >>> during the auction, and there should have been no lead penalty. >>> >> >> NO. >> There is only no lead penalty if the disappeared suit is named _after_ >> it has disappeared! > > Peter: > > h????? > > Law 26 A1: > "if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player > there is no lead restriction, but see Law 16D." > > no _after_ ... before is sufficient. > > >>> >> Should either East or the director have >> >>> does something about this possibility, which would have created UI >>> once the meaning of the 2C bid was revealed? And if the lead >>> penalty damaged E-W, should there be an adjustment? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: 04/28/13 > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Mon Apr 29 11:06:49 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:06:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <517E1F15.2010706@skynet.be> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> <517E1F15.2010706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601ce44b8$e232bbd0$a6983370$@filosofi.uu.se> Herman, If an opponent asks me whether my partner's explanation is correct or not, I will not use any of your suggested answers. I will simply call TD and asked him to explain to the opponent that he does not have a right to ask that question. See Law 20 F. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:20 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools Well Richard, you want to answer truthfully. So when partner bids something that you know to mean A, you say it means B. Thereby also telling the opponents that you have had a bidding misunderstanding. What do you do if they simply answer "was that explanation correct?" Do you say "No, my stupid partner forgot our system once again"? Or do you lie (as in fact L20F5 instructs you to do)? My point is that answering according to system is exactly the same as saying "my stupid partner forgot our system". And therefore you should be allowed to say something else. Herman. Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Ok. My mistake. I misunderstood Herman. So now we are discussing > possible change of the laws or more precisely a change of the > interpretation of the laws. > The dWB-interpretation allows us lie about our agreements for (what he > considers) some higher cause (not giving partner a OI) . This is not > a happy position for us straight guys. When asked a question we want > to answer truthfully and we have problems with the rules which force > us to do otherwise. And on more practical side, say I am asked by > South about the meaning of partner's call (after partner's MI) and > explain it as B because I know that B is what partner means by his > call even if I perfectly well know that our agreement is A and not B. > Now North looks at our CC and calls TD because CC says A and not B. > And now what? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:06 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools > > On 2013-04-27 5:10 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: >> We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the >> laws should be. > > I thought everyone but you was discussing how the laws should be, not > what they are now. As you say, there's little if any doubt about the > current interpretation. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: > 04/28/13 > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 29 11:24:41 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:24:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <000601ce44b8$e232bbd0$a6983370$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> <517E1F15.2010706@skynet.be> <000601ce44b8$e232bbd0$a6983370$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517E3C59.50302@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/04/2013 11:06, Ryszard Sliwinski a ?crit : > Herman, If an opponent asks me whether my partner's explanation is correct > or not, I will not use any of your suggested answers. I will simply call TD > and asked him to explain to the opponent that he does not have a right to > ask that question. See Law 20 F. Perhaps it would be less rude toanswer "I have no right to answer this question", but I agree about the principle. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 29 13:39:41 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:39:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <000601ce44b8$e232bbd0$a6983370$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> <517E1F15.2010706@skynet.be> <000601ce44b8$e232bbd0$a6983370$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517E5BFD.7080504@skynet.be> Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Herman, If an opponent asks me whether my partner's explanation is correct > or not, I will not use any of your suggested answers. I will simply call TD > and asked him to explain to the opponent that he does not have a right to > ask that question. See Law 20 F. > Indeed Ryszard, although I would suggest that you'd better not call the director, but simply say "yes". It is my experience that people who refuse to answer usually have something to hide, and in this case that would mean the explanation is not correct. Now Ryszard, let's go to the next step: when the opponent first asks you "was that explanation correct?" you will say "I don't have to answer that question". If he then asks what your partners next call meant, you suggest answering "actually, his previous explanation was wrong". So if he asks the question using one set of words, you don't answer, but if he asks it with another set of words, you answer truthfully? It's as if there would be a regulation that says that if you ask if a particular opponent holds the queen of diamonds, he must answer truthfully if you have worded the question in a specific way. THAT is the crux of the DWS. Herman. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:20 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools > > Well Richard, you want to answer truthfully. > So when partner bids something that you know to mean A, you say it means B. > Thereby also telling the opponents that you have had a bidding > misunderstanding. > > What do you do if they simply answer "was that explanation correct?" Do you > say "No, my stupid partner forgot our system once again"? Or do you lie (as > in fact L20F5 instructs you to do)? > > My point is that answering according to system is exactly the same as saying > "my stupid partner forgot our system". And therefore you should be allowed > to say something else. > > Herman. > > Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: >> Ok. My mistake. I misunderstood Herman. So now we are discussing >> possible change of the laws or more precisely a change of the >> interpretation of the laws. >> The dWB-interpretation allows us lie about our agreements for (what he >> considers) some higher cause (not giving partner a OI) . This is not >> a happy position for us straight guys. When asked a question we want >> to answer truthfully and we have problems with the rules which force >> us to do otherwise. And on more practical side, say I am asked by >> South about the meaning of partner's call (after partner's MI) and >> explain it as B because I know that B is what partner means by his >> call even if I perfectly well know that our agreement is A and not B. >> Now North looks at our CC and calls TD because CC says A and not B. >> And now what? