From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 1 07:19:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 05:19:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989B70@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. Declarer's RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. How should you 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/20130801/7cbbf836/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 1 09:23:32 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:23:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989B70@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989B70@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000a01ce8e88$07290bb0$157b2310$@online.no> Law 49 on the second lead from RHO. The prohibition against a heart lead from LHO still stands and the originally OLOOT is no longer a penalty card. If the second card exposed by RHO was another heart this remains a major penalty card also after LHO has made his opening lead in a different suit, otherwise declarer may execute law 50 on this second exposed card (in addition to the rectification already chosen for the OLOOT). I would seriously consider a PP on RHO for the second offence unless there are special circumstances excusing him. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 1. august 2013 07:20 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. How should you 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/20130801/19dc34f8/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Aug 1 10:14:21 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 18:14:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01ce8e88$07290bb0$157b2310$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989B70@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000a01ce8e88$07290bb0$157b2310$@online.no> Message-ID: <001501ce8e8f$23528080$69f78180$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 5:24 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Law 49 on the second lead from RHO. The prohibition against a heart lead from LHO still stands and the originally OLOOT is no longer a penalty card. If the second card exposed by RHO was another heart this remains a major penalty card also after LHO has made his opening lead in a different suit, otherwise declarer may execute law 50 on this second exposed card (in addition to the rectification already chosen for the OLOOT). I would seriously consider a PP on RHO for the second offence unless there are special circumstances excusing him. [tony] Eventually we hope to get to the stage that LHO is forbidden to lead every suit J Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 1. august 2013 07:20 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. How should you 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/20130801/c63ed36b/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 1 10:57:39 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:57:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501ce8e8f$23528080$69f78180$@optusnet.com.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989B70@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000a01ce8e88$07290bb0$157b2310$@online.no> <001501ce8e8f$23528080$69f78180$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <002301ce8e95$2d4e2390$87ea6ab0$@online.no> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Tony Musgrove Sendt: 1. august 2013 10:14 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013 5:24 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Law 49 on the second lead from RHO. The prohibition against a heart lead from LHO still stands and the originally OLOOT is no longer a penalty card. If the second card exposed by RHO was another heart this remains a major penalty card also after LHO has made his opening lead in a different suit, otherwise declarer may execute law 50 on this second exposed card (in addition to the rectification already chosen for the OLOOT). I would seriously consider a PP on RHO for the second offence unless there are special circumstances excusing him. [tony] Eventually we hope to get to the stage that LHO is forbidden to lead every suit J [Sven Pran] No problem. At that time a (just above the minimum) wise declarer will avoid the Law 59 situation by instead require lead in a specific suit at his choice Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 1. august 2013 07:20 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. How should you 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/20130801/67a6da9d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 2 05:45:07 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 03:45:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true story from >the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. > >Declarer's RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. After the >five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put her LHO on lead, but >prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO could comply, RHO chose a >second OLOOT of a diamond. > >How should you rule? "You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?" I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about Law 54A? "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer." After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming dummy. However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is "second OLOOT" a misnomer for a simple Penalty Card? What's the problem? 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/20130802/2fa1b26c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 2 09:43:55 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:43:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer to become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an opening lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card is show during the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty card options are still there. Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on the table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible to ask or refuse (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the penalty card already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been comprised in an ask of the socond one). But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than OLOOT, which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original refusal being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead). Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL >>The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true story from >>the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. >> >>Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. After the >>five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put her LHO on lead, but >>prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO could comply, RHO chose a >>second OLOOT of a diamond. >> >>How should you rule? > ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what > qualifies > you to write about the forging of rings?? > I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about Law 54A? > ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he > becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so > exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes > declarer.? > After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming dummy. > However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a > second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed option > to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a misnomer > for a simple Penalty Card? > What?s the problem? > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6543 - Release Date: 08/01/13 > From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 2 11:23:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:23:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> You must be confusing the laws? IF the "second OLOOT" should be treated under Law 54 (and I don't agree with you that it should), and presumed declarer decides to become dummy then he has accepted this OLOOT as the opening lead. And as the prohibition against leading a card in the suit of the first OLOOT only applied to the original LHO and only for as long as he maintained the lead, this prohibition is now void because another player has subsequently had (i.e. been given) the lead. This doesn't make sense to me, that is why I prefer to treat the "second OLOOT" under Law 49, maintaining the selected rectification for the original OLOOT and just adding further rectification for the second card exposed. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 2. august 2013 09:44 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer to > become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an opening > lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card is show during > the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty card > options are still there. > Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on the > table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible to ask or refuse > (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the penalty card > already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been comprised in > an ask of the socond one). > But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than OLOOT, > which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original refusal > being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead). > > > Richard HILLS schreef: > > UNOFFICIAL > >>The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true > >>story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. > >> > >>Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. > >>After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put > >>her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO > >>could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. > >> > >>How should you rule? > > ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what > > qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?? > > I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about Law 54A? > > ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; > > he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing > > so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy > > becomes declarer.? > > After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming dummy. > > However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a > > second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed > > option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a > > misnomer for a simple Penalty Card? > > What?s the problem? > > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6543 - Release Date: > > 08/01/13 > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 2 11:40:53 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:40:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> Message-ID: <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> You have a very strange way of thinking, Sven. I follow one line of reasoning, and the result is somewhat strange. You don't like that, and you conclude that you must then follow some other line which is equally strange. Why is an OLOOT not an OLOOT - just because in one of the options, there is a strange effect which we have never seen before, but which does not otherwise create any problems. LHO has a lead restriction against hearts, a restriction which will only be applied in some future trick. So what? Just because we've never seen this one before, does not mean that it is impossible to administer! Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > You must be confusing the laws? > IF the "second OLOOT" should be treated under Law 54 (and I don't agree with > you that it should), and presumed declarer decides to become dummy then he > > has accepted this OLOOT as the opening lead. > > And as the prohibition against leading a card in the suit of the first OLOOT > only applied to the original LHO and only for as long as he maintained the > > lead, this prohibition is now void because another player has subsequently > > had (i.e. been given) the lead. > > This doesn't make sense to me, that is why I prefer to treat the "second > OLOOT" under Law 49, maintaining the selected rectification for the original > OLOOT and just adding further rectification for the second card exposed. > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Herman De Wael >> Sendt: 2. august 2013 09:44 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer to >> become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an opening >> lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card is show > during >> the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty card >> options are still there. >> Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on the >> table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible to ask > > or refuse >> (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the > penalty card >> already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been > comprised in >> an ask of the socond one). >> But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than > OLOOT, >> which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original > refusal >> being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead). >> >> >> Richard HILLS schreef: >>> UNOFFICIAL >>>> The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true >>>> story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in > Adelaide. >>>> >>>> Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. >>>> After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put >>>> her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO >>>> could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. >>>> >>>> How should you rule? >>> ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what >>> qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?? >>> I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about Law > 54A? >>> ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; >>> he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing >>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy >>> becomes declarer.? >>> After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming dummy. >>> However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a >>> second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed >>> option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a > >>> misnomer for a simple Penalty Card? >>> What?s the problem? >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6543 - Release Date: >>> 08/01/13 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date: 08/01/13 > > > From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 2 12:25:08 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:25:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law 49. Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's partner has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty card(s) at this time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some future lead. (Except of course that a prohibition lasts so long as the offender's partner continuously maintains the lead.) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 2. august 2013 11:41 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > You have a very strange way of thinking, Sven. > I follow one line of reasoning, and the result is somewhat strange. You don't > like that, and you conclude that you must then follow some other line which is > equally strange. > > Why is an OLOOT not an OLOOT - just because in one of the options, there is a > strange effect which we have never seen before, but which does not otherwise > create any problems. LHO has a lead restriction against hearts, a restriction > which will only be applied in some future trick. > So what? > Just because we've never seen this one before, does not mean that it is > impossible to administer! > > Herman. > > Sven Pran schreef: > > You must be confusing the laws? > > IF the "second OLOOT" should be treated under Law 54 (and I don't > > agree with you that it should), and presumed declarer decides to > > become dummy then he > > > > has accepted this OLOOT as the opening lead. > > > > And as the prohibition against leading a card in the suit of the first > > OLOOT only applied to the original LHO and only for as long as he > > maintained the > > > > lead, this prohibition is now void because another player has > > subsequently > > > > had (i.e. been given) the lead. > > > > This doesn't make sense to me, that is why I prefer to treat the > > "second OLOOT" under Law 49, maintaining the selected rectification > > for the original OLOOT and just adding further rectification for the second > card exposed. > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Herman De Wael > >> Sendt: 2. august 2013 09:44 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >> I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer > >> to become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an > >> opening lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card > >> is show > > during > >> the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty > >> card options are still there. > >> Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on > >> the table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible > >> to ask > > > > or refuse > >> (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the > > penalty card > >> already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been > > comprised in > >> an ask of the socond one). > >> But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than > > OLOOT, > >> which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original > > refusal > >> being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead). > >> > >> > >> Richard HILLS schreef: > >>> UNOFFICIAL > >>>> The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true > >>>> story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in > > Adelaide. > >>>> > >>>> Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. > >>>> After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put > >>>> her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO > >>>> could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. > >>>> > >>>> How should you rule? > >>> ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what > >>> qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?? > >>> I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about > >>> Law > > 54A? > >>> ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his > >>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and > >>> in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire > >>> hand. Dummy becomes declarer.? > >>> After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming > dummy. > >>> However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a > >>> second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed > >>> option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a > > > >>> misnomer for a simple Penalty Card? > >>> What?s the problem? > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> - > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6543 - Release Date: > >>> 08/01/13 > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date: > > 08/01/13 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 2 14:04:53 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:04:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> Message-ID: <51FBA065.7050303@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another > opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second > OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law 49. > IMO, there is. When the first OLOOT is handled, and the heart is picked up, there are no cards on the table. Then the diamond appears, apparently intentionally. That is a lead, and since it is before any other card played, it is an OLOOT, IMO. After all, the "card appeared" can also happen in more regular circumstances. If a player drops a card after the third pass, that is a card exposed during the auction, not an OLOOT. The difference must be the intention. Since here, the intention is to lead, it has to be a OLOOT and not an exposed card. Herman. > Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's partner > has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty card(s) at this > time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some future lead. > (Except of course that a prohibition lasts so long as the offender's partner > continuously maintains the lead.) > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Herman De Wael >> Sendt: 2. august 2013 11:41 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> You have a very strange way of thinking, Sven. >> I follow one line of reasoning, and the result is somewhat strange. You > don't >> like that, and you conclude that you must then follow some other line > which is >> equally strange. >> >> Why is an OLOOT not an OLOOT - just because in one of the options, there > > is a >> strange effect which we have never seen before, but which does not > otherwise >> create any problems. LHO has a lead restriction against hearts, a > restriction >> which will only be applied in some future trick. >> So what? >> Just because we've never seen this one before, does not mean that it is >> impossible to administer! >> >> Herman. >> >> Sven Pran schreef: >>> You must be confusing the laws? >>> IF the "second OLOOT" should be treated under Law 54 (and I don't >>> agree with you that it should), and presumed declarer decides to >>> become dummy then he >>> >>> has accepted this OLOOT as the opening lead. >>> >>> And as the prohibition against leading a card in the suit of the first > >>> OLOOT only applied to the original LHO and only for as long as he >>> maintained the >>> >>> lead, this prohibition is now void because another player has >>> subsequently >>> >>> had (i.e. been given) the lead. >>> >>> This doesn't make sense to me, that is why I prefer to treat the >>> "second OLOOT" under Law 49, maintaining the selected rectification >>> for the original OLOOT and just adding further rectification for the > second >> card exposed. >>> >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av Herman De Wael >>>> Sendt: 2. august 2013 09:44 >>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> >>>> I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer >>>> to become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an > >>>> opening lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card >>>> is show >>> during >>>> the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty > >>>> card options are still there. >>>> Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on >>>> the table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible > >>>> to ask >>> >>> or refuse >>>> (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the >>> penalty card >>>> already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been >>> comprised in >>>> an ask of the socond one). >>>> But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than >>> OLOOT, >>>> which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original >>> refusal >>>> being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead). > >>>> >>>> >>>> Richard HILLS schreef: >>>>> UNOFFICIAL >>>>>> The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true >>>>>> story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in >>> Adelaide. >>>>>> >>>>>> Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. >>>>>> After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put > >>>>>> her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO >>>>>> could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. >>>>>> >>>>>> How should you rule? >>>>> ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what >>>>> qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?? >>>>> I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about >>>>> Law >>> 54A? >>>>> ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his >>>>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and >>>>> in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire >>>>> hand. Dummy becomes declarer.? >>>>> After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming >> dummy. >>>>> However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a > >>>>> second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed >>>>> option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a >>> >>>>> misnomer for a simple Penalty Card? >>>>> What?s the problem? >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6543 - Release Date: >>>>> 08/01/13 >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date: >>> 08/01/13 >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date: 08/01/13 > > > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Aug 2 14:54:31 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51FBA065.7050303@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> <51FBA065.7050303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <51FBAC07.5090500@aol.com> This dialogue is most interesting and I'd be interested to learn the opinions of a few other blmlers who have, until now, been uncharacteristically reticent. Both of their positions seem reasonable to me but that doesn't solve the problem. And my congratulations concerning the tone of the discussion. (I have memories of discussions many years ago. All postings polite, friendly, well-argued. A good case. How about a few comments from those of you who make the rules? Ciao, JE Am 02.08.2013 14:04, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Sven Pran schreef: >> IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another >> opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second >> OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law 49. >> > IMO, there is. > When the first OLOOT is handled, and the heart is picked up, there are > no cards on the table. Then the diamond appears, apparently intentionally. > That is a lead, and since it is before any other card played, it is an > OLOOT, IMO. > > After all, the "card appeared" can also happen in more regular > circumstances. If a player drops a card after the third pass, that is a > card exposed during the auction, not an OLOOT. The difference must be > the intention. Since here, the intention is to lead, it has to be a > OLOOT and not an exposed card. > > Herman. > >> Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's partner >> has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty card(s) at this >> time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some future lead. >> (Except of course that a prohibition lasts so long as the offender's partner >> continuously maintains the lead.) >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Herman De Wael >>> Sendt: 2. august 2013 11:41 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> You have a very strange way of thinking, Sven. >>> I follow one line of reasoning, and the result is somewhat strange. You >> don't >>> like that, and you conclude that you must then follow some other line >> which is >>> equally strange. >>> >>> Why is an OLOOT not an OLOOT - just because in one of the options, there >> is a >>> strange effect which we have never seen before, but which does not >> otherwise >>> create any problems. LHO has a lead restriction against hearts, a >> restriction >>> which will only be applied in some future trick. >>> So what? >>> Just because we've never seen this one before, does not mean that it is >>> impossible to administer! >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> Sven Pran schreef: >>>> You must be confusing the laws? >>>> IF the "second OLOOT" should be treated under Law 54 (and I don't >>>> agree with you that it should), and presumed declarer decides to >>>> become dummy then he >>>> >>>> has accepted this OLOOT as the opening lead. >>>> >>>> And as the prohibition against leading a card in the suit of the first >>>> OLOOT only applied to the original LHO and only for as long as he >>>> maintained the >>>> >>>> lead, this prohibition is now void because another player has >>>> subsequently >>>> >>>> had (i.e. been given) the lead. >>>> >>>> This doesn't make sense to me, that is why I prefer to treat the >>>> "second OLOOT" under Law 49, maintaining the selected rectification >>>> for the original OLOOT and just adding further rectification for the >> second >>> card exposed. >>>> >>>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>>> av Herman De Wael >>>>> Sendt: 2. august 2013 09:44 >>>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>>> >>>>> I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer >>>>> to become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an >>>>> opening lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card >>>>> is show >>>> during >>>>> the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty >>>>> card options are still there. >>>>> Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on >>>>> the table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible >>>>> to ask >>>> or refuse >>>>> (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the >>>> penalty card >>>>> already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been >>>> comprised in >>>>> an ask of the socond one). >>>>> But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than >>>> OLOOT, >>>>> which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original >>>> refusal >>>>> being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead). >>>>> >>>>> Richard HILLS schreef: >>>>>> UNOFFICIAL >>>>>>> The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true >>>>>>> story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in >>>> Adelaide. >>>>>>> Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. >>>>>>> After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put >>>>>>> her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO >>>>>>> could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How should you rule? >>>>>> ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what >>>>>> qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?? >>>>>> I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about >>>>>> Law >>>> 54A? >>>>>> ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his >>>>>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and >>>>>> in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire >>>>>> hand. Dummy becomes declarer.? >>>>>> After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming >>> dummy. >>>>>> However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a >>>>>> second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed >>>>>> option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a >>>>>> misnomer for a simple Penalty Card? >>>>>> What?s the problem? >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6543 - Release Date: >>>>>> 08/01/13 >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date: >>>> 08/01/13 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date: 08/01/13 >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 16:39:58 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:39:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be><001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no><51FBA065.7050303@skynet.be> <51FBAC07.5090500@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be><001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no><51FBA065.7050303@skynet.be> <51FBAC07.5090500@aol.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Easterson" Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 07:54 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > This dialogue is most interesting and I'd be interested to learn the > opinions of a few other blmlers who have, until now, been > uncharacteristically reticent. > Both of their positions seem reasonable to me but that doesn't solve the > problem. And my congratulations concerning the tone of the discussion. > (I have memories of discussions many years ago. All postings polite, > friendly, well-argued. A good case. How about a few comments from > those of you who make the rules? > > Ciao, JE Speaking in terms of what ought to be even if it happens to be the way it is: Consider when the contract is in the south at the end of the auction. East exposes a card. This card is a lead, albeit the OL that is OOT, then: [a] east now exposes a second card. This is not a lead. Or instead [b] South penalizes by creating a PC. Now east exposes a second card. This card is a lead, albeit the OL that is OOT**. ** notably, condoning such second infraction may prove beneficial to south?s score- and to a bridge player there is a fuzzy feeling from an unscrupulous opponent that hoists himself upon his own petard It thus can be seen that a board can have several OLs, at any particular time one belongs to the first trick?. and the others do not. regards roger pewick > Am 02.08.2013 14:04, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Sven Pran schreef: >>> IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another >>> opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second >>> OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law >>> 49. >>> >> IMO, there is. >> When the first OLOOT is handled, and the heart is picked up, there are >> no cards on the table. Then the diamond appears, apparently >> intentionally. >> That is a lead, and since it is before any other card played, it is an >> OLOOT, IMO. >> >> After all, the "card appeared" can also happen in more regular >> circumstances. If a player drops a card after the third pass, that is a >> card exposed during the auction, not an OLOOT. The difference must be >> the intention. Since here, the intention is to lead, it has to be a >> OLOOT and not an exposed card. >> >> Herman. >> >>> Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's >>> partner >>> has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty card(s) at >>> this >>> time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some future lead. >>> (Except of course that a prohibition lasts so long as the offender's >>> partner >>> continuously maintains the lead.) >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>>> Herman De Wael >>>> Sendt: 2. august 2013 11:41 >>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> >>>> You have a very strange way of thinking, Sven. >>>> I follow one line of reasoning, and the result is somewhat strange. You >>> don't >>>> like that, and you conclude that you must then follow some other line >>> which is >>>> equally strange. >>>> >>>> Why is an OLOOT not an OLOOT - just because in one of the options, >>>> there >>> is a >>>> strange effect which we have never seen before, but which does not >>> otherwise >>>> create any problems. LHO has a lead restriction against hearts, a >>> restriction >>>> which will only be applied in some future trick. >>>> So what? >>>> Just because we've never seen this one before, does not mean that it is >>>> impossible to administer! >>>> >>>> Herman. >>>> >>>> Sven Pran schreef: >>>>> You must be confusing the laws? >>>>> IF the "second OLOOT" should be treated under Law 54 (and I don't >>>>> agree with you that it should), and presumed declarer decides to >>>>> become dummy then he >>>>> >>>>> has accepted this OLOOT as the opening lead. >>>>> >>>>> And as the prohibition against leading a card in the suit of the first >>>>> OLOOT only applied to the original LHO and only for as long as he >>>>> maintained the >>>>> >>>>> lead, this prohibition is now void because another player has >>>>> subsequently >>>>> >>>>> had (i.e. been given) the lead. >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't make sense to me, that is why I prefer to treat the >>>>> "second OLOOT" under Law 49, maintaining the selected rectification >>>>> for the original OLOOT and just adding further rectification for the >>> second >>>> card exposed. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>>>> av Herman De Wael >>>>>> Sendt: 2. august 2013 09:44 >>>>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer >>>>>> to become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an >>>>>> opening lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card >>>>>> is show >>>>> during >>>>>> the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty >>>>>> card options are still there. >>>>>> Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on >>>>>> the table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible >>>>>> to ask >>>>> or refuse >>>>>> (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the >>>>> penalty card >>>>>> already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been >>>>> comprised in >>>>>> an ask of the socond one). >>>>>> But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than >>>>> OLOOT, >>>>>> which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original >>>>> refusal >>>>>> being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead). >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard HILLS schreef: >>>>>>> UNOFFICIAL >>>>>>>> The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true >>>>>>>> story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in >>>>> Adelaide. >>>>>>>> Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. >>>>>>>> After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put >>>>>>>> her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO >>>>>>>> could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How should you rule? >>>>>>> ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what >>>>>>> qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?? >>>>>>> I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about >>>>>>> Law >>>>> 54A? >>>>>>> ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his >>>>>>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and >>>>>>> in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire >>>>>>> hand. Dummy becomes declarer.? >>>>>>> After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming >>>> dummy. >>>>>>> However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a >>>>>>> second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed >>>>>>> option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a >>>>>>> misnomer for a simple Penalty Card? >>>>>>> What?s the problem? >>>>>>> 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 > From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 3 04:37:10 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:37:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> Message-ID: <51FC6CD6.6000608@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-02 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another > opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second > OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law 49. I don't think the Laws are clear on this point. I hate it that intent matters, but it does seem that the first card played to a trick is a lead. In general, isn't declarer allowed to accept any LOOT by a defender? Why should East's play be different? If dummy hasn't come down, I don't see any reason not to give declarer all the options. But once again, I don't see anything specific in the Laws either way. > Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's partner > has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty card(s) at this > time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some future lead. If East's play is ruled an opening lead OOT, and declarer accepts it, it seems to me West has "lost the lead" for purposes of L50D2a. From bridge at vwalther.de Sat Aug 3 11:38:10 2013 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:38:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51FCCF82.9090208@vwalther.de> I think we should have a look at the definitions first: "Opening Lead ? the card led to the first trick." If the heart lead is refused by declarer, (54D) we do not have any lead for the first trick. Any lead which is made now, is an opening lead by definition. So we are back in 54 again, with all its options. Just my 2c. Greetings, Volker Am 02.08.2013 05:45, schrieb Richard HILLS: > UNOFFICIAL > >>The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true story from >>the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in Adelaide. >> >>Declarer?s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart. After the >>five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put her LHO on lead, but >>prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO could comply, RHO chose a >>second OLOOT of a diamond. >> >>How should you rule? > > ?You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what > qualifies > you to write about the forging of rings?? > > I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about Law 54A? > > ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he > becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so > exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes > declarer.? > > After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming dummy. > > However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a > second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed option > to change her mind and become dummy? Or is ?second OLOOT? a misnomer > for a simple Penalty Card? > > What?s the problem? > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 4 17:25:02 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 17:25:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51FC6CD6.6000608@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> <51FC6CD6.6000608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002c01ce9126$cab5cd20$60216760$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2013-08-02 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another > > opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second > > OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law 49. > > I don't think the Laws are clear on this point. I hate it that intent matters, but > it does seem that the first card played to a trick is a lead. [Sven Pran] The first card led to a trick is indeed (always) a lead. The first card led to the very first trick is the opening lead if it made by a defender. (If it is made by presumed declarer or dummy it is a card exposed during the auction and if it is made by presumed declarer's RHO it is an opening lead out of turn.) > > In general, isn't declarer allowed to accept any LOOT by a defender? > Why should East's play be different? If dummy hasn't come down, I don't see > any reason not to give declarer all the options. [Sven Pran] Presumed declarer has more options on an OLOOT than he has on an ordinary lead by the wrong defender. Once he has executed his selected option after an OLOOT (by his RHO) he is no longer presumed declarer, he is the declarer. As declarer he may not choose to have his partner become the declarer in case of a second lead out of turn. > > But once again, I don't see anything specific in the Laws either way. > > > Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's > > partner has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty > > card(s) at this time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some future > lead. > > If East's play is ruled an opening lead OOT, and declarer accepts it, it seems to > me West has "lost the lead" for purposes of L50D2a. [Sven Pran] Correct. And if declarer does not accept it he (irrevocably) has the opening lead subject to the rectification selected by (now) declarer (no longer presumed declarer). From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 5 09:29:56 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 09:29:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01ce9126$cab5cd20$60216760$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F989DA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51FB633B.8060007@skynet.be> <001901ce8f61$f7e39550$e7aabff0$@online.no> <51FB7EA5.6020807@skynet.be> <001c01ce8f6a$905b4910$b111db30$@online.no> <51FC6CD6.6000608@nhcc.net> <002c01ce9126$cab5cd20$60216760$@online.no> Message-ID: <51FF5474.1030304@skynet.be> A reasonably good analysis, Sven, but for one thing. The only thing we need to rule upon is whether or not presumed declarer may become dummy. All the other options (the three of the penalty card and the one of accepting the lead) are available on the lead anyway. Now why do we give the declarer the opportunity of becoming dummy? Because we don't want to punish someone who performs an irregularity after (and depending upon) an irregularity by an opponent. If we did not have this rule, then we might have the following scenario: North is (presumed) declarer but West makes an opening lead. North puts down his cards. East calls the director, and wants North to play the contract. Now the real dummy is faced and EW are playing double dummy. We don't want to give EW this advantage, so we write a rule that says that if North tables, South will become dummy. Now imagine that we don't also give North the chance to do this deliberately after the TD is called. Then a quick North can put down his dummy while a slow one cannot. Another thing we don't want. So we have the TD give North the option of tabling. Now imagine that the rules on a second lead are as Sven describes. Then a quick North, one who knows he usually has this option, can table on the diamond lead, while a slow one, who asks the TD (Sven) if he is allowed to table, won't be able to so the same. So I prefer to give him this option as well. Which concluded in the strange case of a lead penalty having to be enforced on a subsequent lead not right away. Which lead you, Sven, to say that since this is an undesirable consequence, my original ruling ought to be wrong. But as Steve has pointed out, perhaps this late lead penalty is not correct after all: West, who was proibited a heart lead at trick one, now has not actually led to trick one, so his lead penalty cannot be available at trick three. So I really think we should allow (presumed) declarer to become dummy also on the second (diamond) opening lead out of turn. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > Steve Willner >> On 2013-08-02 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another >>> opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second >>> OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law > 49. >> >> I don't think the Laws are clear on this point. I hate it that intent > matters, but >> it does seem that the first card played to a trick is a lead. > [Sven Pran] > The first card led to a trick is indeed (always) a lead. > The first card led to the very first trick is the opening lead if it made by > a defender. > (If it is made by presumed declarer or dummy it is a card exposed during the > auction and if it is made by presumed declarer's RHO it is an opening lead > out of turn.) >> >> In general, isn't declarer allowed to accept any LOOT by a defender? >> Why should East's play be different? If dummy hasn't come down, I don't > see >> any reason not to give declarer all the options. > [Sven Pran] > Presumed declarer has more options on an OLOOT than he has on an ordinary > lead by the wrong defender. Once he has executed his selected option after > an OLOOT (by his RHO) he is no longer presumed declarer, he is the declarer. > As declarer he may not choose to have his partner become the declarer in > case of a second lead out of turn. >> >> But once again, I don't see anything specific in the Laws either way. >> >>> Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's >>> partner has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty >>> card(s) at this time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some > future >> lead. >> >> If East's play is ruled an opening lead OOT, and declarer accepts it, it > seems to >> me West has "lost the lead" for purposes of L50D2a. > [Sven Pran] > Correct. > And if declarer does not accept it he (irrevocably) has the opening lead > subject to the rectification selected by (now) declarer (no longer presumed > declarer). > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6551 - Release Date: 08/04/13 > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 10 01:35:08 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:35:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can Message-ID: 1. Defender led out of turn. The irregularity is noticed by the dummy. Not covered by the laws? L84B, I guess I just do what I think is best. One blmler argued that I just ignore the fact that dummy pointed out the irregularity because declarer would have noticed. Here, it seemed plausible that the 90-year-old declarer might not have noticed. Surely there should sometimes be a penalty for dummy noticing the irregularity, or else the laws would say there isn't. I am sympathetic to the difficult of handling this situation in the laws and the advantages of letting the director do whatever he thinks is best. 2. 1D P 2D P P X 2D was described as a limit raise in diamonds. In fact, it was forcing to game. East West end up in 3NT making 4. I asked South if she would have done anything different, and in a shot she said she would not have balanced if she had been given the correct explanation. But, if she had been given the correct explanation *only*, she would have concluded that the opening bidder psyched. Her balance was aggressive (foolish?) anyway, so we would expect her to also balance over a psyche. So the question is if I rule as if the defender heard *just* the correct explanation, or both? I know many blmlers have argued strongly that I rectify for just the correct explanation. Which means there is no penalty for violating L20F4. Or maybe this is just another L84B do what I want. My memory is that the minutes don't answer this. (They are organized by year, of course, hence not intended as a resource for directors trying to make a ruling.) 3. 2D 3C 3D P ? KT98 KQJT9 A5 92 The player has unauthorized source of information that his partner thinks 2D was a weak two in diamonds. He meant it as Flannery. To determine the LA's, I ask people what they would bid "using the methods of the partnership." Which apparently was weak two's. I think if you are playing weak two's, forget and open this Flannery, you are likely to take a 3H call. But of course no one actually rules that way. Reality is that the players are uncertain what they are playing. They don't play together often. It's a lot easier for 3D to be a wake-up call when you are uncertain what you are playing. So he could say to himself, "She seems to be taking my bid as a weak two." I guess it is good that the rules are just wrong on this so I can put in something plausible instead? I think that Richard and the EBU say there is no agreement. So to determine LA's, I ask what you bid if you had no agreement about the meaning of 2D. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Aug 10 07:16:16 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 01:16:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > 3. 2D 3C 3D P > ? > > KT98 > KQJT9 > A5 > 92 > > The player has unauthorized source of information that his partner thinks > 2D was a weak two in diamonds. He meant it as Flannery. To determine the > LA's, I ask people what they would bid "using the methods of the > partnership." Which apparently was weak two's. I think if you are playing > weak two's, forget and open this Flannery, you are likely to take a 3H > call. But of course no one actually rules that way. > > Reality is that the players are uncertain what they are playing. They > don't play together often. It's a lot easier for 3D to be a wake-up call > when you are uncertain what you are playing. So he could say to himself, > "She seems to be taking my bid as a weak two." > > I guess it is good that the rules are just wrong on this so I can put in > something plausible instead? > > I think that Richard and the EBU say there is no agreement. So to > determine LA's, I ask what you bid if you had no agreement about the > meaning of 2D. The nature of the agreement is only important for MI, not for UI. Regardless of whether you agreed to play 2D as Flannery or a weak two in diamonds, you have the same UI that you intended the bid as Flannery and partner (who failed to alert or gave a different explanation) thinks it is a weak two. I don't know what the usual Flannery agreement is on the meaning of this 3D bid. Without the interference, 3D asks for a stopper. With the interference, responder would presumably bid 3NT with a club stopper and not worry about the diamonds, so I would assume that 3D is natural with six diamonds. Given your doubleton diamond and lack of a club stopper, passing 3D is an LA despite the quality of the hearts, and even sitting for 3D if the opponents double it is an LA. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Aug 10 10:04:06 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:04:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Am 10.08.2013, 01:35 Uhr, schrieb Robert Frick : > 1. Defender led out of turn. The irregularity is noticed by the dummy. > > Not covered by the laws? L84B, I guess I just do what I think is best. > > One blmler argued that I just ignore the fact that dummy pointed out the > irregularity because declarer would have noticed. Here, it seemed > plausible that the 90-year-old declarer might not have noticed. Surely > there should sometimes be a penalty for dummy noticing the irregularity, > or else the laws would say there isn't. > 43A1b "Dummy may not call atention to an irregularity." Preface "may not" is stronger than "shall not" so an infraction will incur a PP most of the time. Therefore, give a PP to the declaring side. OTOH, 81C3 - rectify an irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner 81B2 - the Director is bound by these Laws Therefore, apply 54 to the LOOT. And, as there is no indemnity provided for a violation of 43A1b, you can apply 12A1 if you find defenders are damaged by dummy's infraction; BUT I cannot see any damage as defined by 12B1. > > 2. > 1D P 2D P > P X > > 2D was described as a limit raise in diamonds. In fact, it was forcing to > game. East West end up in 3NT making 4. I asked South if she would have > done anything different, and in a shot she said she would not have > balanced if she had been given the correct explanation. > > But, if she had been given the correct explanation *only*, she would have > concluded that the opening bidder psyched. Her balance was aggressive > (foolish?) anyway, so we would expect her to also balance over a psyche. > > So the question is if I rule as if the defender heard *just* the correct > explanation, or both? > > I know many blmlers have argued strongly that I rectify for just the > correct explanation. Which means there is no penalty for violating L20F4. > She might also have concluded that her opponent has forgotten her system. Rule as if the player had available to her a perfectly filled in convention card plus system notes. And I don't see what 20F4 has got to do with it, and why you want to apply a penalty (as opposed to a rectification). > Or maybe this is just another L84B do what I want. My memory is that the > minutes don't answer this. (They are organized by year, of course, hence > not intended as a resource for directors trying to make a ruling.) "that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information." (Sao Paulo 2009 2nd meeting item 12b) > > > > > > > 3. 2D 3C 3D P > ? > > KT98 > KQJT9 > A5 > 92 > > The player has unauthorized source of information that his partner thinks > 2D was a weak two in diamonds. He meant it as Flannery. To determine the > LA's, I ask people what they would bid "using the methods of the > partnership." Which apparently was weak two's. I think if you are playing > weak two's, forget and open this Flannery, you are likely to take a 3H > call. But of course no one actually rules that way. > > Reality is that the players are uncertain what they are playing. They > don't play together often. It's a lot easier for 3D to be a wake-up call > when you are uncertain what you are playing. So he could say to himself, > "She seems to be taking my bid as a weak two." > > I guess it is good that the rules are just wrong on this so I can put in > something plausible instead? > > I think that Richard and the EBU say there is no agreement. So to > determine LA's, I ask what you bid if you had no agreement about the > meaning of 2D. I concur with David Grabiner's post. Regards, Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Aug 10 10:25:43 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:25:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? Message-ID: AQx xxx QJTxx Kx Jxx x Kxxx AQxx xx Axx QJTx xxxxx KTxxxx xx Kxx Ax Pairs; North is an experienced TD and South his client; E-W are junior internationals. South is in 4 Spades. Lead CQ taken in hand, 3 rounds of trumps finishing in the hand. On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having none?" (which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says something to the effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." East wins the ace, and now dummy says, "There was a revoke after all, we should call the TD." The TD explains the revoke law, and on dummy's request ("my partner is inexperienced") explains to declarer the consequences of a penalty card. Declarer now requires a club lead and pitches Hxx on the diamonds, making 12. East complains that, had he known the consequences of a penalty card, he would have ducked DA twice, removing the penalty card and being able to cash the heart tricks. As DA had been played before the TD was summoned, we let the table result stand, pointing out that - both sides have violated 9B1a - declarer may not waive a penalty (10A) - 11A does not apply as the irregularity to be rectified was the un-established revoke, with the penalty card only being a consequence of the rectification of the irregularity This last point was discussed at length between the TDs and by the appeals committee, and I would be interested in your opinioins. IF you decide to apply 11A, what would your ruling be? I told the AC they could not split the score, or can they? Regards, Petrus From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 10 16:40:55 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:40:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sendt: 10. august 2013 10:26 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] a case for Law 11? > > AQx > xxx > QJTxx > Kx > > Jxx x > Kxxx AQxx > xx Axx > QJTx xxxxx > > KTxxxx > xx > Kxx > Ax > > > Pairs; North is an experienced TD and South his client; E-W are junior > internationals. > South is in 4 Spades. > > Lead CQ taken in hand, 3 rounds of trumps finishing in the hand. > > On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having none?" > (which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says something to the > effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." East wins the ace, and now dummy > says, "There was a revoke after all, we should call the TD." [Sven Pran] Dummy may not draw attention to any regularity at this time, nor call the director unless another player has drawn attention to the irregularity. So IMHO Dummy has violated Laws 42B3, 43A1{a} and 43A1{b} > > The TD explains the revoke law, and on dummy's request ("my partner is > inexperienced") explains to declarer the consequences of a penalty card. > Declarer now requires a club lead and pitches Hxx on the diamonds, making 12. > > East complains that, had he known the consequences of a penalty card, he > would have ducked DA twice, removing the penalty card and being able to cash > the heart tricks. > > As DA had been played before the TD was summoned, we let the table result > stand, pointing out that > - both sides have violated 9B1a [Sven Pran] Neither side has violated Law 9B1{a}, this law cannot apply before attention is DRAWN to an irregularity > - declarer may not waive a penalty (10A) > - 11A does not apply as the irregularity to be rectified was the un-established > revoke, with the penalty card only being a consequence of the rectification of > the irregularity > > This last point was discussed at length between the TDs and by the appeals > committee, and I would be interested in your opinioins. IF you decide to apply > 11A, what would your ruling be? I told the AC they could not split the score, or > can they? [Sven Pran] Law 11A says: The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. The irregularity was the (unestablished) revoke. Non-offending side took some action before summoning the Director and subsequent actions by offending side was taken in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. These relevant provisions include the establishment of a major penalty card and the consequences of this penalty card on subsequent plays. I may rule that West indeed has a penalty card, but that East then must be heard on his assertion that he would have ducked DA twice so that no lead restrictions could be imposed on him when he eventually won his trick with the DA. Or I may rule that because of the failure (legally) to draw attention to the revoke and call the Director no penalty card has been established. In either case the consequence will be that the table result is corrected to 4S making 10. The AC may indeed assign split scores if they find this justified (i.e. making 10 effective for NS and making 12 effective for EW), but I don't think that this is the case here. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 10 19:22:07 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:22:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <520676BF.4010608@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-09 7:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 1. Defender led out of turn. The irregularity is noticed by the dummy. > Not covered by the laws? When you write "noticed," do you really mean "called attention to?" There is no penalty for dummy noticing, but dummy may not call attention to the irregularity until play is over. Assuming you really did mean "call attention to," why doesn't L43A1b apply? The Law says "may not," so a PP is normal. There is no prescribed rectification, so you go to 12A1. (I'm assuming 43B3 doesn't apply.) What am I missing? > One blmler argued that I just ignore the fact that dummy pointed out the > irregularity because declarer would have noticed. That's a possible outcome once you get to L12C1; you need to decide on "likely" and "at all probable" as usual. (Outside the ACBL, you could assign probabilities.) > 2. 1D P 2D P > P X > > 2D was described as a limit raise in diamonds. In fact, it was forcing to > game. East West end up in 3NT making 4. I asked South if she would have > done anything different, and in a shot she said she would not have > balanced if she had been given the correct explanation. > > But, if she had been given the correct explanation *only*, she would have > concluded that the opening bidder psyched. I take it "East West" are the diamond bidders, and "South" is the doubler. If you are sure passing as an alternative to reopening was not even "at all probable," then fine. You should also look at whether UI affected E-W's auction. (Responder knows that opener has misunderstood the 2D bid rather than psyched the opening, for example, or made some other error.) > So the question is if I rule as if the defender heard *just* the correct > explanation, or both? > > I know many blmlers have argued strongly that I rectify for just the > correct explanation. I'm sure that's correct, at least as far as the MI goes. If there are other infractions, you examine them, too. > Which means there is no penalty for violating L20F4. There's no penalty (except in a repeated or egregious case), but there may be a rectification for damage. Here you have asserted that there was no damage, so no rectification is required. (Your conclusion of no damage seems unlikely to me, but you were there and I wasn't.) In a different case, there might be damage. > 3. 