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Steve Willner >> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:06 PM >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools >> >> On 2013-04-27 5:10 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: >>> We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the >>> laws should be. >> >> I thought everyone but you was discussing how the laws should be, not >> what they are now. As you say, there's little if any doubt about the >> current interpretation. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: >> 04/28/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: 04/28/13 > > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Mon Apr 29 16:13:16 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:13:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <517E5BFD.7080504@skynet.be> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> <517E1F15.2010706@skynet.be> <000601ce44b8$e232bbd0$a6983370$@filosofi.uu.se> <517E5BFD.7080504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01ce44e3$b1d3dd40$157b97c0$@filosofi.uu.se> 1.Contray to you I would call the TD. I don't like the illegal questions checking if partner explanations are correct. Questions like that cast doubt on our knowledge of our agreements and I find them almost intimidating. So I call TD and if you think this is rude than ok I may say "I don't think you are allowed this question but let us call TD to find out". I do it of course also when my partner's explanations are completely OK. 2. I don't see how the two questions you mention can be consider to be the same question put in two different ways. A question about the agreements is not a question whether partner is right or not. And while it is true that often the opponent can infer from my truthful answer to a question about our agreements that we have a misunderstanding the inference is his to make. And it also not so that I answer the questions differently. My behavior is different - I do not answer the first question. 3.By now I realize that we are most probably not able to convince each other , so I stop now. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 1:40 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Herman, If an opponent asks me whether my partner's explanation is > correct or not, I will not use any of your suggested answers. I will > simply call TD and asked him to explain to the opponent that he does > not have a right to ask that question. See Law 20 F. > Indeed Ryszard, although I would suggest that you'd better not call the director, but simply say "yes". It is my experience that people who refuse to answer usually have something to hide, and in this case that would mean the explanation is not correct. Now Ryszard, let's go to the next step: when the opponent first asks you "was that explanation correct?" you will say "I don't have to answer that question". If he then asks what your partners next call meant, you suggest answering "actually, his previous explanation was wrong". So if he asks the question using one set of words, you don't answer, but if he asks it with another set of words, you answer truthfully? It's as if there would be a regulation that says that if you ask if a particular opponent holds the queen of diamonds, he must answer truthfully if you have worded the question in a specific way. THAT is the crux of the DWS. Herman. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:20 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools > > Well Richard, you want to answer truthfully. > So when partner bids something that you know to mean A, you say it means B. > Thereby also telling the opponents that you have had a bidding > misunderstanding. > > What do you do if they simply answer "was that explanation correct?" > Do you say "No, my stupid partner forgot our system once again"? Or do > you lie (as in fact L20F5 instructs you to do)? > > My point is that answering according to system is exactly the same as > saying "my stupid partner forgot our system". And therefore you should > be allowed to say something else. > > Herman. > > Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: >> Ok. My mistake. I misunderstood Herman. So now we are discussing >> possible change of the laws or more precisely a change of the >> interpretation of the laws. >> The dWB-interpretation allows us lie about our agreements for (what >> he >> considers) some higher cause (not giving partner a OI) . This is >> not a happy position for us straight guys. When asked a question we >> want to answer truthfully and we have problems with the rules which >> force us to do otherwise. And on more practical side, say I am >> asked by South about the meaning of partner's call (after partner's >> MI) and explain it as B because I know that B is what partner means >> by his call even if I perfectly well know that our agreement is A and not B. >> Now North looks at our CC and calls TD because CC says A and not B. >> And now what? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of Steve Willner >> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:06 PM >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools >> >> On 2013-04-27 5:10 PM, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: >>> We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the >>> laws should be. >> >> I thought everyone but you was discussing how the laws should be, not >> what they are now. As you say, there's little if any doubt about the >> current interpretation. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: >> 04/28/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: > 04/28/13 > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 29 18:28:44 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:28:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools In-Reply-To: <001e01ce44e3$b1d3dd40$157b97c0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <517A31F0.7040506@skynet.be> <004f01ce428b$5efed750$1cfc85f0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517BA697.4040809@skynet.be> <000f01ce4388$0395b840$0ac128c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517C3B66.5000708@nhcc.net> <001101ce438b$b4e1dfe0$1ea59fa0$@filosofi.uu.se> <517D8144.6050006@nhcc.net> <000301ce4454$77cfc5d0$676f5170$@filosofi.uu.se> <517E1F15.2010706@skynet.be> <000601ce44b8$e232bbd0$a6983370$@filosofi.uu.se> <517E5BFD.7080504@skynet.be> <001e01ce44e3$b1d3dd40$157b97c0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <517E9FBC.7040102@skynet.be> Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > 1.Contray to you I would call the TD. I don't like the illegal questions > checking if partner explanations are correct. Questions like that cast doubt > on our knowledge of our agreements and I find them almost intimidating. So I > call TD and if you think this is rude than ok I may say "I don't think you > are allowed this question but let us call TD to find out". I do it of course > also when my partner's explanations are completely OK. Fair enough. > 2. I don't see how the two questions you mention can be consider to be the > same question put in two different ways. A question about the agreements is > not a question whether partner is right or not. And while it is true that > often the opponent can infer from my truthful answer to a question about > our agreements that we have a misunderstanding the inference is his to > make. And it also not so that I answer the questions differently. My > behavior is different - I do not answer the first question. My point is not that the answers are different, my point is that they are the SAME. 4NT - ? - Blackwood - is that true? - no it's not 4NT - ? - Blackwood - 5Di - what is 5Di? - diamond preference different question, different answer, but exactly the same meaning. So if the first is wrong, why should the second be right? > 3.By now I realize that we are most probably not able to convince each > other , so I stop now. > OK. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 30 00:52:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:52:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9470F5@IMMIBELEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >>Only if you [Steve Willner] believe ease of application is more important >>than applying an underlying philosophy that seems to reflect what >>people believe the game should be like. >> >>Personally, I have never come across the difficulties you [Steve Willner] >>are throwing up here. The system a player thinks he's playing is usually >>a system that he, his partner, the opponents, and even the director know >>quite well. Richard Hills: >Indeed. > >Many years ago the Ali-Hills partnership attended an Aussie national >championship armed with Strong Pass methods instead of our usual >Strong Club methods. > >On one board as dealer I held a boring flat 6 hcp, so I routinely chose a >Pass. Hashmat's alert of my Pass gave me Law 75A UI. So for the rest >of the auction I selected my calls according to our inoperative Strong >Club methods, while alerting and explaining Hashmat's calls according >to our operative Strong Pass methods. David Stevenson (from his website): 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 [i.e., 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! UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130429/769f76c8/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 30 01:57:12 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:57:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F947204@IMMIBELEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ryszard Sliwinski: >>..... >>We are discussing the interpretation of existing laws not how the laws >>should be. >>..... Steve Willner: >I thought everyone but you was discussing how the laws should be, not >what they are now. As you say, there's little if any doubt about the >current interpretation. Richard Hills: There is little doubt that Steve Willner's and Jeff Rubens' "should be" preference differs from the powers-that-be "should be" preference, rendering this blml thread an exercise in futility. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008: ..... Among replies received there was a ++general consensus++ for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote [to the 1997 Law 75] into the body of the [2007 Law 75]. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130429/b822d9e7/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Apr 30 03:27:58 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:27:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F947204@IMMIBELEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F947204@IMMIBELEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <7E9E5997835F4DBFB7F28A35B0966CAF@G3> [Richard Hills] There is little doubt that Steve Willner?s and Jeff Rubens? ?should be? preference differs from the powers-that-be ?should be? preference, rendering this blml thread an exercise in futility. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008: ..... Among replies received there was a ++general consensus++ for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote [to the 1997 Law 75] into the body of the [2007 Law 75]. [Nigel] I agree with Steve and Paul. Laws 73, 75, ... don't mention "logical alternative" explicitly, whereas L16 does. How do you cope with a naive director or player, unschooled in BLML double-think, who interprets a logical alternative according to the clear and explicit 16B definition. As with other similar controversies, rule-makers could save endless confusion and discussion, by clarifying the law-book in place. This wouldn't be radical new law. It might just be correcting typos (although they should seriously consider the Rubens suggestion). The WBFLC could release a new minor edition, weekly, until most of the annoying anomalies were corrected. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 30 07:30:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F947441@IMMIBELEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Brian Meadows: >..... >As anyone who plays on BBO knows, there's a LOT of TFLB which >isn't applied to online bridge. Some offline players may stick their >noses in the air and say "Not proper bridge, then". That's up to them. >For those such as myself, for whom online bridge is the *only* >practical option, I'll be eternally grateful >..... >it's just a case of getting used to the accommodations that need to be >made to make a 10,000+ player game practical, given that the four >players at the table may not even have a common language, then you >might even find you like it. Richard "offline" Hills, with nose stuck in air: No and Yes. No, not proper bridge then for me (my Canberra location unfairly gives me a choice that Brian lacks). I very much like pre- and post-session constructive discussions with my regular partners establishing and refining our bidding and defensive methods. I also very much like the presence of a competent Director to ensure the consistent application of written rules during a session. In my opinion, unwritten rules which are applied in the absence of an umpire will necessarily be arbitrary. Yes, definitely proper bridge then for the 10,000+ players who enjoy playing cards over a pernickety insistence upon Laws and Proprieties. R. Buckminster Fuller, 1940 untitled poem: God, to me, it seems, is a verb not a noun, proper or improper. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130430/21005357/attachment.html