2D 3C 3D P > ? > > KT98 > KQJT9 > A5 > 92 > > The player has unauthorized source of information that his partner thinks > 2D was a weak two in diamonds. He meant it as Flannery. To determine the > LA's, I ask people what they would bid "using the methods of the > partnership." Which apparently was weak two's. As I've written before, the rules are a muddle in this situation. Basically you have to invent a fantasy bidding system for the players, presumably based on whatever is common in your area. (The Rubens School solves this problem, but nobody in authority takes it seriously.) > I think if you are playing > weak two's, forget and open this Flannery, you are likely to take a 3H > call. That's the only LA I see, though I'd want to consult. 4D is conceivable, but I don't think it's really a LA. I don't consider pass because I think 3D has to be forcing, but I notice David G. considers it NF. I've never played Flannery, so maybe Dave is right, but NF doesn't look playable to me. I'd look to consult players who do use Flannery. > But of course no one actually rules that way. I'd expect everyone to rule that way if they judge the LAs as I do, though as I've indicated, they might not. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 10 19:38:48 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:38:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> Message-ID: <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> The original event took place in Austria, and it's legal for defenders to ask each other about revokes there? (I'm keeping a mental list.) On 2013-08-10 10:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Dummy may not draw attention to any regularity at this time, nor call the > director unless another player has drawn attention to the irregularity. > So IMHO Dummy has violated Laws 42B3, 43A1{a} and 43A1{b} I think you could argue that attention has been drawn to the revoke, so it would be OK, indeed his duty, for dummy to call the TD right away. Waiting until two more cards have been played makes this argument pretty dubious. > The irregularity was the (unestablished) revoke. Non-offending side took > some action before summoning the Director and subsequent actions by > offending side was taken in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the > law. As Sven wrote, these look like the exact conditions for L11A. > I may rule that West indeed has a penalty card, but that East then must be > heard on his assertion that he would have ducked DA twice so that no lead > restrictions could be imposed on him when he eventually won his trick with > the DA. This looks right to me. > Or I may rule that because of the failure (legally) to draw attention to the > revoke and call the Director no penalty card has been established. If no attention has been drawn, dummy's call for the TD was improper, and we're back to L12A1. > In either case the consequence will be that the table result is corrected to > 4S making 10. Also looks right to me. > The AC may indeed assign split scores if they find this justified (i.e. > making 10 effective for NS and making 12 effective for EW), but I don't > think that this is the case here. I don't understand what the basis for a split score would be. If there's doubt about what might have happened absent the irregularity -- doubt I don't see here -- you could give a weighted score. Or is that not possible in Austria? From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 10 19:50:45 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:50:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> Steve Willner > > The original event took place in Austria, and it's legal for defenders to ask each > other about revokes there? (I'm keeping a mental list.) > > On 2013-08-10 10:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Dummy may not draw attention to any regularity at this time, nor call > > the director unless another player has drawn attention to the irregularity. > > So IMHO Dummy has violated Laws 42B3, 43A1{a} and 43A1{b} > > I think you could argue that attention has been drawn to the revoke, so it would > be OK, indeed his duty, for dummy to call the TD right away. [Sven Pran] Who has drawn attention to the revoke, and how? Nobody as far as I understand OP > Waiting until two more cards have been played makes this argument pretty > dubious. [Sven Pran] That automatically invokes Laws 9B2 and 11 > > > The irregularity was the (unestablished) revoke. Non-offending side > > took some action before summoning the Director and subsequent actions > > by offending side was taken in ignorance of the relevant provisions > > of the law. > > As Sven wrote, these look like the exact conditions for L11A. > > > I may rule that West indeed has a penalty card, but that East then > > must be heard on his assertion that he would have ducked DA twice so > > that no lead restrictions could be imposed on him when he eventually > > won his trick with the DA. > > This looks right to me. > > > Or I may rule that because of the failure (legally) to draw attention > > to the revoke and call the Director no penalty card has been established. > > If no attention has been drawn, dummy's call for the TD was improper, and > we're back to L12A1. > > > In either case the consequence will be that the table result is > > corrected to 4S making 10. > > Also looks right to me. > > > The AC may indeed assign split scores if they find this justified (i.e. > > making 10 effective for NS and making 12 effective for EW), but I > > don't think that this is the case here. > > I don't understand what the basis for a split score would be. [Sven Pran] The base would be if both sides were considered at fault, but as i wrote: I don't think that is the case here. > If there's doubt > about what might have happened absent the irregularity -- doubt I don't see > here -- you could give a weighted score. Or is that not possible in Austria? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 10 20:19:23 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:19:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> Message-ID: <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-10 1:50 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Who has drawn attention to the revoke, and how? The original text was: > On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having > none?" (which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says > something to the effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." This is at least close enough to drawing attention that I'd rule that way if dummy had called the TD at that instant. All players were obviously aware that an irregularity had taken place. That's enough for me. Does anything think dummy should get a PP for calling the TD right away in the circumstances described? SW> I don't understand what the basis for a split score would be. > The base would be if both sides were considered at fault, Can you give split scores even then if weighted scores are possible? Not a bad idea if legal. To make sure I understand... the idea is that the revoke is one infraction, and the improper TD call is another, and you might rectify separately for those infractions with different weights? If so, the principle does make sense. Thanks. (We agree it isn't needed here.) From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Aug 10 20:32:00 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:32:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> Message-ID: Am 10.08.2013, 16:40 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran : >> Petrus Schuster OSB >> Sendt: 10. august 2013 10:26 >> Til: blml at rtflb.org >> Emne: [BLML] a case for Law 11? >> >> AQx >> xxx >> QJTxx >> Kx >> >> Jxx x >> Kxxx AQxx >> xx Axx >> QJTx xxxxx >> >> KTxxxx >> xx >> Kxx >> Ax >> >> >> Pairs; North is an experienced TD and South his client; E-W are junior >> internationals. >> South is in 4 Spades. >> >> Lead CQ taken in hand, 3 rounds of trumps finishing in the hand. >> >> On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having none?" >> (which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says something >> to > the >> effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." East wins the ace, and >> now > dummy >> says, "There was a revoke after all, we should call the TD." > [Sven Pran] > Dummy may not draw attention to any regularity at this time, nor call the > director unless another player has drawn attention to the irregularity. > So IMHO Dummy has violated Laws 42B3, 43A1{a} and 43A1{b} After attention has been drawn to an irregularity - and while it may be open to discussion whether defender's reaction to his partner's question has already done this, or only declarer's reaction to the replacement of the revoke card - dummy is entitled to call the TD (9B1b). >> >> The TD explains the revoke law, and on dummy's request ("my partner is >> inexperienced") explains to declarer the consequences of a penalty card. >> Declarer now requires a club lead and pitches Hxx on the diamonds, >> making > 12. >> >> East complains that, had he known the consequences of a penalty card, he >> would have ducked DA twice, removing the penalty card and being able to > cash >> the heart tricks. >> >> As DA had been played before the TD was summoned, we let the table >> result >> stand, pointing out that >> - both sides have violated 9B1a > [Sven Pran] > Neither side has violated Law 9B1{a}, this law cannot apply before > attention > is DRAWN to an irregularity >> - declarer may not waive a penalty (10A) >> - 11A does not apply as the irregularity to be rectified was the > un-established >> revoke, with the penalty card only being a consequence of the > rectification of >> the irregularity >> >> This last point was discussed at length between the TDs and by the >> appeals >> committee, and I would be interested in your opinioins. IF you decide to > apply >> 11A, what would your ruling be? I told the AC they could not split the > score, or >> can they? > [Sven Pran] > Law 11A says: > > The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either > member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the > Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending > side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. > > The irregularity was the (unestablished) revoke. Non-offending side took > some action before summoning the Director and subsequent actions by > offending side was taken in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the > law. > > These relevant provisions include the establishment of a major penalty > card > and the consequences of this penalty card on subsequent plays. > > I may rule that West indeed has a penalty card, but that East then must > be > heard on his assertion that he would have ducked DA twice so that no lead > restrictions could be imposed on him when he eventually won his trick > with > the DA. > > Or I may rule that because of the failure (legally) to draw attention to > the > revoke and call the Director no penalty card has been established. > > In either case the consequence will be that the table result is > corrected to > 4S making 10. > > The AC may indeed assign split scores if they find this justified (i.e. > making 10 effective for NS and making 12 effective for EW), but I don't > think that this is the case here. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Aug 10 20:34:23 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:34:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 10.08.2013, 19:38 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner : > The original event took place in Austria, and it's legal for defenders > to ask each other about revokes there? (I'm keeping a mental list.) Yes > > On 2013-08-10 10:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Dummy may not draw attention to any regularity at this time, nor call >> the >> director unless another player has drawn attention to the irregularity. >> So IMHO Dummy has violated Laws 42B3, 43A1{a} and 43A1{b} > > I think you could argue that attention has been drawn to the revoke, so > it would be OK, indeed his duty, for dummy to call the TD right away. > Waiting until two more cards have been played makes this argument pretty > dubious. > >> The irregularity was the (unestablished) revoke. Non-offending side took >> some action before summoning the Director and subsequent actions by >> offending side was taken in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the >> law. > > As Sven wrote, these look like the exact conditions for L11A. > >> I may rule that West indeed has a penalty card, but that East then must >> be >> heard on his assertion that he would have ducked DA twice so that no >> lead >> restrictions could be imposed on him when he eventually won his trick >> with >> the DA. > > This looks right to me. > >> Or I may rule that because of the failure (legally) to draw attention >> to the >> revoke and call the Director no penalty card has been established. > > If no attention has been drawn, dummy's call for the TD was improper, > and we're back to L12A1. > >> In either case the consequence will be that the table result is >> corrected to >> 4S making 10. > > Also looks right to me. > >> The AC may indeed assign split scores if they find this justified (i.e. >> making 10 effective for NS and making 12 effective for EW), but I don't >> think that this is the case here. > > I don't understand what the basis for a split score would be. If > there's doubt about what might have happened absent the irregularity -- > doubt I don't see here -- you could give a weighted score. Or is that > not possible in Austria? > It is. But to assign a split (or a weighted) score is of course only possible if you think 11A can be applied. And in that case, I would give a straightforward 620. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 10 20:44:41 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:44:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2013-08-10 1:50 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Who has drawn attention to the revoke, and how? > > The original text was: > > On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having > > none?" (which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says > > something to the effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." > > This is at least close enough to drawing attention that I'd rule that way if > dummy had called the TD at that instant. All players were obviously aware that > an irregularity had taken place. That's enough for me. [Sven Pran] Yes, I agree. I had forgotten this question from East. That question alone is sufficient "drawing attention" once West admits the revoke. > > Does anything think dummy should get a PP for calling the TD right away in the > circumstances described? [Sven Pran] No, obviously not. > > SW> I don't understand what the basis for a split score would be. > > The base would be if both sides were considered at fault, > > Can you give split scores even then if weighted scores are possible? [Sven Pran] Sure you can. Law 12C1f: The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. > Not a bad idea if legal. > > To make sure I understand... the idea is that the revoke is one infraction, and > the improper TD call is another, and you might rectify separately for those > infractions with different weights? If so, the principle does make sense. > Thanks. (We agree it isn't needed here.) [Sven Pran] The rectification for the revoke is covered in Law 64, note that Law 64C (if relevant) is the basis for awarding an adjusted score. The improper TD call should IMHO normally result in a PP, not a score adjustment. (However, a "too late" TD call itself does not justify a PP, it should be handled under Law 11.) From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 10 20:53:05 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:53:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> Message-ID: <001801ce95fa$d90a0c00$8b1e2400$@online.no> > Petrus Schuster OSB [...] > After attention has been drawn to an irregularity - and while it may be open to > discussion whether defender's reaction to his partner's question has already > done this, or only declarer's reaction to the replacement of the revoke card - > dummy is entitled to call the TD (9B1b). [Sven Pran] As I wrote in a separate comment I had forgotten East's question. Once West admits the revoke this question is certainly "drawing attention" good enough. But I am not so sure I would allow dummy to call TD solely on the ground that declarer apparently waves rectification for a so far unidentified irregularity by just saying "OK" or words to similar effect. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Aug 10 21:15:27 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:15:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> Message-ID: Am 10.08.2013, 20:44 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran : > Steve Willner >> On 2013-08-10 1:50 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> > Who has drawn attention to the revoke, and how? >> >> The original text was: >> > On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having >> > none?" (which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says >> > something to the effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." >> >> This is at least close enough to drawing attention that I'd rule that >> way > if >> dummy had called the TD at that instant. All players were obviously >> aware > that >> an irregularity had taken place. That's enough for me. > [Sven Pran] > Yes, I agree. I had forgotten this question from East. > That question alone is sufficient "drawing attention" once West admits > the > revoke. > >> >> Does anything think dummy should get a PP for calling the TD right away >> in > the >> circumstances described? > [Sven Pran] > No, obviously not. > >> >> SW> I don't understand what the basis for a split score would be. >> > The base would be if both sides were considered at fault, >> >> Can you give split scores even then if weighted scores are possible? > [Sven Pran] > Sure you can. > Law 12C1f: The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. > >> Not a bad idea if legal. >> >> To make sure I understand... the idea is that the revoke is one > infraction, and >> the improper TD call is another, and you might rectify separately for > those >> infractions with different weights? If so, the principle does make >> sense. >> Thanks. (We agree it isn't needed here.) > [Sven Pran] > The rectification for the revoke is covered in Law 64, note that Law 64C > (if > relevant) is the basis for awarding an adjusted score. Well... 64C only kicks in when the NOS is insufficiently compensated, and obviously in the context that means the side that has not revoked. The problem here is that they are, perhaps, over-compensated. > The improper TD call should IMHO normally result in a PP, not a score > adjustment. > (However, a "too late" TD call itself does not justify a PP, it should be > handled under Law 11.) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 11 07:58:14 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 07:58:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> Message-ID: <000201ce9657$c5019720$4f04c560$@online.no> > Petrus Schuster OSB [...] > > [Sven Pran] > > The rectification for the revoke is covered in Law 64, note that Law 64C > > (if > > relevant) is the basis for awarding an adjusted score. > > Well... > 64C only kicks in when the NOS is insufficiently compensated, and > obviously in the context that means the side that has not revoked. > The problem here is that they are, perhaps, over-compensated. [Sven Pran] Law 12B2 says: 2.The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Which means that insufficient compensation to non-offending side is the only justification for awarding an adjusted score after a revoke. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Aug 11 09:43:05 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 09:43:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <000201ce9657$c5019720$4f04c560$@online.no> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> <000201ce9657$c5019720$4f04c560$@online.no> Message-ID: Am 11.08.2013, 07:58 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran : >> Petrus Schuster OSB > [...] >> > [Sven Pran] >> > The rectification for the revoke is covered in Law 64, note that Law >> 64C >> > (if >> > relevant) is the basis for awarding an adjusted score. >> >> Well... >> 64C only kicks in when the NOS is insufficiently compensated, and >> obviously in the context that means the side that has not revoked. >> The problem here is that they are, perhaps, over-compensated. > > [Sven Pran] > Law 12B2 says: 2.The Director may not award an adjusted score on the > ground > that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or > advantageous to either side. > > Which means that insufficient compensation to non-offending side is the > only > justification for awarding an adjusted score after a revoke. > Which is precisely my point: this is not a case for 64C because it is the revoking side that has the poor result. But I have just thought of a different approach: There has been an infraction of 10A which may lead to an AS under 12A1. Regards, Petrus From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 11 09:56:25 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 09:56:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > 2. > 1D P 2D P > P X > > 2D was described as a limit raise in diamonds. In fact, it was forcing to > game. East West end up in 3NT making 4. I asked South if she would have > done anything different, and in a shot she said she would not have > balanced if she had been given the correct explanation. > > But, if she had been given the correct explanation *only*, she would have > concluded that the opening bidder psyched. Her balance was aggressive > (foolish?) anyway, so we would expect her to also balance over a psyche. > Well, not necessarily. She is entitled to the information that 2D is GF, and to the knowledge that opener passed it. She may draw her conclusions, and it is quite possible to draw the conclusion that opener forgot the system, not psyched. In the light of her own weak hand, and partner's silence, she may well draw that conclusion, and I would probably rule the contract back to 2Di. > So the question is if I rule as if the defender heard *just* the correct > explanation, or both? > It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that that was the lawmakers' intention. Just the correct info, not the correct one AND the wrong one. I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. > I know many blmlers have argued strongly that I rectify for just the > correct explanation. Which means there is no penalty for violating L20F4. > There is never a penalty for this. Only a rectification, to the score that would have occured without the infraction. > Or maybe this is just another L84B do what I want. My memory is that the > minutes don't answer this. (They are organized by year, of course, hence > not intended as a resource for directors trying to make a ruling.) > > Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 11 10:00:58 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:00:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <520744BA.5080704@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > 3. 2D 3C 3D P > ? > > KT98 > KQJT9 > A5 > 92 > > The player has unauthorized source of information that his partner thinks > 2D was a weak two in diamonds. He meant it as Flannery. To determine the > LA's, I ask people what they would bid "using the methods of the > partnership." NO, not in the case of UI. You ask what they would have done without the UI. Which, in this case is: "you open this hand Flannery, and the bidding goes ... what do you do". Most probably, the pollee will ask "how certain am I that partner knows I am playing Flannery?" in which case you say "not certain at all". If pollee does not ask anything like that, you ask a second question "what if you're not absolutely certain you are playing Flannery?". The LAs will be determined by the answers to those questions. > Which apparently was weak two's. I think if you are playing > weak two's, forget and open this Flannery, you are likely to take a 3H > call. But of course no one actually rules that way. > > Reality is that the players are uncertain what they are playing. They > don't play together often. It's a lot easier for 3D to be a wake-up call > when you are uncertain what you are playing. So he could say to himself, > "She seems to be taking my bid as a weak two." > And the knowledge that you have not firmly established system is AI to you! > I guess it is good that the rules are just wrong on this so I can put in > something plausible instead? > which is about the same thing as what I said. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 11 10:07:12 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:07:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52074630.4050706@skynet.be> Interesting case, Petrus. There is one point you missed. I would not care if dummy had insisted on calling the TD before any other play, but he only asked for the TD AFTER the DA had been played. Before that, declarer had waived the penalty - which is quite common. In that case, taking the ace believing there is no lead penalty is also quite allowed. The combined actions of dummy and declarer have forced East to take the DA, and this should not be allowed. 10 tricks to both sides, I believe. Herman. Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: > AQx > xxx > QJTxx > Kx > > Jxx x > Kxxx AQxx > xx Axx > QJTx xxxxx > > KTxxxx > xx > Kxx > Ax > > > Pairs; North is an experienced TD and South his client; E-W are junior > internationals. > South is in 4 Spades. > > Lead CQ taken in hand, 3 rounds of trumps finishing in the hand. > > On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having none?" > (which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says something to > the effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." East wins the ace, and > now dummy says, "There was a revoke after all, we should call the TD." > > The TD explains the revoke law, and on dummy's request ("my partner is > inexperienced") explains to declarer the consequences of a penalty card. > Declarer now requires a club lead and pitches Hxx on the diamonds, making > 12. > > East complains that, had he known the consequences of a penalty card, he > would have ducked DA twice, removing the penalty card and being able to > cash the heart tricks. > > As DA had been played before the TD was summoned, we let the table result > stand, pointing out that > - both sides have violated 9B1a > - declarer may not waive a penalty (10A) > - 11A does not apply as the irregularity to be rectified was the > un-established revoke, with the penalty card only being a consequence of > the rectification of the irregularity > > This last point was discussed at length between the TDs and by the appeals > committee, and I would be interested in your opinioins. IF you decide to > apply 11A, what would your ruling be? I told the AC they could not split > the score, or can they? > > Regards, > Petrus > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6568 - Release Date: 08/10/13 > > From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 11 11:07:37 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:07:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <52074630.4050706@skynet.be> References: <52074630.4050706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01ce9672$3995a670$acc0f350$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Interesting case, Petrus. > There is one point you missed. > I would not care if dummy had insisted on calling the TD before any other play, > but he only asked for the TD AFTER the DA had been played. > Before that, declarer had waived the penalty - which is quite common. In that > case, taking the ace believing there is no lead penalty is also quite allowed. > The combined actions of dummy and declarer have forced East to take the DA, > and this should not be allowed. > 10 tricks to both sides, I believe. > > Herman. [Sven Pran] Which has been my ruling all the time. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 11 17:21:26 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:21:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <520744BA.5080704@skynet.be> References: <520744BA.5080704@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:00:58 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> 3. 2D 3C 3D P >> ? >> >> KT98 >> KQJT9 >> A5 >> 92 >> >> The player has unauthorized source of information that his partner >> thinks >> 2D was a weak two in diamonds. He meant it as Flannery. To determine the >> LA's, I ask people what they would bid "using the methods of the >> partnership." > > NO, not in the case of UI. I was quoting from the UI law. > You ask what they would have done without the > UI. Which, in this case is: > "you open this hand Flannery, and the bidding goes ... what do you do". > Most probably, the pollee will ask "how certain am I that partner knows > I am playing Flannery?" in which case you say "not certain at all". If > pollee does not ask anything like that, you ask a second question "what > if you're not absolutely certain you are playing Flannery?". > The LAs will be determined by the answers to those questions. > >> Which apparently was weak two's. I think if you are playing >> weak two's, forget and open this Flannery, you are likely to take a 3H >> call. But of course no one actually rules that way. >> >> Reality is that the players are uncertain what they are playing. They >> don't play together often. It's a lot easier for 3D to be a wake-up call >> when you are uncertain what you are playing. So he could say to himself, >> "She seems to be taking my bid as a weak two." >> > > And the knowledge that you have not firmly established system is AI to > you! > >> I guess it is good that the rules are just wrong on this so I can put in >> something plausible instead? >> > which is about the same thing as what I said. > > Herman. Thanks Herman, I like this answer. So something like, "You always play Flannery. You were paired with this partner before the game and didn't get a chance to discuss this. You played with her 4 months ago. What call to you make?" In a way, it fits the laws -- I am giving the methods of the partnership (from his perspective). From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 11 19:05:46 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:05:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> <000201ce9657$c5019720$4f04c560$@online.no> Message-ID: <5207C46A.1030507@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-11 3:43 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > But I have just thought of a different approach: > There has been an infraction of 10A which may lead to an AS under 12A1. Yes, this lets you rule to what would have been the outcome if the TD had been summoned immediately after the unestablished revoke. It's another road to the NS 620 that we all agree on. (For a less skillful East, you could put in some weight for the possibility that East would fail to hold up until the penalty card is discarded.) I still like 11A, though. It's more specific, and all its conditions are met, but I think the outcome is the same. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 11 19:45:20 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:45:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <520676BF.4010608@nhcc.net> References: <520676BF.4010608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:22:07 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-08-09 7:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> 1. Defender led out of turn. The irregularity is noticed by the dummy. >> Not covered by the laws? > > When you write "noticed," do you really mean "called attention to?" > There is no penalty for dummy noticing, but dummy may not call attention > to the irregularity until play is over. > > Assuming you really did mean "call attention to," why doesn't L43A1b > apply? The Law says "may not," so a PP is normal. There is no > prescribed rectification, so you go to 12A1. (I'm assuming 43B3 doesn't > apply.) What am I missing? Are you saying that play stops and I award an adjusted score? Or I let play continue. But how? Letting the lead stand? Giving declarer full rights for a lead out of turn? And then what am I adjusting for at the end -- if I had made a different ruling? I don't see how Law 12 helps. > >> One blmler argued that I just ignore the fact that dummy pointed out the >> irregularity because declarer would have noticed. > > That's a possible outcome once you get to L12C1; you need to decide on > "likely" and "at all probable" as usual. (Outside the ACBL, you could > assign probabilities.) Right. I'm confused now who is the offending side. But I don't understand your application of L12. But I agree with the idea that if I think declarer would have noticed, I rule one way, and if I am worried about it, I rule another way. That's my seat-of-the-pants ruling. Or maybe, the fact that dummy got involved at all suggests that declarer was at least slow to notice. From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 11 20:53:49 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 20:53:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: <520676BF.4010608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002101ce96c4$1e943970$5bbcac50$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > But I agree with the idea that if I think declarer would have noticed, I rule one > way, and if I am worried about it, I rule another way. That's my seat-of-the- > pants ruling. Or maybe, the fact that dummy got involved at all suggests that > declarer was at least slow to notice. [Sven Pran] I believe we have a general rule that when a player has received some information illegally (i.e. UI) he may not legally use that information unless he can show evidence that he would without doubt have learned the same information legally in time to use it. So unless TD is convinced that declarer would have noticed the irregularity without "assistance" from dummy TD should rule on the assumption that declarer would not have noticed this irregularity. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 00:18:48 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:18:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: <875FCD1B-A228-442A-AADE-F69F004BB315@mac.com> On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen > wrote: > >> Beg you pardon but what is the problem? >> If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let >> that >> going on, is this a TD problem? > > The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of > tricks won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand. > > Is there no problem when both pairs want to talk about the hand? As > director, I would prefer they first agreed on the number of tricks won. > > > Of course, other people might think it is okay for one pair to argue about > the hand before agreeing on number of tricks won. Then the current laws > are fine. Generally speaking and IMO: 1. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed annoys someone at the table, there's been a violation of Law 74A2. 2. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed causes a later slow play problem, there should be a procedural penalty (Laws 90B2 and possibly 90B7). In a club game this should be a warning for a first offense. 3. Nobody should put his cards back in the board until the score is agreed (Law 79A). It would be a good idea not to mix them, either. 4. The TD might prefer players to agree the score first, but as long as delay in agreement does not delay the game, that's a preference, not a requirement. 5. If any player has any problem with what's going on at his table, he should call the director forthwith or, if dummy, at the end of play. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 00:22:55 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:22:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> Message-ID: <3E40F357-F137-4013-B36D-1CB59BB05951@mac.com> On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I have no idea why the pair that wants to agree on the number of tricks cannot just call the Director and claim violation of (particularly) Laws 74A2 and 74B4? > > And if the discussing pair starts fooling with their quitted tricks then they also violate Laws 65D and 79A. > > If both pairs discuss instead of agreeing on the result then obviously no result is recorded, and if they then cannot agree because their cards have been fooled I would seriously consider teaching them a lesson by giving both sides an artificial adjusted score combined with procedure penalties resulting in something like 0% scores to each side. I missed 74B4 and 65D. Well spotted, Sven. I don't think I would go so far in lesson teaching, though. A- to both sides and a standard PP, perhaps. Of course, in the ACBL that gives them 5% of the matchpoints, so not much different than your solution. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 00:26:57 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:26:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> Message-ID: <01B3E282-3D97-4FB1-8C61-2C007985FA77@mac.com> On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:47:42 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Beg you pardon but what is the problem? >>>> If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let >>>> that going on, is this a TD problem? >>> >>> The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of >>> tricks >>> won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand. > > Your comments assume essentially that when one pair wants to agree on > results and the other pair wants to first discuss the hand, the pair > discussing the hand is at fault. This is not in the laws. Not explicitly, no. How big a law book do you want? > Actually, East was trying to have a conversation with his partner, and > North kept trying to interrupt (to forge an agreement on number of tricks > won). Why does 74A2 not apply to North? He was inteferring with East's > enjoyment of the game. Uh, huh. >> and 74B4? > > Is this the law you meant? It doesn't seem relevant. Sure it's relevant. The hand ain't over until the score is agreed. >> And if the discussing pair starts fooling with their quitted tricks then >> they also violate Laws 65D and 79A. >> >> If both pairs discuss instead of agreeing on the result then obviously >> no result is recorded, and if they then cannot agree because their cards >> have been fooled I would seriously consider teaching them a lesson > > Have they done anything wrong? Yes. > Wouldn't a good first step in education be to say they should agree on the > number of tricks won before discussing the hand? Or, for that matter, > before going to the bathroom or getting coffee. Of course. What do you do if that doesn't work? "Educate" them again? From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 00:33:00 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:33:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> Message-ID: <439ECCE1-7E88-45B8-A988-BE861A5C5F16@mac.com> On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > We seem to disagree on whether the word "primary" is actually in the laws. > How shall we settle this issue? Well, you could search through the lawbook for it. Hint: it ain't there. So what? You seem to think that the laws should literally cover every possible circumstance. That's insane. > > "Primary" is not the right word to imagine in the laws. This might be a > subtle matter of English. We want something saying that this duty is what > they do first. "Primary" means it is more important than secondary but not > necessarily done first. From the Oxford American Dictionary: primary, adj. 1 of chief importance; principal: the government's primary aim is to see significant reductions in unemployment. 2 earliest in time or order of development: the primary stage of their political education. Perhaps you should get your facts straight. > > I think that's all we are talking about. It says that if the players get > up and get coffee and go the bathroom following play, the other pair > should not disturb the other of their played cards. If they do, they > jeopardize their rights. That happened, I'd be calling the TD before the other pair is out the door. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 00:49:55 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:49:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The ACBL itself says > the player is right. "Please keep in mind that this Law uses two separate > clauses. Declarer?s played card is either/ or, it need not be touching and > maintained. > > The answerer adds: "one of the major points I look for in determining if a > card has been played is: Did it break the horizontal plane with the table. > Once the position of the card has gone parallel with the table surface or > beyond, I generally rule the card has been played by declarer." > > Of couse, there is nothing about this in the laws. I infer that you called or wrote to someone at ACBL HQ and got some kind of answer. Who? It seems to me that for laws purposes, "the ACBL" is the ACBLLC, not some random phone or email answerer. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 01:15:19 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:15:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Does anything think dummy should get a PP for calling the TD right away > in the circumstances described? I think he should get a PP for *not* calling the TD right away. :-) From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 01:17:25 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:17:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a case for Law 11? In-Reply-To: <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> References: <000c01ce95d7$9f5db970$de192c50$@online.no> <52067AA8.2060902@nhcc.net> <001101ce95f2$23e24a20$6ba6de60$@online.no> <5206842B.7060008@nhcc.net> <001601ce95f9$ad9f0bc0$08dd2340$@online.no> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > However, a "too late" TD call itself does not justify a PP, it should be > handled under Law 11.) Seems to me a too late TD call by a "knowledgeable TD" *does* justify a PP. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 12 01:42:35 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:42:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <002101ce96c4$1e943970$5bbcac50$@online.no> References: <520676BF.4010608@nhcc.net> <002101ce96c4$1e943970$5bbcac50$@online.no> Message-ID: <327E0BD5-3035-4F45-A728-DF9588E72043@mac.com> On Aug 11, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I believe we have a general rule that when a player has received some > information illegally (i.e. UI) he may not legally use that information I would insert "in choosing a call or play" here - he may certainly "use UI" to determine that he needs to correct his partner's misexplanation of their agreement, for example. > unless he can show evidence that he would without doubt have learned the > same information legally in time to use it. In this particular case I agree, but in general this doesn't fit with the "no logical alternative" part of Law 16. IOW, "no logical alternative" may arise from some other mechanism than "learning the same information legally". > So unless TD is convinced that declarer would have noticed the irregularity > without "assistance" from dummy TD should rule on the assumption that > declarer would not have noticed this irregularity. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 12 02:41:24 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 20:41:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: <875FCD1B-A228-442A-AADE-F69F004BB315@mac.com> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <875FCD1B-A228-442A-AADE-F69F004BB315@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:18:48 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen >> wrote: >> >>> Beg you pardon but what is the problem? >>> If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let >>> that >>> going on, is this a TD problem? >> >> The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of >> tricks won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand. >> >> Is there no problem when both pairs want to talk about the hand? As >> director, I would prefer they first agreed on the number of tricks won. >> >> >> Of course, other people might think it is okay for one pair to argue >> about >> the hand before agreeing on number of tricks won. Then the current laws >> are fine. > > Generally speaking and IMO: > > 1. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed annoys someone > at the table, there's been a violation of Law 74A2. And if they try to agree on the score and that annoys the people making the post mortem...Who is violating L74A2? Both sides? My point is, we all have the feeling that if a side wants to agree on the score, the post mortem should wait. > 2. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed causes a later > slow play problem, there should be a procedural penalty (Laws 90B2 and > possibly 90B7). In a club game this should be a warning for a first > offense. > 3. Nobody should put his cards back in the board until the score is > agreed (Law 79A). It would be a good idea not to mix them, either. > 4. The TD might prefer players to agree the score first, but as long as > delay in agreement does not delay the game, that's a preference, not a > requirement. I would prefer them to agree on the score and then have their post mortem. Yes, this time they might agree on the score. I am worried about next time. > 5. If any player has any problem with what's going on at his table, he > should call the director forthwith or, if dummy, at the end of play. And then what? He called to say that the opponent's were doing a post mortem before agreeing on the score. That's legal. Again, we have the feeling that the side doing the post mortem was the "offending side". But that's not in the laws. I suggest changing the laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 12 02:43:56 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 20:43:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: <439ECCE1-7E88-45B8-A988-BE861A5C5F16@mac.com> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> <439ECCE1-7E88-45B8-A988-BE861A5C5F16@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:33:00 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> We seem to disagree on whether the word "primary" is actually in the >> laws. >> How shall we settle this issue? > > Well, you could search through the lawbook for it. Hint: it ain't there. > So what? > > You seem to think that the laws should literally cover every possible > circumstance. That's insane. > >> >> "Primary" is not the right word to imagine in the laws. This might be a >> subtle matter of English. We want something saying that this duty is >> what >> they do first. "Primary" means it is more important than secondary but >> not >> necessarily done first. > >> From the Oxford American Dictionary: > > primary, adj. > 1 of chief importance; principal: the government's primary aim is to see > significant reductions in unemployment. > 2 earliest in time or order of development: the primary stage of their > political education. > > Perhaps you should get your facts straight. >> >> I think that's all we are talking about. It says that if the players get >> up and get coffee and go the bathroom following play, the other pair >> should not disturb the other of their played cards. If they do, they >> jeopardize their rights. > > That happened, I'd be calling the TD before the other pair is out the > door. And, when I come to the table, I would like to quote the law: "Following the end of play, players should agree on the score." We both agree that's right. The idea is fairly simple. We want laws that make our jobs as director easier. If that law was already in the laws, would you want it taken out to shorten the lawbook? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 12 06:42:54 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:42:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <875FCD1B-A228-442A-AADE-F69F004BB315@mac.com> Message-ID: <000a01ce9716$69ae5330$3d0af990$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 10:41 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] (2017) > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:18:48 -0400, Ed Reppert > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Beg you pardon but what is the problem? > >>> If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let > >>> that > >>> going on, is this a TD problem? > >> > >> The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of > >> tricks won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand. > >> > >> Is there no problem when both pairs want to talk about the hand? As > >> director, I would prefer they first agreed on the number of tricks won. > >> > >> > >> Of course, other people might think it is okay for one pair to argue > >> about > >> the hand before agreeing on number of tricks won. Then the current laws > >> are fine. > > > > Generally speaking and IMO: > > > > 1. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed annoys > someone > > at the table, there's been a violation of Law 74A2. > > And if they try to agree on the score and that annoys the people making > the post mortem...Who is violating L74A2? Both sides? > > > My point is, we all have the feeling that if a side wants to agree on the > score, the post mortem should wait. > > > > 2. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed causes a later > > slow play problem, there should be a procedural penalty (Laws 90B2 and > > possibly 90B7). In a club game this should be a warning for a first > > offense. > > 3. Nobody should put his cards back in the board until the score is > > agreed (Law 79A). It would be a good idea not to mix them, either. > > 4. The TD might prefer players to agree the score first, but as long as > > delay in agreement does not delay the game, that's a preference, not a > > requirement. > > I would prefer them to agree on the score and then have their post mortem. > Yes, this time they might agree on the score. I am worried about next time. > > > > > 5. If any player has any problem with what's going on at his table, he > > should call the director forthwith or, if dummy, at the end of play. > > And then what? He called to say that the opponent's were doing a post > mortem before agreeing on the score. That's legal. > > Again, we have the feeling that the side doing the post mortem was the > "offending side". But that's not in the laws. I suggest changing the laws. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 14 05:31:14 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 03:31:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C1B04@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Alan Bennett, Getting On (1972), act 1: "We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules." Jeff Easterson: >This dialogue is most interesting and I'd be interested to learn the >opinions of a few other blmlers who have, until now, been >uncharacteristically reticent. > >Both of their positions seem reasonable to me but that doesn't >solve the problem. Problem-solving Law 81C2: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and ++interpret these Laws++ and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Jeff Easterson: >And my congratulations concerning the tone of the discussion. (I >have memories of discussions many years ago. All postings polite, >friendly, well-argued. A good case. How about a few comments >from those of you who make the rules? > >Ciao, JE Richard Hills: Did I make the rules? Yes and No. I proofread drafts of the 2007 Laws in general, and Law 75 in particular, helping to remove ambiguities as a semi-official gremlin on the shoulder. But even then my proofreading suggestions were null and void unless and until endorsed by the Drafting Committee. My two cents worth is this: When an ambiguity in the Laws (such as whether declarer is entitled to become dummy after a second OLOOT) is resolved by the Director under Law 81C2, then the TD should normally follow the meta-rule of interpreting the ambiguity in favour of the non-offending side. Similar to the idea in Law 84D: "The Director rules any ++doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side++. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12)." 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/20130814/8d109a0b/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Aug 19 13:51:29 2013 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:51:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) Message-ID: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> Subject: controversial case From: Jeff Easterson Date: 19/08/2013 13:47 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List The following hand caused quite a controversy at a recent tournament. Dealer S, all white, no screens J 10954 KJ54 Q985 642 KQ10985 3 Q82 Q1032 976 76432 10 A73 AKJ76 A8 AKJ Bidding: S W N E 2he ps ps 2sp 3NT ps 4he ps 6he all pass Unusual bidding as you can see. 2he was (system card and info from N) weak, 5 hearts and another 5-card suit. West was a very strong player, NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. The tournament did not have a very strong field and NS were 73rd (from 100) with 46%. When asked why she opened 2he, S said that she saw so many HCPs and didn't know what to do so bid 2he. Analysis of TD at the table: There was UI for S but her 3NT bid is acceptable; she knows she has 24 HCPs without the UI. 4 hearts is also normal since South's opening promises hearts. North cannot know what South has. After 3NT he knows that she is very strong and that 2he was a misbid. He is also confident that she has hearts. The question arose about the 6he bid. According to TBS ?16B1(a) the receiver of UI (South in this case) may not choose an action suggested by the UI. She knows her partner is weak (But she probably knows this without the UI since she has 24 HCPs and the opponents bid 2 spades; and she knows he prefers hearts.) But as far as we could see (the TDs at the tournament) 6he was not suggested by the UI; it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that happened to be successful. Your opinions? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Aug 19 14:15:42 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:15:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) In-Reply-To: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> References: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <400854215.1842078.1376914542383.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Henk Uijterwaal" > ?: "blml" > Envoy?: Lundi 19 Ao?t 2013 13:51:29 > Objet: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) > > > > Subject: > controversial case > From: > Jeff Easterson > Date: > 19/08/2013 13:47 > To: > Bridge Laws Mailing List > > The following hand caused quite a controversy at a recent tournament. Dealer > S, > all white, no screens > > J > 10954 > KJ54 > Q985 > > 642 KQ10985 > 3 Q82 > Q1032 976 > 76432 10 > > A73 > AKJ76 > A8 > AKJ > > Bidding: S W N E > 2he ps ps 2sp > 3NT ps 4he ps > 6he all pass > > Unusual bidding as you can see. > 2he was (system card and info from N) weak, 5 hearts and another 5-card suit. > West was a very strong player, NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. The > tournament did not have a very strong field and NS were 73rd (from 100) with > 46%. > When asked why she opened 2he, S said that she saw so many HCPs and didn't > know > what to do so bid 2he. > > Analysis of TD at the table: There was UI for S but her 3NT bid is > acceptable; > she knows she has 24 HCPs without the UI. 4 hearts is also normal since > South's > opening promises hearts. North cannot know what South has. After 3NT he > knows > that she is very strong and that 2he was a misbid. He is also confident that > she has hearts. > The question arose about the 6he bid. According to TBS ?16B1(a) the > receiver > of UI (South in this case) may not choose an action suggested by the UI. She > knows her partner is weak (But she probably knows this without the UI since > she > has 24 HCPs and the opponents bid 2 spades; and she knows he prefers hearts.) > But as far as we could see (the TDs at the tournament) 6he was not suggested > by > the UI; it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that > happened > to be successful. > > Your opinions? you say S received UI, what was it? it was not apparent in your relation of facts. you also scrutinize N's 4H bid, why? did he also receive some unaccounted UI? jpr > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > http://www.uijterwaal.nl > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 19 14:54:59 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:54:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) In-Reply-To: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> References: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > The following hand caused quite a controversy at a recent tournament. Dealer S, > all white, no screens > > J > 10954 > KJ54 > Q985 > > 642 KQ10985 > 3 Q82 > Q1032 976 > 76432 10 > > A73 > AKJ76 > A8 > AKJ > > Bidding: S W N E > 2he ps ps 2sp > 3NT ps 4he ps > 6he all pass > > Unusual bidding as you can see. > 2he was (system card and info from N) weak, 5 hearts and another 5-card suit. > West was a very strong player, NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. The > tournament did not have a very strong field and NS were 73rd (from 100) with 46%. > When asked why she opened 2he, S said that she saw so many HCPs and didn't know > what to do so bid 2he. > > Analysis of TD at the table: There was UI for S but her 3NT bid is acceptable; > she knows she has 24 HCPs without the UI. 4 hearts is also normal since South's > opening promises hearts. North cannot know what South has. After 3NT he knows > that she is very strong and that 2he was a misbid. He is also confident that > she has hearts. > The question arose about the 6he bid. According to TBS ?16B1(a) the receiver > of UI (South in this case) may not choose an action suggested by the UI. She > knows her partner is weak (But she probably knows this without the UI since she > has 24 HCPs and the opponents bid 2 spades; and she knows he prefers hearts.) > But as far as we could see (the TDs at the tournament) 6he was not suggested by > the UI; it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that happened > to be successful. > > Your opinions? i agree with the ruling and the rationale that "6H was not suggested by the UI". North has heart support (AI from the 4H bid), but so disliked his hand that he failed to make a (presumably) blocking raise (UI). If anything, that would suggest passing 4H rather than trying 6. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 19 15:33:39 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:33:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) In-Reply-To: References: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52121EB3.2080305@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/08/2013 14:54, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >> The following hand caused quite a controversy at a recent tournament. Dealer S, >> all white, no screens >> >> J >> 10954 >> KJ54 >> Q985 >> >> 642 KQ10985 >> 3 Q82 >> Q1032 976 >> 76432 10 >> >> A73 >> AKJ76 >> A8 >> AKJ >> >> Bidding: S W N E >> 2he ps ps 2sp >> 3NT ps 4he ps >> 6he all pass >> >> Unusual bidding as you can see. >> 2he was (system card and info from N) weak, 5 hearts and another 5-card suit. >> West was a very strong player, NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. The >> tournament did not have a very strong field and NS were 73rd (from 100) with 46%. >> When asked why she opened 2he, S said that she saw so many HCPs and didn't know >> what to do so bid 2he. >> >> Analysis of TD at the table: There was UI for S but her 3NT bid is acceptable; >> she knows she has 24 HCPs without the UI. 4 hearts is also normal since South's >> opening promises hearts. North cannot know what South has. After 3NT he knows >> that she is very strong and that 2he was a misbid. He is also confident that >> she has hearts. >> The question arose about the 6he bid. According to TBS ?16B1(a) the receiver >> of UI (South in this case) may not choose an action suggested by the UI. She >> knows her partner is weak (But she probably knows this without the UI since she >> has 24 HCPs and the opponents bid 2 spades; and she knows he prefers hearts.) >> But as far as we could see (the TDs at the tournament) 6he was not suggested by >> the UI; it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that happened >> to be successful. >> >> Your opinions? > i agree with the ruling and the rationale that "6H was not suggested by the UI". North has heart support (AI from the 4H bid), but so disliked his hand that he failed to make a (presumably) blocking raise (UI). If anything, that would suggest passing 4H rather than trying 6. AG : not necessarily : it could mean that N had a bit more in high cards and less in distribution. But when the information from the bid is difficut to analyze, it doesn't clearly suggest anything. (the fact that North can't have a 3442 11-count does come from AI, South's hand) Also, apparently South knew she was misbidding, in which case there is no UI at all. Notice that North was at serious risk in bidding 4H. Why should one interpret that partner has hearts ? Another possible interpretation is that partner mispulled and wanted to show a big NT hand, opening 2C, 2D (presumably Multi) or 2NT. Best regards Alain > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Aug 19 15:38:30 2013 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:38:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) In-Reply-To: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> References: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52121FD6.6090903@gmail.com> Jeff, > NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. [...] > it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that happened > to be successful. I don't quite see the problem here. South was clueless but guessed right. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Aug 19 15:51:41 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:51:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) In-Reply-To: <400854215.1842078.1376914542383.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> <400854215.1842078.1376914542383.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <521222ED.5030102@aol.com> Sorry for not mentioning it. South's UI was that she was reminded of the correct meaning (in system) of the 2he. opening. North thought he was passing a weak two, not a 24 HCP opening. Of course after 3NT he realised that South was strong but could not know exactly how strong. North had no UI as far as I can see. JE Am 19.08.2013 14:15, schrieb ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre: > > ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Henk Uijterwaal" >> ?: "blml" >> Envoy?: Lundi 19 Ao?t 2013 13:51:29 >> Objet: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) >> >> >> >> Subject: >> controversial case >> From: >> Jeff Easterson >> Date: >> 19/08/2013 13:47 >> To: >> Bridge Laws Mailing List >> >> The following hand caused quite a controversy at a recent tournament. Dealer >> S, >> all white, no screens >> >> J >> 10954 >> KJ54 >> Q985 >> >> 642 KQ10985 >> 3 Q82 >> Q1032 976 >> 76432 10 >> >> A73 >> AKJ76 >> A8 >> AKJ >> >> Bidding: S W N E >> 2he ps ps 2sp >> 3NT ps 4he ps >> 6he all pass >> >> Unusual bidding as you can see. >> 2he was (system card and info from N) weak, 5 hearts and another 5-card suit. >> West was a very strong player, NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. The >> tournament did not have a very strong field and NS were 73rd (from 100) with >> 46%. >> When asked why she opened 2he, S said that she saw so many HCPs and didn't >> know >> what to do so bid 2he. >> >> Analysis of TD at the table: There was UI for S but her 3NT bid is >> acceptable; >> she knows she has 24 HCPs without the UI. 4 hearts is also normal since >> South's >> opening promises hearts. North cannot know what South has. After 3NT he >> knows >> that she is very strong and that 2he was a misbid. He is also confident that >> she has hearts. >> The question arose about the 6he bid. According to TBS ?16B1(a) the >> receiver >> of UI (South in this case) may not choose an action suggested by the UI. She >> knows her partner is weak (But she probably knows this without the UI since >> she >> has 24 HCPs and the opponents bid 2 spades; and she knows he prefers hearts.) >> But as far as we could see (the TDs at the tournament) 6he was not suggested >> by >> the UI; it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that >> happened >> to be successful. >> >> Your opinions? > you say S received UI, what was it? it was not apparent in your relation of facts. you also scrutinize N's 4H bid, why? did he also receive some unaccounted UI? > jpr >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl >> http://www.uijterwaal.nl >> Phone: +31.6.55861746 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 19 17:10:13 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:10:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) In-Reply-To: <52121FD6.6090903@gmail.com> References: <521206C1.3030005@gmail.com> <52121FD6.6090903@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52123555.8020009@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/08/2013 15:38, Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > Jeff, > >> NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. > [...] > >> it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that happened >> to be successful. > I don't quite see the problem here. South was clueless but guessed right. > > Henk > > Remembers me of an old case (EEC championships, Birmingham ca 1981, meaning pre-BB era) S W N E 1S p p X North : "but you can't do that !" He hadn't heard my opening bid. Now that's UI for you. We ended in 4S making 5. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 20 00:04:07 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:04:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C5B46@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jeff Easterson: >>>NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. [...] >>>it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that happened >>>to be successful. Henk Uijterwaal: >>I don't quite see the problem here. South was clueless but guessed right. Grattan Endicott, May 2004: >+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I recall, a regulation in >any competition that actually says "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson, May 2004: Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my partners and team- mates. 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/20130819/99d30a32/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 20 14:40:51 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:40:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Controversial case (repost) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C5B46@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C5B46@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <521363D3.1090804@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/08/2013 0:04, Richard HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Jeff Easterson: > >>>NS unknown but apparently fairly weak. > [...] > >>>it was simply a guess (and probably not a very good one) that happened > >>>to be successful. > Henk Uijterwaal: > >>I don't quite see the problem here. South was clueless but guessed > right. IMOBO it's North who guessed incredibly right. How can he know partner has hearts ? Isn't the situation more consistent with a mispull, say 2H in lieu of 2NT ? BTA he knows that a whell has gone loose, and he is allowed to guess which one. But there might be a problem if South has done this before.... Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130820/e6aba49d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 21 02:57:25 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:57:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hi Herman. I just got a chance to study this. Are the opponents entitled to a *correct description* of your partnership agreements? Or are they entitled to *know* the partnership agreements? I think most people, and the laws, go for the former. Your argument requires the latter. Correct? If the player *said* his partners 2 Di bid was a "game force" and then passed, the opponent would not think he misunderstood the bid. In your formulation, we imagine that he said nothing and the opponent somehow magically knew that 2 Di was a game force. Yes, in this case the opponent might assume he misunderstood. But is this how we rectify for mistaken explanation? Of course, the laws are not clear, when we rectify for getting the right explanation, who gave that right explanation. Bob On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> 2. >> 1D P 2D P >> P X >> >> 2D was described as a limit raise in diamonds. In fact, it was forcing >> to >> game. East West end up in 3NT making 4. I asked South if she would have >> done anything different, and in a shot she said she would not have >> balanced if she had been given the correct explanation. >> >> But, if she had been given the correct explanation *only*, she would >> have >> concluded that the opening bidder psyched. Her balance was aggressive >> (foolish?) anyway, so we would expect her to also balance over a psyche. >> > > Well, not necessarily. She is entitled to the information that 2D is GF, > and to the knowledge that opener passed it. She may draw her > conclusions, and it is quite possible to draw the conclusion that opener > forgot the system, not psyched. In the light of her own weak hand, and > partner's silence, she may well draw that conclusion, and I would > probably rule the contract back to 2Di. > >> So the question is if I rule as if the defender heard *just* the correct >> explanation, or both? >> > > It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that > that was the lawmakers' intention. Just the correct info, not the > correct one AND the wrong one. > I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the > knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a > misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take > this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct > explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. > >> I know many blmlers have argued strongly that I rectify for just the >> correct explanation. Which means there is no penalty for violating >> L20F4. >> > > There is never a penalty for this. Only a rectification, to the score > that would have occured without the infraction. > >> Or maybe this is just another L84B do what I want. My memory is that the >> minutes don't answer this. (They are organized by year, of course, hence >> not intended as a resource for directors trying to make a ruling.) >> >> > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Aug 21 03:12:09 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:12:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that > that was the lawmakers' intention... I really liked this sentence. I am hoping that in 2017, things are clear (one way or another) because the law says it. > I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the > knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a > misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take > this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct > explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. I have a question. Suppose Player 1 gives a wrong explanation. Then Player 2 correct it prior to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information, right? Now, suppose Player 2 instead does not correct the wrong explanation. Isn't that a separate infraction? And don't we correct here for what would have happened had the Player 2 had not made the infraction and instead given the correction -- that the opponents would have both the wrong explanation and the correct explanation? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Aug 21 03:28:49 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:28:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled Message-ID: At a tournament a few days ago, I sat West both sessions, and my West hand for the first board of the second session looked quite familiar. I called the TD, who confirmed that our section had gotten a spare set of first-session boards and took them back. But what if I had been wrong? There would have been serious extraneous information problems, as everyone would know that my hand looked familiar. For example, if I opened 3S and the spade preempt from the first session was on KQTxxxx - xxx xxx, there would be UI for partner and AI for opponents that I had KQTxxxx of spades and a heart void. Should players avoid this problem by playing out the first board and only then reporting that the hand looks familiar, or is there a better procedure? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 21 03:37:49 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:37:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DB3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner: >..... >or is there a better procedure? Dealing machines are used at all major tournaments in Australia, plus dealing machines are employed by many Aussie bridge clubs for their minor tournaments. 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/20130821/adeeba68/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 21 04:03:48 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:03:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DD7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ivy Compton-Burnett (1884-1969), English novelist: "There are different kinds of wrong. The people sinned against are not always the best." David Grabiner: >..... >But what if I had been wrong? There would have been serious extraneous >information problems, as everyone would know that my hand looked >familiar. For example, if I opened 3S and the spade preempt from the >first session was on KQTxxxx - xxx xxx, there would be UI for partner >and AI for opponents that I had KQTxxxx of spades and a heart void. > >Should players avoid this problem by playing out the first board and >only then reporting that the hand looks familiar, >..... Richard Hills: Deferred notification of the Director is a different wrong under Law 16C1: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by [remembering her cards from a previous session] ..... the Director should be ++notified forthwith++, preferably by the recipient of the information." 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/20130821/3e661e38/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Aug 21 04:11:05 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 22:11:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DB3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DB3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: While I agree that dealing machines are useful, they wouldn't have avoided this situation. The board had been computer-dealt (although humans inserted the cards into the deck), but boards for the wrong session were placed on the table. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard HILLS To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner: >..... >or is there a better procedure? Dealing machines are used at all major tournaments in Australia, plus dealing machines are employed by many Aussie bridge clubs for their minor tournaments. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20130821/50a9b5eb/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Aug 21 06:08:22 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:08:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Archive (was PPs on TDs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <40u81m02m3o3exq010uAwd> References: <40u81m02m3o3exq010uAwd> Message-ID: Random: Don't mind him. He's just a curmudgeon. Random2: Boy, I hate curmudgeons. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 07/23/2013 8:48 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Archive (was PPs on TDs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Richard: >>++Because++ the post was from 2002, it would not have been seen >>by the many "newbie" blmlers who have joined our mailing list in the >>eleven years since then. Brian: >Yes. This is a feature of all mailing lists, and Usenet newsgroups too >for that matter. I believed that solving that problem was the reason >for having the BLML archives. >..... Richard: The excellent magazine The Economist publishes exactly one full- page obituary each week, with the subject chosen by very quirky criteria. It dug deep into its archive with this pre-2002 obituary: http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21571379-richard-plantagenet-englands -most-controversial-king-was-officially-rediscovered-february 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/20130821/3720bb00/attachment-0001.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed Aug 21 08:37:56 2013 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:37:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DB3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DB3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52146044.2020407@gmail.com> On 21/08/2013 03:37, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > David Grabiner: > >>..... >>or is there a better procedure? > > Dealing machines are used at all major tournaments in Australia, plus dealing > machines are employed by many Aussie bridge clubs for their minor tournaments. Aha, and these machines print a label on the board indicating in which session it should be played? Otherwise, I don't see how it can solve the problem of the TD handing out a set of boards from session X in session Y. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed Aug 21 08:56:12 2013 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:56:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5214648C.4080905@gmail.com> On 21/08/2013 03:28, David Grabiner wrote: > At a tournament a few days ago, I sat West both sessions, and my West hand for > the first board of the second session looked quite familiar. I called the TD, > who confirmed that our section had gotten a spare set of first-session boards > and took them back. > > But what if I had been wrong? There would have been serious extraneous > information problems, as everyone would know that my hand looked familiar. For > example, if I opened 3S and the spade preempt from the first session was on > KQTxxxx - xxx xxx, there would be UI for partner and AI for opponents that I had > KQTxxxx of spades and a heart void. A 7=0=3=3, 5 count, in west, comes up in about 0.0003% of the hands, and with specific honnors, it is a lot less. I would consider it unlikely enough to have that hand twice a day and call the TD immediately. If the hand wasn't so specific (say a 4432, 10 count, from the session a week before), I'd start playing and call afterwards when I was more sure. Chances are that somebody else has recognized another board by then. If not, the TD can check against the hand records, and the result can stand if I was wrong. > Should players avoid this problem by playing out the first board and only then > reporting that the hand looks familiar, or is there a better procedure? Instructions for TD here are that they should check the north hand on board 1 from all the sets before handing them out. At least you know that the whole room is playing the same set. I'm pretty sure Murphy's law applies to this situation. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed Aug 21 09:05:46 2013 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:05:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130821070551.00C34E78979@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130821/74f66d6d/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 21 09:31:20 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:31:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52146CC8.4060900@skynet.be> Hello Bob, all, Robert Frick schreef: > Hi Herman. I just got a chance to study this. > > Are the opponents entitled to a *correct description* of your > partnership agreements? Or are they entitled to *know* the partnership > agreements? I think most people, and the laws, go for the former. > I don't really see the difference between the two. They are entitled to "know" what a "correct description" of the agreements are. I prefer the "know" phrase myself, since I would, for example, not rule in favour of a player who tells me he knew what the agreement was but did not receive a correct description from his opponents. > Your argument requires the latter. Correct? If the player *said* his > partners 2 Di bid was a "game force" and then passed, the opponent would > not think he misunderstood the bid. > Well, that would be a very strange occurrence, would it not? I like the idea of the "Kaplan engine", which is a hyoothetical device that tells opponents what the system is, without any inteference from the bidders themselves. If a bid is explained (by such a device) as game forcing and then passed, it is up to the opponents to conclude that the partner probably did not understand. > In your formulation, we imagine that he said nothing and the opponent > somehow magically knew that 2 Di was a game force. Yes, in this case the > opponent might assume he misunderstood. But is this how we rectify for > mistaken explanation? > Yes, it is how I believe we should act. Of course there might be another explanation for the pass (10 diamonds to the jack and three twos?), but the "benefit of the doubt" will make opponents assume the misunderstanding. > Of course, the laws are not clear, when we rectify for getting the right > explanation, who gave that right explanation. > > Bob > > > > Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 21 09:33:53 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:33:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >> It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that >> that was the lawmakers' intention... > > I really liked this sentence. I am hoping that in 2017, things are clear > (one way or another) because the law says it. > > >> I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the >> knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a >> misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take >> this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct >> explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. > > I have a question. > > Suppose Player 1 gives a wrong explanation. Then Player 2 correct it prior > to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information, > right? > It is clear from the laws that the restriction on not being entitled to know about the misunderstanding ends at the end of the auction. I can live with that distinction. (I cannot live with the entitlement coming to a beginning one instant sooner and the bidding being reopened, but that's another matter). > Now, suppose Player 2 instead does not correct the wrong explanation. > Isn't that a separate infraction? And don't we correct here for what would > have happened had the Player 2 had not made the infraction and instead > given the correction -- that the opponents would have both the wrong > explanation and the correct explanation? Indeed we should. Seems very basic to me. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 21 13:50:34 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:50:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DB3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DB3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5214A98A.4090502@skynet.be> A typical Hills' answer: this cannot happen in Australia, so it is op no interest to anyone. Richard, I doubt if every single club in Wagga Wagga has a duplicating machine. This case may be of interest even to some Australians. Herman. To David; well, David, Either the hand had not been dealt, and then you are right in calling the TD (and even before it is played, so as to avoid having opponents' good score been taken away); Or the hand has been redealt, and then none of your three opponents would know exactly which had you had been thinking it was. I would call the TD immediately. Herman. Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > David Grabiner: >>..... >>or is there a better procedure? > Dealing machines are used at all major tournaments in Australia, plus > dealing > machines are employed by many Aussie bridge clubs for their minor > tournaments. > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13 > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 21 13:51:39 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:51:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DD7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DD7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5214A9CB.5080701@skynet.be> I apologise to Richard. He has in fact answered to the problem that is of no use to Australians. Thanks, Richard, and I like it to see that we are on the same wavelength as well. Herman. Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Ivy Compton-Burnett (1884-1969), English novelist: > ?There are different kinds of wrong. The people sinned against are not > always the best.? > David Grabiner: >>..... >>But what if I had been wrong? There would have been serious extraneous >>information problems, as everyone would know that my hand looked >>familiar. For example, if I opened 3S and the spade preempt from the >>first session was on KQTxxxx - xxx xxx, there would be UI for partner >>and AI for opponents that I had KQTxxxx of spades and a heart void. >> >>Should players avoid this problem by playing out the first board and >>only then reporting that the hand looks familiar, >>..... > Richard Hills: > Deferred notification of the Director is a different wrong under Law 16C1: > ?When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a > board he is playing or has yet to play, as by [remembering her cards from > a previous session] > ..... > the Director should be ++notified forthwith++, preferably by the recipient > of the information.? > 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 > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13 > From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 21 14:05:56 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:05:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01c201ce9e66$cb0442f0$610cc8d0$@xs4all.nl> There is a well-known bug in the dealing program from Jannersten, that under rare conditions deals 13 spades to N, 13 hearts to E, etc.. My experience at high level is that a substantial number of players first bid this board, and after it becomes clear how the cards lie call the TD. And I think they are right to do so. However, given the fact, that if you have 13 spades as North under current software conditions the chance of a fuckup is tens of orders of magnitude larger than a real occurrence, I will not fault a player who calls the TD straight away. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: woensdag 21 augustus 2013 3:29 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled At a tournament a few days ago, I sat West both sessions, and my West hand for the first board of the second session looked quite familiar. I called the TD, who confirmed that our section had gotten a spare set of first-session boards and took them back. But what if I had been wrong? There would have been serious extraneous information problems, as everyone would know that my hand looked familiar. For example, if I opened 3S and the spade preempt from the first session was on KQTxxxx - xxx xxx, there would be UI for partner and AI for opponents that I had KQTxxxx of spades and a heart void. Should players avoid this problem by playing out the first board and only then reporting that the hand looks familiar, or is there a better procedure? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 21 14:21:57 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:21:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5214A9CB.5080701@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C7DD7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5214A9CB.5080701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5214B0E5.5000209@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/08/2013 13:51, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Richard Hills: >> Deferred notification of the Director is a different wrong under Law 16C1: >> ?When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a >> board he is playing or has yet to play, as by [remembering her cards from >> a previous session] >> ..... >> the Director should be ++notified forthwith++, preferably by the recipient >> of the information.? >> Indeed. However, it doesn't always help. At least twice, as a player, I called the TD to tell him that I knew the board, and he brushed it away with "that's impossible". The first time, it was in a friendly tournament in club A, and I remembered the deal from a recent (bigger) tournament in club B : the board was remarkable for the bidding sequence : 2C- 2S (the Ace) - 6H. The TD told me that, precisely for this reason and from the fact that declarer had claimed, I couldn't remember the board well enough. Later I learned that club A had lended their boards for B's tournament. The second time, I was able to call the exact pattern of LHO's hand and his honor cards (it was my hand from previous week of course). But the TD told me that only this set of boards was used for the moment, and there had been a tournament in the meantime. That the board had been left unshuffled twice in a row was impossilbe. Well, he should heve remembered Sherlock's words. Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 21 15:22:34 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:22:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5214BF1A.7060004@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-20 9:28 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > I sat West both sessions, and my West hand for the first board of the > second session looked quite familiar. I called the TD, On reading this, I had the impression that the boards were machine- dealt. No matter. I think you do need to notify the TD right away. Nobody wants to waste time playing the wrong boards. You can tell the TD privately what you think is wrong, but in practice, other players may guess. If that causes a problem, I don't think the Laws exactly cover the situation, but my view is that you've done nothing wrong and should be protected from damage. One possibility, if circumstances allow, might be to play a substitute board (L6D3). From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 21 17:17:02 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:17:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled In-Reply-To: <01c201ce9e66$cb0442f0$610cc8d0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01c201ce9e66$cb0442f0$610cc8d0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <5214D9EE.5010205@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren schreef: > There is a well-known bug in the dealing program from Jannersten, that under > rare conditions deals 13 spades to N, 13 hearts to E, etc.. > My experience at high level is that a substantial number of players first > bid this board, and after it becomes clear how the cards lie call the TD. > I have once found such a board in the second round of a tournament. And the first table had duly bid, made and entered 7Sp. > And I think they are right to do so. > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 21 20:36:45 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:36:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled In-Reply-To: <5214BF1A.7060004@nhcc.net> References: <5214BF1A.7060004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:22:34 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-08-20 9:28 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> I sat West both sessions, and my West hand for the first board of the >> second session looked quite familiar. I called the TD, > > On reading this, I had the impression that the boards were machine- > dealt. No matter. > > I think you do need to notify the TD right away. Nobody wants to waste > time playing the wrong boards. You can tell the TD privately what you > think is wrong, but in practice, other players may guess. If that > causes a problem, I don't think the Laws exactly cover the situation, > but my view is that you've done nothing wrong and should be protected > from damage. One possibility, if circumstances allow, might be to play > a substitute board (L6D3). I agree. As director, I want to know as soon as possible if there is a duplicate hand. Tell the director privately. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 21 20:43:18 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:43:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:33:53 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >> >>> It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that >>> that was the lawmakers' intention... >> >> I really liked this sentence. I am hoping that in 2017, things are clear >> (one way or another) because the law says it. >> >> >>> I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the >>> knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a >>> misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take >>> this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct >>> explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. >> >> I have a question. >> >> Suppose Player 1 gives a wrong explanation. Then Player 2 correct it >> prior >> to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information, >> right? >> > > It is clear from the laws that the restriction on not being entitled to > know about the misunderstanding ends at the end of the auction. I can > live with that distinction. (I cannot live with the entitlement coming > to a beginning one instant sooner and the bidding being reopened, but > that's another matter). > >> Now, suppose Player 2 instead does not correct the wrong explanation. >> Isn't that a separate infraction? And don't we correct here for what >> would >> have happened had the Player 2 had not made the infraction and instead >> given the correction -- that the opponents would have both the wrong >> explanation and the correct explanation? > > Indeed we should. > Seems very basic to me. Great. Now, a player gives a wrong explanation. Then he realizes the correct agreement. This occurs during the auction. If he fails to correct his explanation, that's a second infraction, right? And we follow the same basic procedure as above? (Rectify for if he had said the correct information at that time, giving the opponents use of the wrong explanatino and the correct explanation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 22 00:42:10 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:42:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C95E0@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Henk Uijterwaal, earlier post: >>Aha, and these machines print a label on the board indicating in which session >>it should be played? Otherwise, I don't see how it can solve the problem of >>the TD handing out a set of boards from session X in session Y. Henk Uijterwaal, later post: >Instructions for TD here are that they should check the north hand on board 1 >from all the sets before handing them out. At least you know that the whole >room is playing the same set. Richard Hills: Instructions for the TD in Canberra go one step further; checking the North hand on board 1 against the printed hand record. And the hand record ++does++ contain a label / heading indicating which session of what event. This protocol averted disaster in a recent Tuesday night tournament, as boards from the earlier Tuesday afternoon walk-in session were initially distributed, before being promptly retracted by the TD. 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/20130821/381386bb/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 22 01:36:34 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:36:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Procedure if you suspect a board has not been reshuffled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C9630@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >At least twice, as a player, I called the TD to tell him that I knew the >board, and he brushed it away with "that's impossible". Richard Hills: Three decades ago I received a similar response from the TD of a small once-a- week club. He did not believe that I could remember boards 28 to 30 from the previous week. But on the relevant week boards 28 to 30 had started at the half table, so there was a prima facie case that the sit out pair did not shuffle. Alain Gottcheiner: >The first time, it was in a friendly tournament in club A, and I >remembered the deal from a recent (bigger) tournament in club B : the >board was remarkable for the bidding sequence : 2C- 2S (the Ace) - 6H. >The TD told me that, precisely for this reason and from the fact that >declarer had claimed, I couldn't remember the board well enough. >Later I learned that club A had lended their boards for B's tournament. > >The second time, I was able to call the exact pattern of LHO's hand and >his honor cards (it was my hand from previous week of course). But the >TD told me that only this set of boards was used for the moment, and >there had been a tournament in the meantime. That the board had been >left unshuffled twice in a row was impossible. >Well, he should have remembered Sherlock's words. Peter Smulders: >>..... >>The question is how strong a suspicion do you need ? I think if you are less >>than 97% sure you played the hand before the best policy is to play out the >>hand and then take action. Richard Hills: No, I agree with Sven Pran that the "97% sure" standard is too high. I instead summon the Director (unless prohibited by Law) when I have reasonable cause to believe that an irregularity exists. Best wishes, Richard 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/20130821/76ab87ac/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 22 01:38:42 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:38:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:33:53 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that >>>> that was the lawmakers' intention... >>> >>> I really liked this sentence. I am hoping that in 2017, things are clear >>> (one way or another) because the law says it. >>> >>> >>>> I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the >>>> knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a >>>> misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take >>>> this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct >>>> explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. >>> >>> I have a question. >>> >>> Suppose Player 1 gives a wrong explanation. Then Player 2 correct it >>> prior >>> to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information, >>> right? >>> >> >> It is clear from the laws that the restriction on not being entitled to >> know about the misunderstanding ends at the end of the auction. I can >> live with that distinction. (I cannot live with the entitlement coming >> to a beginning one instant sooner and the bidding being reopened, but >> that's another matter). >> >>> Now, suppose Player 2 instead does not correct the wrong explanation. >>> Isn't that a separate infraction? And don't we correct here for what >>> would >>> have happened had the Player 2 had not made the infraction and instead >>> given the correction -- that the opponents would have both the wrong >>> explanation and the correct explanation? >> >> Indeed we should. >> Seems very basic to me. > > Great. > > Now, a player gives a wrong explanation. Then he realizes the correct > agreement. This occurs during the auction. If he fails to correct his > explanation, that's a second infraction, right? And we follow the same > basic procedure as above? (Rectify for if he had said the correct > information at that time, giving the opponents use of the wrong > explanatino and the correct explanation. Indeed, this is a problem. I believe that a player should be allowed to NOT correct his own explanation, if he believes this will help his opponents and harm him. He is not allowed to do this at this moment, but we shall never know if he breaks that non-allowancce. After all, he is the only one to know that he remembered the right agreemant. It serves no purpose to oblige a player to do something that we cannot check. Far better would it be to allow the player to choose for himself whether or not to correct his misexplanation. IMO a player should correct when he also corrects his bid, and that correction reveals that he remembered. Better then to also give the opponents the correct information. I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we cannot catch anyway. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13 > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 22 05:12:49 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:12:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:38:42 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:33:53 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws >>>>> that >>>>> that was the lawmakers' intention... >>>> >>>> I really liked this sentence. I am hoping that in 2017, things are >>>> clear >>>> (one way or another) because the law says it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to >>>>> the >>>>> knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a >>>>> misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take >>>>> this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct >>>>> explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. >>>> >>>> I have a question. >>>> >>>> Suppose Player 1 gives a wrong explanation. Then Player 2 correct it >>>> prior >>>> to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information, >>>> right? >>>> >>> >>> It is clear from the laws that the restriction on not being entitled to >>> know about the misunderstanding ends at the end of the auction. I can >>> live with that distinction. (I cannot live with the entitlement coming >>> to a beginning one instant sooner and the bidding being reopened, but >>> that's another matter). >>> >>>> Now, suppose Player 2 instead does not correct the wrong explanation. >>>> Isn't that a separate infraction? And don't we correct here for what >>>> would >>>> have happened had the Player 2 had not made the infraction and instead >>>> given the correction -- that the opponents would have both the wrong >>>> explanation and the correct explanation? >>> >>> Indeed we should. >>> Seems very basic to me. >> >> Great. >> >> Now, a player gives a wrong explanation. Then he realizes the correct >> agreement. This occurs during the auction. If he fails to correct his >> explanation, that's a second infraction, right? And we follow the same >> basic procedure as above? (Rectify for if he had said the correct >> information at that time, giving the opponents use of the wrong >> explanatino and the correct explanation. > > Indeed, this is a problem. > I believe that a player should be allowed to NOT correct his own > explanation, if he believes this will help his opponents and harm him. > > He is not allowed to do this at this moment, but we shall never know if > he breaks that non-allowancce. After all, he is the only one to know > that he remembered the right agreemant. It serves no purpose to oblige a > player to do something that we cannot check. Far better would it be to > allow the player to choose for himself whether or not to correct his > misexplanation. IMO a player should correct when he also corrects his > bid, and that correction reveals that he remembered. Better then to also > give the opponents the correct information. > > I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one > who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making > the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we > cannot catch anyway. > > Herman. I agree, it is not good to have a law that in some situations is unenforceable and allows cheaters to prosper. The lawmakers try to avoid that when they can. However, there is an easy solution -- rectify for getting the right explanation *in addition to* the wrong explanation. From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 22 05:30:05 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:30:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 18:38 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:33:53 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that >>>>> that was the lawmakers' intention... >>>> >>>> I really liked this sentence. I am hoping that in 2017, things are >>>> clear >>>> (one way or another) because the law says it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the >>>>> knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a >>>>> misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take >>>>> this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct >>>>> explanation, then that is all one is entitled to. >>>> >>>> I have a question. >>>> >>>> Suppose Player 1 gives a wrong explanation. Then Player 2 correct it >>>> prior >>>> to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information, >>>> right? >>>> >>> >>> It is clear from the laws that the restriction on not being entitled to >>> know about the misunderstanding ends at the end of the auction. I can >>> live with that distinction. (I cannot live with the entitlement coming >>> to a beginning one instant sooner and the bidding being reopened, but >>> that's another matter). >>> >>>> Now, suppose Player 2 instead does not correct the wrong explanation. >>>> Isn't that a separate infraction? And don't we correct here for what >>>> would >>>> have happened had the Player 2 had not made the infraction and instead >>>> given the correction -- that the opponents would have both the wrong >>>> explanation and the correct explanation? >>> >>> Indeed we should. >>> Seems very basic to me. >> >> Great. >> >> Now, a player gives a wrong explanation. Then he realizes the correct >> agreement. This occurs during the auction. If he fails to correct his >> explanation, that's a second infraction, right? And we follow the same >> basic procedure as above? (Rectify for if he had said the correct >> information at that time, giving the opponents use of the wrong >> explanatino and the correct explanation. > > Indeed, this is a problem. > I believe that a player should be allowed to NOT correct his own > explanation, if he believes this will help his opponents and harm him. Part of the reason that something is a matter of propriety is that integrity is relied upon to do the right thing. Which means that if the rules are bad rules then they ought be fixed. regards roger pewick > He is not allowed to do this at this moment, but we shall never know if > he breaks that non-allowancce. After all, he is the only one to know > that he remembered the right agreemant. It serves no purpose to oblige a > player to do something that we cannot check. Far better would it be to > allow the player to choose for himself whether or not to correct his > misexplanation. IMO a player should correct when he also corrects his > bid, and that correction reveals that he remembered. Better then to also > give the opponents the correct information. > > I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one > who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making > the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we > cannot catch anyway. > > Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 22 06:08:39 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:08:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was Thursday...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C96DC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Herman De Wael: >>>Indeed, this is a problem. >>>I believe that a player should be allowed to NOT correct his own >>>explanation, if he believes this will help his opponents and harm him. Roger Pewick: >>Part of the reason that something is a matter of propriety is that integrity >>is relied upon to do the right thing. Which means that if the rules are bad >>rules then they ought be fixed. Richard Hills: >I believe that Law 20F4 is not a bad Law, but instead an average-plus Law. >Both the offending and non-offending sides will on average benefit from an >immediate correction. (For example, the offending player's partner ceases >to be subject to Law 75A constraints after a Law 20F4 correction.) Herman De Wael: >>>..... >>>I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one >>>who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making >>>the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we >>>cannot catch anyway. Richard Hills: >I glory in the fact that my actions and consequent results will never reach >Terence Reese's "standards". Peter Gill, May 2001: "for the class of player involved" (Footnote to Law 69B) ... Herman, Richard Hills, whom I realise you do not know personally, is anything but a beginner. An expert card player, deep thinker and exceeedingly ethical player (in fact, the rare kind of player whose bridge record might have been more glittering had he been less ethical, sad but true to say), but no resemblance whatsoever to a beginner. Peter Gill Australia. 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/20130822/51e68737/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 22 09:11:53 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:11:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5215B9B9.9040302@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: >> >> I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one >> who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making >> the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we >> cannot catch anyway. >> >> Herman. > > > I agree, it is not good to have a law that in some situations is > unenforceable and allows cheaters to prosper. The lawmakers try to avoid > that when they can. > > However, there is an easy solution -- rectify for getting the right > explanation *in addition to* the wrong explanation. Indeed, but that would change quite a lot of things. Do you wish to turn over L20F5, for example? Because if the opponents are entitled to the wrong explanation, then that wrong explanation needs to be explained as soon as it happens. Even a player who makes a bidding mistake should then correct his partner's (correct) explanation. This is a totally different game! Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 22 13:22:43 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:22:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <5215B9B9.9040302@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> <5215B9B9.9040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:11:53 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >>> >>> I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one >>> who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making >>> the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we >>> cannot catch anyway. >>> >>> Herman. >> >> >> I agree, it is not good to have a law that in some situations is >> unenforceable and allows cheaters to prosper. The lawmakers try to avoid >> that when they can. >> >> However, there is an easy solution -- rectify for getting the right >> explanation *in addition to* the wrong explanation. > > Indeed, but that would change quite a lot of things. I don't see that it would change a lot. Can you explain? > Do you wish to turn over L20F5, for example? Because if the opponents > are entitled to the wrong explanation, I would not say they are *entitled* to the wrong information. I would treat it like any other information from opponents -- use at your own risk. I am just seeing more advantage for, when rectifying for wrong information, asking what would have happened had they gotten the correct information *in addition* to the wrong information. > then that wrong explanation needs > to be explained as soon as it happens. > Even a player who makes a bidding mistake should then correct his > partner's (correct) explanation. > > This is a totally different game! > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 22 13:34:21 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:34:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <5215B9B9.9040302@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> <5215B9B9.9040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:11:53 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Indeed, but that would change quite a lot of things. > Do you wish to turn over L20F5, for example? Since you mention L20F5.... It says a player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous. What triggers this obligation? The player thinking his partner's explanation was erroneous? Or his partner's explanation being erroneous? This is the type of hair-splitting few people want to think about. But it potentially leads to the same problem we are discussing. *If we apply the interpretation you prefer*, we get this scenario: If you tell the opponents the correct explanation, they have both the correct explanation and the wrong explanation to use when defending; if you don't tell them, then they get only the wrong information when defending, and only the correct explanation in the rectification. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 22 16:03:47 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:03:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: > >> Now, a player gives a wrong explanation. Then he realizes the correct >> agreement. This occurs during the auction. If he fails to correct his >> explanation, that's a second infraction, right? And we follow the same >> basic procedure as above? (Rectify for if he had said the correct >> information at that time, giving the opponents use of the wrong >> explanatino and the correct explanation. > > Indeed, this is a problem. > I believe that a player should be allowed to NOT correct his own > explanation, if he believes this will help his opponents and harm him. > > He is not allowed to do this at this moment, but we shall never know if > he breaks that non-allowancce. After all, he is the only one to know > that he remembered the right agreemant. It serves no purpose to oblige a > player to do something that we cannot check. Far better would it be to > allow the player to choose for himself whether or not to correct his > misexplanation. IMO a player should correct when he also corrects his > bid, and that correction reveals that he remembered. Better then to also > give the opponents the correct information. > > I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one > who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making > the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we > cannot catch anyway. This is a broader problem than the immediate circumstances. The general problem is this: Player A bids thinking his systemic agreement is X. Partner, player B, explains it as Y. The TD is subsequently called to determine potential misinformation. In the absence of external evidence, one of the players informs the TD that he was mistaken about the meaning of the bid, and his partner's recollection was indeed correct. Under current law, the criteria to be used by the TD to determine redress depends on which player that was. This seems wrong. It allows a laws-savvy partnership to decide that the "correct" explanation should always be the one that leads to the (expectedly) less unfavorable ruling, when the usual reality is that both are just as unsure as they were when they sat down at the table. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From g3 at nige1.com Thu Aug 22 16:04:53 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:04:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was Thursday...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C96DC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C96DC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <0BEE89742C554C5CA8339169571A5AF5@G3> [Herman De Wael] I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we cannot catch anyway. [Richard Hills] I glory in the fact that my actions and consequent results will never reach Terence Reese?s ?standards?. [Nigel] Do you think that's that fair, Richard? The WBF delegated the investigation of cheating allegations against Reese and Schapiro to a BBL Tribunal that exonerated them. British CTD, Harold Franklin, was a character witness. Many contemporaries were convinced that they cheated. In spite of reduced libel constraints now that they're dead, however, there seems to be little new evidence to corroborate their suspicions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 22 17:46:38 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:46:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was Thursday...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0BEE89742C554C5CA8339169571A5AF5@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9C96DC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <0BEE89742C554C5CA8339169571A5AF5@G3> Message-ID: <5216325E.5080805@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2013 16:04, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Herman De Wael] > I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one who > keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. Any innuendo to recent events in one sport or Herman's acquaintance ? Notice that IMHO nothing went wrong. > I am merely making the laws > such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we cannot catch > anyway. > > [Richard Hills] > I glory in the fact that my actions and consequent results will never reach > Terence Reese?s ?standards?. > > [Nigel] > Do you think that's that fair, Richard? The WBF delegated the investigation > of cheating allegations against Reese and Schapiro to a BBL Tribunal that > exonerated them. British CTD, Harold Franklin, was a character witness. > Many contemporaries were convinced that they cheated. In spite of reduced > libel constraints now that they're dead, however, there seems to be little > new evidence to corroborate their suspicions. What strikes me is that evidence against the Sportscars wasn't any firmer, yet they were found guilty. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 22 17:50:51 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:50:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5216335B.7020006@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2013 16:03, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >> >>> Now, a player gives a wrong explanation. Then he realizes the correct >>> agreement. This occurs during the auction. If he fails to correct his >>> explanation, that's a second infraction, right? And we follow the same >>> basic procedure as above? (Rectify for if he had said the correct >>> information at that time, giving the opponents use of the wrong >>> explanatino and the correct explanation. >> Indeed, this is a problem. >> I believe that a player should be allowed to NOT correct his own >> explanation, if he believes this will help his opponents and harm him. >> >> He is not allowed to do this at this moment, but we shall never know if >> he breaks that non-allowancce. After all, he is the only one to know >> that he remembered the right agreemant. It serves no purpose to oblige a >> player to do something that we cannot check. Far better would it be to >> allow the player to choose for himself whether or not to correct his >> misexplanation. IMO a player should correct when he also corrects his >> bid, and that correction reveals that he remembered. Better then to also >> give the opponents the correct information. >> >> I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one >> who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making >> the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we >> cannot catch anyway. > This is a broader problem than the immediate circumstances. The general problem is this: > > Player A bids thinking his systemic agreement is X. Partner, player B, explains it as Y. The TD is subsequently called to determine potential misinformation. > > In the absence of external evidence, one of the players informs the TD that he was mistaken about the meaning of the bid, and his partner's recollection was indeed correct. > > Under current law, the criteria to be used by the TD to determine redress depends on which player that was. > > This seems wrong. It allows a laws-savvy partnership to decide that the "correct" explanation should always be the one that leads to the (expectedly) less unfavorable ruling, when the usual reality is that both are just as unsure as they were when they sat down at the table. > > AG : methinks it's the other way round. There are good reasons to make the ruling unfavorable to the offending side when they can't provide any written information, and this implies that one won't believe A. The partnership will be able to do very little to counter this. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 23 00:49:30 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:49:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was Thursday...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9CBF16@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL [Richard] I glory in the fact that my actions and consequent results will never reach Terence Reese's "standards". [Nigel] Do you think that's that fair, Richard? The WBF delegated the investigation of cheating allegations against Reese and Schapiro to a BBL Tribunal that exonerated them. British CTD, Harold Franklin, was a character witness. Many contemporaries were convinced that they cheated. In spite of reduced libel constraints now that they're dead, however, there seems to be little new evidence to corroborate their suspicions. [Richard] Yes, I think that is fair. See this new evidence -> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/crosswords/bridge/20card.html?_r=0 But my key point is that players with grey or black ethics will always win more duplicate bridge tournaments than players with white ethics. So what? Since one of my fictional heroes is Gandalf the White, I am happy to destroy the One Ring of my potential Aussie championship success. [Gandalf] "Let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning." 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/20130822/ee1579ea/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Aug 23 03:16:13 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 02:16:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was Thursday...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9CBF16@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9CBF16@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <027DAEAB40E945F4AEDBB13D51AD8AF6@G3> [Richard] Yes, I think that is fair. See this new evidence -> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/crosswords/bridge/20card.html?_r=0 But my key point is that players with grey or black ethics will always win more duplicate bridge tournaments than players with white ethics. So what? Since one of my fictional heroes is Gandalf the White, I am happy to destroy the One Ring of my potential Aussie championship success. [Gandalf] ?Let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning.? [Nigel] I'm familiar with the David Rex-Taylor story. A pity there's no documentary evidence. Philip Alder article is typical of the view from the US. Philip says they were found guilty at Buenos Aires but the WBF official statement made no such claim. He says the BBL tribunal ruled "not proven" but I believe that they were found "not guilty". Philip assumes R & S guilt, putting quotes from other people firmly into the their mouths. His example hand seems suspicious now but the BLML mantra "One swallow does not make a summer" seems apt here. Anyway psyches were more frequent then, especially "comic" notrumps. Most deplored Schapiro's behaviour at the table but I'm still unsure that R & S were guilty of cheating. IMO cheating allegations are so serious that they require careful investigation, so that we can be confident in the verdict beyond reasonable doubt. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 23 07:08:24 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:08:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can In-Reply-To: References: <520743A9.80009@skynet.be> <52146D61.8070507@skynet.be> <52154F82.5010900@skynet.be> <5215B9B9.9040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5216EE48.6020503@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:11:53 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> >>> However, there is an easy solution -- rectify for getting the right >>> explanation *in addition to* the wrong explanation. >> >> Indeed, but that would change quite a lot of things. > > I don't see that it would change a lot. Can you explain? > > >> Do you wish to turn over L20F5, for example? Because if the opponents >> are entitled to the wrong explanation, > > I would not say they are *entitled* to the wrong information. I would > treat it like any other information from opponents -- use at your own risk. > Well, it's one thing or the other: either they are entitled to it, or they are not. If you say they are entitled to the wrong explanation, then you should make that entitlement universal. If you say they are not entitled to it, then you cannot "rectify for them getting the right *in addition to* the wrong information". It's as if you say I am not entitled to know what's in your hand, but if I ask if you have the queen of diamonds, and you reply falsely, the TD will rectify for you telling me the truth. That cannot be the correct way to handle things. Either I'm entitled to some piece of information, and then I expect the TD to rectify if I don't get it, or I'm not entitled to that piece of information, and then the TD will not rectify if you decide to keep it hidden from me. And you should be allowed to do whatever it takes to keep it hidden, including giving some other misinformation - for which I will receive rectification. Herman. > I am just seeing more advantage for, when rectifying for wrong > information, asking what would have happened had they gotten the correct > information *in addition* to the wrong information. > Yes, there is more advantage, but it is not what I believe good laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 23 07:11:44 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:11:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was Thursday...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9CD19A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >..... >Philip [Alder] says they [Reese-Schapiro] were found guilty at Buenos Aires >but the WBF official statement made no such claim. >..... WBF official statement, Buenos Aires 1965: "Certain irregularities have been reported; the Appeals Committee fully investigated the matter and later convened a meeting of the Executive Committee of the World Bridge Federation. The captain of the British team was present. As a result of this meeting the Captain of the British squad decided to play only K. Konstam, M. Harrison-Gray, A. Rose and J. Flint in the remaining sessions and very sportingly conceded the matches with the United States and Argentina. A report of the matter will be sent to the British Bridge League." Source: http://www.shenkinbridge.com/entertainment/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=94 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/20130823/fb332fe0/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Aug 25 21:31:41 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:31:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession Message-ID: 33 108 Nord 102 none 432 AK10974 43 K9765 AKDB85 94 AB105 K6 2 DB65 ADB2 763 D987 83 E is in 3NT, opening lead D7 to the 10. Declarer now leads C2 taken by the ace, N continues with a club to the queen (spade from dummy). Declarer now plays DK and plays 4 rounds of hearts. At this point, South concedes saying "One trick to the spade ace." and North immediately objects, so play continues. Declarer is now convinced that the DQ is offside and misses the endplay. Any redress? Regards, Petrus From gampas at aol.com Sun Aug 25 21:48:45 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8D06FE33E07B0CD-1368-D6E0@webmail-m257.sysops.aol.com> [Petrus Schuster] Declarer is now convinced that the DQ is offside and misses the endplay. Any redress? [Paul Lamford] North is allowed to object (Declarer has not found the endplay yet) and declarer draws the inference regarding the queen of diamonds at his own risk. North's objection is a lawful statement; therefore,I think, cannot be a remark which he could be aware would deceive. No adjustment for me. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Aug 25 23:41:10 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:41:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <521A79F6.4060104@t-online.de> Am 25.08.2013 21:31, schrieb Petrus Schuster OSB: > 33 108 > Nord 102 > none 432 > AK10974 > 43 K9765 > AKDB85 94 > AB105 K6 > 2 DB65 > ADB2 > 763 > D987 > 83 > > E is in 3NT, opening lead D7 to the 10. Declarer now leads C2 taken by the > ace, N continues with a club to the queen (spade from dummy). Declarer now > plays DK and plays 4 rounds of hearts. > > At this point, South concedes saying "One trick to the spade ace." and > North immediately objects, so play continues. > > Declarer is now convinced that the DQ is offside and misses the endplay. > > Any redress? Tough. So what happened? South saw the endplay and conceded. North, for whatever reason, objected, which is his right. Declarer drew conclusions and did not come up with the right answer. Was there any intention to deceive? I have no idea, not being able to talk to the players. North probably objected on the grounds that he thought declarer unable to figure out the endplay, though it should be nigh impossible to miss, the diamond spots being a dead giveaway, or because he had no idea why S conceded, but if S holds an Ace and he holds an Ace.... I do not like to give something to a player who plays like East, or a player who defends like North, but without knowledge of the players I can`t really answer your question. My best guess is that North is a sponsor and S a pro, and that N didn`t understand why S conceded, so he objected. N does not have to have a _good_ reason for the objection, as long as there is no intention to deceive. Best regards Matthias > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 25 23:45:48 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 17:45:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <521A7B0C.5090300@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-25 3:31 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > At this point, South concedes saying "One trick to the spade ace." and > North immediately objects, so play continues. > > Declarer is now convinced that the DQ is offside and misses the endplay. The issue is L73F or perhaps L23 as applied to South's concession. I haven't analyzed very carefully, but I think it's normal to rule that South "could have known" for L23 purposes. The question then in the ACBL is whether declarer is "likely" or "at all probable" to have found the endplay if South had not conceded. Elsewhere, one would assign a probability and give a weighted score if the probability is nonzero. I actually experienced a similar case as a player some years ago, though then the issue was a simple finesse rather than an endplay. It was fairly obvious, certainly "likely," that declarer would have taken the finesse absent the concession, so declarer got the benefit. As Paul wrote, North has done nothing wrong, but that's not the relevant issue. From gampas at aol.com Mon Aug 26 00:14:30 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession In-Reply-To: <521A7B0C.5090300@nhcc.net> References: <521A7B0C.5090300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8D06FF79AAAA51C-17F0-D885@webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com> [Steve Willner] The issue is L73F or perhaps L23 as applied to South's concession. [Paul Lamford] It is hard to justify the belief that South "could have been aware" that a concession might benefit his side. He would normally expect it to be accepted, as 90% of concessions are. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 26 00:29:17 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:29:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9CDB93@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >..... >Elsewhere, one would assign a probability and give a >weighted score if the probability is nonzero. >..... Yes and No. WBF LC minutes, 4th September 2009, item 9(a): "It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application of Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires that 'such trick' shall be transferred or not transferred as determined by the Director's ascertainment of facts." But, of course, this minute does not apply in this particular case, as one defender's attempted concession has been rendered null and void (except for Laws 73C and 73F purposes) by the other defender. 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/20130825/93b82361/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 26 09:57:15 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:57:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession In-Reply-To: <8D06FF79AAAA51C-17F0-D885@webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com> References: <521A7B0C.5090300@nhcc.net> <8D06FF79AAAA51C-17F0-D885@webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <521B0A5B.5040103@skynet.be> Well Paul, are you a gambling man or aren't you? South knows he's going to make only 1 trick, if play is continued. He also knows the concession is 90% (your number) sure to be accepted. So he has a 10% chance of deceiving declarer if he concedes. As opposed to a 0% chance of an extra trick if he doesn't. Seems like a winning proposal to me. Why should we not give declarer what he would have got absent the concession. Since it's what the concession also gave? Herman. Paul Lamford schreef: > [Steve Willner] > The issue is L73F or perhaps L23 as applied to South's concession. > > [Paul Lamford] > It is hard to justify the belief that South "could have been aware" > that a concession might benefit his side. He would normally expect it > to be accepted, as 90% of concessions are. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6605 - Release Date: 08/24/13 > > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Aug 26 11:07:08 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:07:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession In-Reply-To: <521B0A5B.5040103@skynet.be> References: <521A7B0C.5090300@nhcc.net> <8D06FF79AAAA51C-17F0-D885@webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com> <521B0A5B.5040103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1193344399.1973058.1377508028267.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Herman De Wael" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Lundi 26 Ao?t 2013 09:57:15 > Objet: Re: [BLML] defenders' concession > > Well Paul, are you a gambling man or aren't you? > South knows he's going to make only 1 trick, if play is continued. > He also knows the concession is 90% (your number) sure to be accepted. > So he has a 10% chance of deceiving declarer if he concedes. > As opposed to a 0% chance of an extra trick if he doesn't. 0% seems underrated. how can declarer be sure of the location of DQ? of SA? of the number of diamonds south holds? why shoudn't he be satisfied with the 10 tricks defenders already offered to him? south's concession should better be qualified stupid than perverse. jpr > Seems like a winning proposal to me. > Why should we not give declarer what he would have got absent the > concession. Since it's what the concession also gave? > Herman. > > Paul Lamford schreef: > > [Steve Willner] > > The issue is L73F or perhaps L23 as applied to South's concession. > > > > [Paul Lamford] > > It is hard to justify the belief that South "could have been aware" > > that a concession might benefit his side. He would normally expect it > > to be accepted, as 90% of concessions are. -- _______________________________________________ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 26 13:05:47 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:05:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source Message-ID: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, We had the following case last tuesday : E dealer. E S W N p 3C* p 3NT** p ? * below opening, 55+ including clubs ** to play facing 55 minors, agrees majors (whence slam is possible if opener has one). This esoteric device, recently added to your system, is aimed at avoiding going overboard after a relay 3H and a 4C answer. You hold : x - ATxxx - x - QJTxxx, and have an easy 4H bid (hearts, but slam-negative). However, the dog didn't bark, or rather, partner produced that 3NT bid with ease (notice that this particular partner never loses his stiff upper lip, but can occasionally think for some time) a) do you consider there is UI from partner's smooth tempo, that is, he didn't think about that bizarre gadget ? Or are you allowed to be alerted by the fact that a natural 3NT would be strange ? b) while you think about the proper action, you remark that East has in fact opened 1S, which explains the rest. That's information you are entitled to, but can one pretend that the same UI helped you reconsider things and see it ? c) or am I just a tortured soul ? Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 26 15:20:23 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:20:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:05:47 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > We had the following case last tuesday : > > E dealer. > > > E S W N > > p 3C* p 3NT** > p ? > > * below opening, 55+ including clubs > ** to play facing 55 minors, agrees majors (whence slam is possible if > opener has one). This esoteric device, recently added to your system, > is aimed at avoiding going overboard after a relay 3H and a 4C answer. > > You hold : x - ATxxx - x - QJTxxx, and have an easy 4H bid (hearts, but > slam-negative). > However, the dog didn't bark, or rather, partner produced that 3NT bid > with ease (notice that this particular partner never loses his stiff > upper lip, but can occasionally think for some time) > > a) do you consider there is UI from partner's smooth tempo, that is, he > didn't think about that bizarre gadget ? Or are you allowed to be > alerted by the fact that a natural 3NT would be strange ? > > b) while you think about the proper action, you remark that East has in > fact opened 1S, which explains the rest. That's information you are > entitled to, but can one pretend that the same UI helped you reconsider > things and see it ? > > c) or am I just a tortured soul ? I vote no. Nice problem. It's hard to imagine a solution. Thinking about your bid was not a logical alternative? Except the laws probably don't go that way. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 26 16:26:03 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:05:47 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > We had the following case last tuesday : > > E dealer. > > > E S W N > > p 3C* p 3NT** > p ? > > * below opening, 55+ including clubs > ** to play facing 55 minors, agrees majors (whence slam is possible if > opener has one). This esoteric device, recently added to your system, > is aimed at avoiding going overboard after a relay 3H and a 4C answer. > > You hold : x - ATxxx - x - QJTxxx, and have an easy 4H bid (hearts, but > slam-negative). > However, the dog didn't bark, or rather, partner produced that 3NT bid > with ease (notice that this particular partner never loses his stiff > upper lip, but can occasionally think for some time) > > a) do you consider there is UI from partner's smooth tempo, that is, he > didn't think about that bizarre gadget ? Or are you allowed to be > alerted by the fact that a natural 3NT would be strange ? > > b) while you think about the proper action, you remark that East has in > fact opened 1S, which explains the rest. That's information you are > entitled to, but can one pretend that the same UI helped you reconsider > things and see it ? > > c) or am I just a tortured soul ? > Or I am a tortured soul too. I make a complicated bid. My partner is about to bid quickly, which means he hasn't thought about my bid. I spill my coffee to delay the game. Legal? From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Aug 27 15:02:47 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:02:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] defenders' concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 25.08.2013, 21:31 Uhr, schrieb Petrus Schuster OSB : > 33 108 > Nord 102 > none 432 > AK10974 > 43 K9765 > AKDB85 94 > AB105 K6 > 2 DB65 > ADB2 > 763 > D987 > 83 > > E is in 3NT, opening lead D7 to the 10. Declarer now leads C2 taken by > the > ace, N continues with a club to the queen (spade from dummy). Declarer > now > plays DK and plays 4 rounds of hearts. > > At this point, South concedes saying "One trick to the spade ace." and > North immediately objects, so play continues. > > Declarer is now convinced that the DQ is offside and misses the endplay. > Thank you all for the input. At the table there was no question of foul play - both defenders were rather clueless -, but the situation as such was new to me, and I was wandering what to do if an experienced pair were to act like that. Apparently, defenders have done nothing wrong, so no redress will be possible. Regards, Petrus From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 28 17:40:48 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:40:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-26 7:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > a) do you consider there is UI from partner's smooth tempo, that is, he > didn't think about that bizarre gadget ? Partner's tempo, smooth or otherwise, is UI. So is his alert/non-alert/explanation of your calls. The tricky thing is to decide what is normal tempo in a given auction. In a complex situation such as a high-level competitive auction but also when as here there's a rare bidding agreement, too fast tempo can be just as much of a problem as too slow. However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. > b) while you think about the proper action, you remark that East has in > fact opened 1S, The legal auction is always AI. The complication is that if a player learns about the legal auction in an irregular way, _that irregularity_ may be subject to adjustment. (Most commonly the irregularity will be L73B1, but it could be something else.) This is the opposite of the normal UI situation, where "using the UI," not creating it, is the infraction. The legal auction is never UI, but doing something to make partner aware of the legal auction can be an infraction. Now let's look at the original case: > E S W N > p 3C* p 3NT** > p ? > > * below opening, 55+ including clubs > ** to play facing 55 minors, agrees majors (whence slam is possible if > opener has one). ... > partner produced that 3NT bid with ease ... > East has in fact opened 1S (And presumably 3C was natural.) It depends on what "with ease" means. If it means normal tempo for the actual auction -- where I'd expect any 3NT bid to take some thought though perhaps not longer than West's mandatory pause over 3C -- then North has done nothing wrong. South is then free to bid as he likes, and the result will stand. If North's "with ease" tempo was too fast for the actual auction, then 73B1 or 73D1 becomes relevant. South is not subject to UI constraints _per se_, but if North's improper tempo benefited NS, the score should be adjusted to what would have happened if North had bid in proper tempo. Unlike the normal UI case, this can include some weight for South discovering East's opening bid. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Aug 28 19:14:57 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:14:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > However, there always has to be > _some_ tempo that is "just right" and doesn't suggest any alternative > over any other one. > I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. I suppose that it might be true if there are precisely two alternatives, but there could be more than two alternatives. Using Bayes factors, it is easy to show that it is a false assertion if there are three or more alternatives. The other problem is that the tempo that seems "just right" for you is often not "just right" for the director. Jerry Fusselman From rehagur at gmail.com Wed Aug 28 19:28:58 2013 From: rehagur at gmail.com (reha gur) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:28:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source Message-ID: This one is easy. > c) or am I just a tortured soul ? You are subscribed to BLML, no c'est pas? /ray -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130828/652464de/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 28 20:07:30 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:07:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> >> However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" >> and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. On 2013-08-28 1:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. I don't think the observation is original with me. If we're playing a game that has _no_ timing that allows partner free action, something is wrong. > I suppose that it might be true if there are precisely two > alternatives, but there could be more than two alternatives. Using > Bayes factors, it is easy to show that it is a false assertion if > there are three or more alternatives. I'm afraid I'll need to see the easy demonstration. Let's take a competitive auction where double, pass, and bid are all possible. Partner picks one after, say, 4 seconds, and you know for sure partner never would have acted faster than that even if his choice was completely obvious. What is suggested? > The other problem is that the tempo that seems "just right" for you > is often not "just right" for the director. That's why I wrote "The tricky thing is to decide what is normal tempo in a given auction" in my original message. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Aug 28 22:27:23 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:27:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: I only have time right now for few things. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" >>> and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. > > On 2013-08-28 1:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. > > I don't think the observation is original with me. If we're playing a > game that has _no_ timing that allows partner free action, something is > wrong. I make a distinction between matters of law and matters of inference, so I am focusing on your original statement that there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. Your normative comment on what makes good laws is a different issue. > >> I suppose that it might be true if there are precisely two >> alternatives, but there could be more than two alternatives. Using >> Bayes factors, it is easy to show that it is a false assertion if >> there are three or more alternatives. > > I'm afraid I'll need to see the easy demonstration. I'll be happy to, but first a few questions of clarification (below). > Let's take a > competitive auction where double, pass, and bid are all possible. > Partner picks one after, say, 4 seconds, and you know for sure partner > never would have acted faster than that even if his choice was > completely obvious. What is suggested? I need more information. Would he have ever acted slower than 4 seconds? > >> The other problem is that the tempo that seems "just right" for you >> is often not "just right" for the director. > > That's why I wrote "The tricky thing is to decide what is normal tempo > in a given auction" in my original message. I was making a distinction between the player's understanding of the implications of the various possible tempi and the director's. I didn't see you explicitly make that distinction, but maybe you were thinking it. -------------- I'll provide the proof you asked for in terms of your example if you can give me some idea of the distribution of possible actions slower than 4 seconds. Or maybe I misread you. Are you saying that a director should always deem _some_ tempo *as if* it did not suggest any alternative over any other one? And are you also saying that he should do this even if as a matter of logic, that tempo does in fact suggest an alternative? That is, was your statement purely normative for directors saying nothing about logical reality? Or was you statement intended as a statement about logical reality---that there is always some tempo that provides no UI? Jerry Fusselman From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Aug 28 23:54:03 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 23:54:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <521E717B.3090105@t-online.de> Am 28.08.2013 22:27, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: > I only have time right now for few things. > > Or maybe I misread you. Are you saying that a director should always > deem _some_ tempo *as if* it did not suggest any alternative over any > other one? Steve can surely answer this on his own, but I would like to take up your cue to voice my own opinions. My answer to the question above is yes, but not necessarily the same tempo in all cases. Maybe partner has one of two (maybe even more) hand types, all of which make his decision easy. No UI if he bids fairly quickly. Or he may have several hand types, all of which lead to difficult choices. Again, no UI, whatever his tempo. This is different, of course, if some of his hand types lead to easy decisons, while others force him to make a difficult choice... > And are you also saying that he should do this even if as > a matter of logic, that tempo does in fact suggest an alternative? No, of course not. > That is, was your statement purely normative for directors saying > nothing about logical reality? Since this is directed at Steve I refrain from an answer. > > Or was you statement intended as a statement about logical > reality---that there is always some tempo that provides no UI? See above. For _me_, there are cases where this is so, yes. Please try to find out what UI can be found in the hand I am about to relate. I remember a hand from maybe 15 yeats ago where my partner and me played a homegrown relay precision system. After years of practice we _always_ bid quickly in gameforcing undisturbed sequences below 3NT, because we knew them all by heart. Now my partner, after showing some balanced hand with 4-4 in the reds took more than a minute to answer the question about high or low doubleton. What UI did that give to me? . . . . After showing 2443 and answering a RKCB for diamonds we reached 6D. Opps asked for the auction (with some innuendos about what this auction was _supposed_ to show). I explained the auction, the lead was made, dummy showered down with exactly the hand I had described, and 6D was quickly made. Later I asked my partner about the pause... . . . . "I had 4-4 and two doubletons. This is not covered by our system. I realized that something is wrong here, but could not put my finger on it. Then I realized that I could see only 12 cards (please note that my partner was a very strong player who could hold her own in the strongest team competitions in Germany, even if it doesn`t sound like this is the case). Now I rearranged my cards and found a third spade..." I can assure you that I had no idea what had happened. Obviously there was some hitch, she never took time to answer this question, but when she did, it carried no information for me. The operative word in UI is "information". If no I can be gleaned from the tempo, there can be U either. Best regards Matthias > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 29 03:22:54 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:22:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-28 4:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Would he have ever acted slower than 4 seconds? You might as well resume yes; otherwise there can't possibly be any problem. Of course his action had he taken long thought might not be the same as the one in 4-s tempo. You might also think about the case behind screens when the tray comes back in normal time. There could be occasions it would come back slowly, but "this time" it didn't. To my mind, that is exactly analogous to my example "4-s pause in a difficult competitive auction." > I'll provide the proof you asked for in terms of your example if you > can give me some idea of the distribution of possible actions slower > than 4 seconds. I'm confused by your question. If partner has a long think, it will be obvious to everyone. It could be anywhere from 6-8 s (distinctly more than 4 s) up to perhaps a minute. Obviously this will often impart UI, though if partner's eventual action is a forcing pass, the UI might not suggest any action over another. > Are you saying that a director should always deem_some_ tempo*as if* > it did not suggest any alternative over any other one? That's what I think. If you can show me it's impossible, I'll stand corrected. (If so, bridge has a problem.) > And are you also saying that he should do this even if as a matter of > logic, that tempo does in fact suggest an alternative? If something really is suggested, then partner's actions are constrained in the usual way. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 05:28:03 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:28:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-08-28 4:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> Would he have ever acted slower than 4 seconds? > > You might as well resume yes; otherwise there can't possibly be any > problem. Of course his action had he taken long thought might not be > the same as the one in 4-s tempo. Agreed. > > You might also think about the case behind screens when the tray comes > back in normal time. There could be occasions it would come back > slowly, but "this time" it didn't. To my mind, that is exactly > analogous to my example "4-s pause in a difficult competitive auction." I rather think so too. I have an intuitive understanding of what you mean by "exactly analogous," though it sounds a bit funny. > >> I'll provide the proof you asked for in terms of your example if you >> can give me some idea of the distribution of possible actions slower >> than 4 seconds. > > I'm confused by your question. If partner has a long think, it will be > obvious to everyone. It could be anywhere from 6-8 s (distinctly more > than 4 s) up to perhaps a minute. Obviously this will often impart UI, > though if partner's eventual action is a forcing pass, the UI might not > suggest any action over another. If you don't mind, I'm going to focus just on your statement that, if I may paraphrase, says that partner always has a tempo that provides no UI to you about his thinking. > >> Are you saying that a director should always deem_some_ tempo*as if* >> it did not suggest any alternative over any other one? > > That's what I think. If you can show me it's impossible, I'll stand > corrected. (If so, bridge has a problem.) > >> And are you also saying that he should do this even if as a matter of >> logic, that tempo does in fact suggest an alternative? > > If something really is suggested, then partner's actions are constrained > in the usual way. > You wrote "there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one." Now if you or Matthias had said "often" instead of "always," no doubt no one would have disagreed with you. To disprove the "always" part, I only need one counter example. The supply of counter examples is unlimited. What follows is the simplest one I can think of right now. I'll show my work. I think it is a good example because lots of posters on BLML clearly don't understand the principle. ------------------ You know that your partner either thinks that his 3NT is natural and nonforcing, or he remembers that it is artificial and forcing. We're limiting it to just two possibilities to keep it simple. I'll use a bit math because it is easier for me, and because you can really check my logic, but is also possible to give the example with almost no math. Your partner takes a certain real number of seconds (call it s) to bid, and I ask you is to determine which s provides no information about whether he meant 3NT as natural or artificial. I have to give more information before you can name the s that doesn't suggest either possibility over the other. Let N be the event that he thinks 3NT is natural, and let A be the event that he thinks 3NT is artificial. Rationality requires p(N|s) + p(A|s) = 1. In English, the probability he meant it as natural given that it took him s seconds to bid, plus the probability that he meant it as artificial given that it took him s seconds to bid, equals 1 (certainty). With me so far? I'll add the assumptions for this example: You know that if he is thinking that 3NT is natural, then he will bid it somewhere between 4 and 5 seconds. Let's use the simplest distribution and assume that s|N (read this as "s given N") is U[4,5], i.e., uniform on the interval [4,5], and the density is 1 there. You also know that if he is thinking that 3NT is artificial, then he will bid his 3NT somewhere between 4 and 10 seconds, and here we'll assume that s|A is U[4,10], with a density 1/6 on [4,10]. Under these assumptions, if the bid takes 9 seconds, then you know that he thinks it is artificial. So s=9 is not the number of seconds that "doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one." But there is no such point. For example, if he takes 4.5 seconds, then logic requires p(N|s=4.5) = p(s=4.5|N)p(N) / (p(s=4.5|N)p(N) + p(s=4.5|A)p(A)), where p(N) is the probability you assumed (before seeing s) he would be thinking his 3NT is natural, and p(A) is the probability he would be thinking that 3NT is artificial. We're assuming p(N) + p(A) = 1. We call p(N) and p(A) the prior probabilities. Substituting in our densities from above, we have p(N|s=4.5) = p(N) / (p(N) + p(A)/6) = 6p(N) / (6p(N) + p(A)) . If p(N) was 0.2, then p(A) = 0.8, and the new probability given our observation of s=4.5 seconds is p(N|s=4.5) = 1.2 / (1.2 + .8) = 60%. That means that the observation of s=4.5 has changed your thinking from a 20% chance that it is natural to a 60% chance. That's UI. Every number of seconds s inside [4,5] gives the same answer. There is no number of seconds that fails to provide powerful UI. Did you follow the steps? Please let me know if I need to clarify something, or if I should attempt a verbal demonstration of the same conclusion. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 06:03:31 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 23:03:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521E717B.3090105@t-online.de> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521E717B.3090105@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 28.08.2013 22:27, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: >> I only have time right now for few things. >> >> Or maybe I misread you. Are you saying that a director should always >> deem _some_ tempo *as if* it did not suggest any alternative over any >> other one? > > Steve can surely answer this on his own, but I would like to take up > your cue to voice my own opinions. I hope I can be a worthy interlocutor. > > My answer to the question above is yes, but not necessarily the same > tempo in all cases. Maybe partner has one of two (maybe even more) hand > types, all of which make his decision easy. No UI if he bids fairly > quickly. Or he may have several hand types, all of which lead to > difficult choices. Again, no UI, whatever his tempo. This is different, > of course, if some of his hand types lead to easy decisons, while others > force him to make a difficult choice... The quote I disagreed with was "there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one." Steve wrote "always." In your paragraph, Matthias, you're merely arguing that Steve would have been right if he had used "sometimes" instead of "always." But your example confuses me. If partner bids quickly, he has shown that he probably had an easy decision, which is UI to you. I'll assume your "yes" means that there is always a tempo that gives you no UI. > >> And are you also saying that he should do this even if as >> a matter of logic, that tempo does in fact suggest an alternative? > > No, of course not. > >> That is, was your statement purely normative for directors saying >> nothing about logical reality? > > Since this is directed at Steve I refrain from an answer. > >> >> Or was you statement intended as a statement about logical >> reality---that there is always some tempo that provides no UI? > > See above. For _me_, there are cases where this is so, yes. Please try > to find out what UI can be found in the hand I am about to relate. > > I remember a hand from maybe 15 yeats ago where my partner and me played > a homegrown relay precision system. After years of practice we _always_ > bid quickly in gameforcing undisturbed sequences below 3NT, because we > knew them all by heart. Now my partner, after showing some balanced hand > with 4-4 in the reds took more than a minute to answer the question > about high or low doubleton. What UI did that give to me? > . > . The example you give below is interesting, but it does not seem that relevant to the question I raised. When I contradicted Steve's "always X", I did not assert "never X." I only asserted that I could find examples in which X is not true. Your examples look to me like they show "sometimes X." Your example below shows that X seems valid in some cases. Apparently, in your example, you're asserting that no length of time before bidding provided any UI, because you two had completely mastered your system. I won't argue that. The issue is whether there is always some length of time before bidding that provides no UI. That's what I have been saying is false. Would you be willing to check out the example I just gave for Steve in this thread? Jerry Fusselman > . > . > After showing 2443 and answering a RKCB for diamonds we reached 6D. Opps > asked for the auction (with some innuendos about what this auction was > _supposed_ to show). I explained the auction, the lead was made, dummy > showered down with exactly the hand I had described, and 6D was quickly > made. Later I asked my partner about the pause... > . > . > . > . > "I had 4-4 and two doubletons. This is not covered by our system. I > realized that something is wrong here, but could not put my finger on > it. Then I realized that I could see only 12 cards (please note that my > partner was a very strong player who could hold her own in the strongest > team competitions in Germany, even if it doesn`t sound like this is the > case). Now I rearranged my cards and found a third spade..." > > I can assure you that I had no idea what had happened. Obviously there > was some hitch, she never took time to answer this question, but when > she did, it carried no information for me. > > The operative word in UI is "information". If no I can be gleaned from > the tempo, there can be U either. > > Best regards > Matthias > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 29 13:30:49 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:30:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <521F30E9.2010903@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/08/2013 20:07, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>> However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" >>> and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. > On 2013-08-28 1:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. > I don't think the observation is original with me. If we're playing a > game that has _no_ timing that allows partner free action, something is > wrong. Yes, something is wrong with the definition of UI. And Jerry's point is part of the problem. No big news. Don't you think that both asking and not asking could suggest something about your hand ? That's why compulsory pauses have been enforced ; and asking about all alerted bids could be a solution too, except that it helps opponents. > >> I suppose that it might be true if there are precisely two >> alternatives, but there could be more than two alternatives. Using >> Bayes factors, it is easy to show that it is a false assertion if >> there are three or more alternatives. > I'm afraid I'll need to see the easy demonstration. Let's take a > competitive auction where double, pass, and bid are all possible. > Partner picks one after, say, 4 seconds, and you know for sure partner > never would have acted faster than that even if his choice was > completely obvious. What is suggested? I'm afraid that's not the good exemple, because there is some gradation (bid - pass - double). Bayesian weights work mainly when the three-way choice is ungraded, like double - suit - NT. But I agree that it might happen. If Jerry doesn't answer your request, I'll try to find a good example. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 29 13:36:47 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:36:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <521F324F.30403@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/08/2013 5:28, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> On 2013-08-28 4:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> Would he have ever acted slower than 4 seconds? >> You might as well resume yes; otherwise there can't possibly be any >> problem. Of course his action had he taken long thought might not be >> the same as the one in 4-s tempo. > Agreed. > >> You might also think about the case behind screens when the tray comes >> back in normal time. There could be occasions it would come back >> slowly, but "this time" it didn't. To my mind, that is exactly >> analogous to my example "4-s pause in a difficult competitive auction." > I rather think so too. I have an intuitive understanding of what you > mean by "exactly analogous," though it sounds a bit funny. > >>> I'll provide the proof you asked for in terms of your example if you >>> can give me some idea of the distribution of possible actions slower >>> than 4 seconds. >> I'm confused by your question. If partner has a long think, it will be >> obvious to everyone. It could be anywhere from 6-8 s (distinctly more >> than 4 s) up to perhaps a minute. Obviously this will often impart UI, >> though if partner's eventual action is a forcing pass, the UI might not >> suggest any action over another. > If you don't mind, I'm going to focus just on your statement that, if > I may paraphrase, says that partner always has a tempo that provides > no UI to you about his thinking. > >>> Are you saying that a director should always deem_some_ tempo*as if* >>> it did not suggest any alternative over any other one? >> That's what I think. If you can show me it's impossible, I'll stand >> corrected. (If so, bridge has a problem.) >> >>> And are you also saying that he should do this even if as a matter of >>> logic, that tempo does in fact suggest an alternative? >> If something really is suggested, then partner's actions are constrained >> in the usual way. >> > You wrote "there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" > and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one." > > Now if you or Matthias had said "often" instead of "always," no doubt > no one would have disagreed with you. To disprove the "always" part, > I only need one counter example. > > The supply of counter examples is unlimited. What follows is the > simplest one I can think of right now. I'll show my work. I think it > is a good example because lots of posters on BLML clearly don't > understand the principle. > > ------------------ > > You know that your partner either thinks that his 3NT is natural and > nonforcing, or he remembers that it is artificial and forcing. We're > limiting it to just two possibilities to keep it simple. I'll use a > bit math because it is easier for me, and because you can really check > my logic, but is also possible to give the example with almost no > math. > > Your partner takes a certain real number of seconds (call it s) to > bid, and I ask you is to determine which s provides no information > about whether he meant 3NT as natural or artificial. I have to give > more information before you can name the s that doesn't suggest either > possibility over the other. > > Let N be the event that he thinks 3NT is natural, and let A be the > event that he thinks 3NT is artificial. Rationality requires p(N|s) + > p(A|s) = 1. In English, the probability he meant it as natural given > that it took him s seconds to bid, plus the probability that he meant > it as artificial given that it took him s seconds to bid, equals 1 > (certainty). With me so far? > > I'll add the assumptions for this example: > > You know that if he is thinking that 3NT is natural, then he will bid > it somewhere between 4 and 5 seconds. Let's use the simplest > distribution and assume that s|N (read this as "s given N") is U[4,5], > i.e., uniform on the interval [4,5], and the density is 1 there. > > You also know that if he is thinking that 3NT is artificial, then he > will bid his 3NT somewhere between 4 and 10 seconds, and here we'll > assume that s|A is U[4,10], with a density 1/6 on [4,10]. > > Under these assumptions, if the bid takes 9 seconds, then you know > that he thinks it is artificial. So s=9 is not the number of seconds > that "doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one." > > But there is no such point. For example, if he takes 4.5 seconds, > then logic requires > > p(N|s=4.5) = p(s=4.5|N)p(N) / (p(s=4.5|N)p(N) + p(s=4.5|A)p(A)), > > where p(N) is the probability you assumed (before seeing s) he would > be thinking his 3NT is natural, and p(A) is the probability he would > be thinking that 3NT is artificial. We're assuming p(N) + p(A) = 1. > We call p(N) and p(A) the prior probabilities. Substituting in our > densities from above, we have > > p(N|s=4.5) = p(N) / (p(N) + p(A)/6) = 6p(N) / (6p(N) + p(A)) . > > If p(N) was 0.2, then p(A) = 0.8, and the new probability given our > observation of s=4.5 seconds is > > p(N|s=4.5) = 1.2 / (1.2 + .8) = 60%. > > That means that the observation of s=4.5 has changed your thinking > from a 20% chance that it is natural to a 60% chance. That's UI. > Every number of seconds s inside [4,5] gives the same answer. There > is no number of seconds that fails to provide powerful UI. > > Did you follow the steps? Please let me know if I need to clarify > something, or if I should attempt a verbal demonstration of the same > conclusion. > > That's what I like with my fellow mathematicians. They call such a proof 'easy'. But it is correct. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 14:18:05 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:18:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521F324F.30403@ulb.ac.be> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> <521F324F.30403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <521F3BFD.5000704@gmail.com> On 08/29/2013 07:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > That's what I like with my fellow mathematicians. They call such a proof > 'easy'. > But it is correct. > Mathematically correct, maybe - but having been educated as a chemist rather than a mathematician, reading something which implies that a bridge player can time the accuracy of partner's bid at the table to +/- 0.05 of a second makes me automatically sceptical about what's being said. If Jerry had said "Assume that your partner makes his bid in 4 seconds +/- 1 second" then that would seem far more realistic to me. I'm not enough of a mathematician to know whether the proof holds up when you introduce real-world observational uncertainties. Brian. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 16:27:46 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:27:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521F3BFD.5000704@gmail.com> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> <521F324F.30403@ulb.ac.be> <521F3BFD.5000704@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Brian wrote: > On 08/29/2013 07:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> That's what I like with my fellow mathematicians. They call such a proof >> 'easy'. >> But it is correct. >> > > Mathematically correct, maybe - but having been educated as a chemist > rather than a mathematician, reading something which implies that a > bridge player can time the accuracy of partner's bid at the table to > +/- 0.05 of a second makes me automatically sceptical about what's > being said. It would have been incompetent of me to supply a proof that works only because I used continuous random variables. The proof generalizes to discrete random variables, but using discrete random variables would not have been fair to Steve. He postulated the existence of a point that provides no UI, and using continuous random variables is the only way he could possibly be right. (Actually, he is right if he limits himself to *two* possible meanings of the bids and he requires the densities to have overlapping convex supports and to be continuous with continuous contact with zero---but these assumptions strike me as unrealistic.) > > If Jerry had said "Assume that your partner makes his bid in 4 seconds > +/- 1 second" then that would seem far more realistic to me. I'm not > enough of a mathematician to know whether the proof holds up when you > introduce real-world observational uncertainties. > Yes, the proof still holds up if I had said "Assume that your partner makes his bid in 4 seconds +/- 1 second" and the numbers are exactly the same, because p(N|s=4+/-1) = p(s=4+/-1|N)p(N) / (p(s=4+/-1|N)p(N) + p(s=4+/-1|A)p(A)), and all the same numbers work---p(s=4+/-1|N) = 1 still, and p(s=4+/-1|A) = 1/6 still. The end result of seeing that the bid takes 4 seconds +/- 1 second is still to change your thinking from p(N) = 20% to p(N|s=4+/-1) = 60%. It's still UI. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 18:04:26 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:04:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521F30E9.2010903@ulb.ac.be> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521F30E9.2010903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: There is a lot of meat in Alain's post here. I'll try to inject some thoughts. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 28/08/2013 20:07, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>>> However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" >>>> and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. >> On 2013-08-28 1:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. >> I don't think the observation is original with me. If we're playing a >> game that has _no_ timing that allows partner free action, something is >> wrong. > > Yes, something is wrong with the definition of UI. Yeah, we should probably try to state clearly what is wrong in one accessible place. On BLML, there seems to me a consistent pattern to underestimate the extent of UI. > And Jerry's point is > part of the problem. No big news. > Don't you think that both asking and not asking could suggest something > about your hand ? Right. The doctrine in some places requiring you ask only when you "need to know" seems one of the worst ideas ever from the standpoint of true UI. Easily refuted, often refuted, and yet it still lives. The doctrine is not a solution, it's a bad trade off. > That's why compulsory pauses have been enforced ; and asking about all > alerted bids could be a solution too, except that it helps opponents. There are no "solutions" to the problems of UI in bridge, only trade offs. But I think that many of our current trade offs could be greatly improved. Currently, we're amateurs in this area. Maybe I should share my ideas for improvements on this forum. They're not completely worked out, but maybe some feedback would help. I think there are some huge improvements possible in the areas Alain mentions---pauses and asking protocols. The improvements involve much less transmission of UI, but there's no way to get it down to zero in every case. > >> >>> I suppose that it might be true if there are precisely two >>> alternatives, but there could be more than two alternatives. Using >>> Bayes factors, it is easy to show that it is a false assertion if >>> there are three or more alternatives. >> I'm afraid I'll need to see the easy demonstration. Let's take a >> competitive auction where double, pass, and bid are all possible. >> Partner picks one after, say, 4 seconds, and you know for sure partner >> never would have acted faster than that even if his choice was >> completely obvious. What is suggested? > > I'm afraid that's not the good exemple, because there is some gradation > (bid - pass - double). Bayesian weights work mainly when the three-way > choice is ungraded, like double - suit - NT. I don't understand this reference to Bayesian weights. Bayesian weights work for any number of choices. They are a consequence of common logic. Jerry Fusselman From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 29 21:35:47 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:35:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net><521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521F30E9.2010903@ulb.ac.be> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net><521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521F30E9.2010903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Fusselman" Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:04 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source > There is a lot of meat in Alain's post here. I'll try to inject some > thoughts. > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 28/08/2013 20:07, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>>>> However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" >>>>> and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. >>> On 2013-08-28 1:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>>> I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. >>> I don't think the observation is original with me. If we're playing a >>> game that has _no_ timing that allows partner free action, something is >>> wrong. >> >> Yes, something is wrong with the definition of UI. > > Yeah, we should probably try to state clearly what is wrong in one > accessible place. On BLML, there seems to me a consistent pattern to > underestimate the extent of UI. > >> And Jerry's point is >> part of the problem. No big news. >> Don't you think that both asking and not asking could suggest something >> about your hand ? > > Right. The doctrine in some places requiring you ask only when you > "need to know" seems one of the worst ideas ever I am inclined to believe that the proper doctrine is that during a hand players do not ask questions. Once accepted, then it is obvious that the only solution is that players exchange useful CCs at the beginning of the round. However, it follows that a scheme is needed for the 'foreseeable case' when the delivered CC is not useful- where the necessary solution is to ask the question. The natural response to such claptrap is there can be no such thing as a useful CC--- since such a CC must necessarily accommodate rather complex methods . However, that notion is defective because it relies upon the premise that the rules are founded upon good doctrine- when in fact the premise is false. This is particularly so with respect to L1 and L77 [which notably are the rules from which the offending complex methods derive]. My postulate is that The Useful CC becomes readily created once the proper doctrines are in place. regards roger pewick >from the standpoint > of true UI. Easily refuted, often refuted, and yet it still lives. > The doctrine is not a solution, it's a bad trade off. >> That's why compulsory pauses have been enforced ; and asking about all >> alerted bids could be a solution too, except that it helps opponents. > There are no "solutions" to the problems of UI in bridge, only trade > offs. But I think that many of our current trade offs could be > greatly improved. Currently, we're amateurs in this area. >Maybe I > should share my ideas for improvements on this forum. I for one have an interest. You are welcome to email directly. > They're not > completely worked out, but maybe some feedback would help. I think > there are some huge improvements possible in the areas Alain > mentions---pauses and asking protocols. The improvements involve much > less transmission of UI, but there's no way to get it down to zero in > every case. >>>> I suppose that it might be true if there are precisely two >>>> alternatives, but there could be more than two alternatives. Using >>>> Bayes factors, it is easy to show that it is a false assertion if >>>> there are three or more alternatives. >>> I'm afraid I'll need to see the easy demonstration. Let's take a >>> competitive auction where double, pass, and bid are all possible. >>> Partner picks one after, say, 4 seconds, and you know for sure partner >>> never would have acted faster than that even if his choice was >>> completely obvious. What is suggested? >> >> I'm afraid that's not the good exemple, because there is some gradation >> (bid - pass - double). Bayesian weights work mainly when the three-way >> choice is ungraded, like double - suit - NT. > I don't understand this reference to Bayesian weights. Bayesian > weights work for any number of choices. They are a consequence of > common logic. > > Jerry Fusselman From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Aug 30 01:08:07 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:08:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] BLML exchange In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> <521F324F.30403@ulb.ac.be> <521F3BFD.5000704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <521FD457.2020004@gmail.com> Fair enough, Jerry, I take your word for it. It was an honest question - my maths background finishes at standard deviations and confidence limits. I didn't know whether or not a 'real world' observational uncertainty would change anything. I certainly wasn't questioning your competence in any way. My bias against figures which imply greater-than-practical accuracies is no doubt due to a strict regime of 'no error estimations = halve the marks' from my undergraduate days. On 08/29/2013 10:27 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Brian wrote: >> On 08/29/2013 07:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> >> >>> That's what I like with my fellow mathematicians. They call such a proof >>> 'easy'. >>> But it is correct. >>> >> >> Mathematically correct, maybe - but having been educated as a chemist >> rather than a mathematician, reading something which implies that a >> bridge player can time the accuracy of partner's bid at the table to >> +/- 0.05 of a second makes me automatically sceptical about what's >> being said. > > It would have been incompetent of me to supply a proof that works only > because I used continuous random variables. The proof generalizes to > discrete random variables, but using discrete random variables would > not have been fair to Steve. He postulated the existence of a point > that provides no UI, and using continuous random variables is the only > way he could possibly be right. (Actually, he is right if he limits > himself to *two* possible meanings of the bids and he requires the > densities to have overlapping convex supports and to be continuous > with continuous contact with zero---but these assumptions strike me as > unrealistic.) > >> >> If Jerry had said "Assume that your partner makes his bid in 4 seconds >> +/- 1 second" then that would seem far more realistic to me. I'm not >> enough of a mathematician to know whether the proof holds up when you >> introduce real-world observational uncertainties. >> > > Yes, the proof still holds up if I had said "Assume that your partner > makes his bid in 4 seconds > +/- 1 second" and the numbers are exactly the same, because > > p(N|s=4+/-1) = p(s=4+/-1|N)p(N) / (p(s=4+/-1|N)p(N) + p(s=4+/-1|A)p(A)), > > and all the same numbers work---p(s=4+/-1|N) = 1 still, and > p(s=4+/-1|A) = 1/6 still. The end result of seeing that the bid takes > 4 seconds +/- 1 second is still to change your thinking from p(N) = > 20% to p(N|s=4+/-1) = 60%. It's still UI. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > . > From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 30 03:37:01 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:37:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <521FF73D.2050107@nhcc.net> On 2013-08-28 11:28 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > If you don't mind, I'm going to focus just on your statement that, if > I may paraphrase, says that partner always has a tempo that provides > no UI to you about his thinking. That's fair. I'll back off to the extent it's the bridge version of "always," not the mathematical version. I'll snip most of the argument. I understand it despite my mathematical deficiencies and agree it is logically sound. > You know that if he is thinking that 3NT is natural, then he will bid > it somewhere between 4 and 5 seconds. Let's use the simplest > distribution and assume that s|N (read this as "s given N") is U[4,5], > i.e., uniform on the interval [4,5], and the density is 1 there. > > You also know that if he is thinking that 3NT is artificial, then he > will bid his 3NT somewhere between 4 and 10 seconds, and here we'll > assume that s|A is U[4,10], with a density 1/6 on [4,10]. Where I disagree is that in real life, I won't know either of these things. Even if partner is sure 3NT is natural, it might be far from an obvious bid (shaky stopper, perhaps), and he might easily take 10 s or 30 or more before coming up with it. And if 3NT is artificial, he might take some time to remember that, but a couple of seconds (quite a lot in bridge terms) is likely to be enough. If it is artificial, it shouldn't take too long to decide whether it's the right bid. That is to say, the distributions will be the same within the uncertainties of my own knowledge, and if the tempo is near the ideal value, it won't change my perceived posterior probability distributions. You do have a point, though. In well-tuned partnerships, where each knows the other's tendencies perfectly, they can transmit UI to each other with no chance of detection. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 30 11:53:30 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:53:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521F30E9.2010903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <52206B9A.5020102@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/08/2013 18:04, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > There is a lot of meat in Alain's post here. I'll try to inject some thoughts. > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 28/08/2013 20:07, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>>>> However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" >>>>> and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. >>> On 2013-08-28 1:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>>> I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. >>> I don't think the observation is original with me. If we're playing a >>> game that has _no_ timing that allows partner free action, something is >>> wrong. >> Yes, something is wrong with the definition of UI. > Yeah, we should probably try to state clearly what is wrong in one > accessible place. On BLML, there seems to me a consistent pattern to > underestimate the extent of UI. One fundamental problem is that it contradicts a general principle of Law : you can't be penalized for both for doing something and for doing the opposite. Yet the enquiring regulations, in particular, create this kind ofsituation. IMHO enquiring should never be considered UI, and you should be allowed to random-enquire, like you're allowed to random-pause behind screens. It wil suppress UI altogether. Even if not enquiring wans't penalized by TFLB, it would occasinally penalize you in game terms. The problem is, if you ask about some compex bid and then pass, you've shown interest and that's information akin to a slow pass. But if you're allowed to random-enquire one achieves what Jerry is looking for : a very much lower rate of UI cases, knowing that zero UI is impossible. >> I'm afraid that's not the good exemple, because there is some gradation >> (bid - pass - double). Bayesian weights work mainly when the three-way >> choice is ungraded, like double - suit - NT. > I don't understand this reference to Bayesian weights. Bayesian > weights work for any number of choices. They are a consequence of > common logic. > AG : the high level bid-pass-double has one characteristic : it will be very uncommon that pass will be suggested over both bid and double. Whence IMHO you may not freely choose your coefficients. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 30 11:59:32 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:59:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net><521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521F30E9.2010903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <52206D04.6080806@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/08/2013 21:35, Roger Pewick a ?crit : > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:04 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source > >> There is a lot of meat in Alain's post here. I'll try to inject some >> thoughts. >> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> Le 28/08/2013 20:07, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>>>>> However, there always has to be _some_ tempo that is "just right" >>>>>> and doesn't suggest any alternative over any other one. >>>> On 2013-08-28 1:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>>>> I have never noticed this kind of assertion before. >>>> I don't think the observation is original with me. If we're playing a >>>> game that has _no_ timing that allows partner free action, something is >>>> wrong. >>> Yes, something is wrong with the definition of UI. >> Yeah, we should probably try to state clearly what is wrong in one >> accessible place. On BLML, there seems to me a consistent pattern to >> underestimate the extent of UI. >> >>> And Jerry's point is >>> part of the problem. No big news. >>> Don't you think that both asking and not asking could suggest something >>> about your hand ? >> Right. The doctrine in some places requiring you ask only when you >> "need to know" seems one of the worst ideas ever > I am inclined to believe that the proper doctrine is that during a hand > players do not ask questions. > > Once accepted, then it is obvious that the only solution is that players > exchange useful CCs at the beginning of the round. However, it follows that > a scheme is needed for the 'foreseeable case' when the delivered CC is not > useful- where the necessary solution is to ask the question. > > The natural response to such claptrap is there can be no such thing as a > useful CC--- since such a CC must necessarily accommodate rather complex > methods . However, that notion is defective because it relies upon the > premise that the rules are founded upon good doctrine- when in fact the > premise is false. This is particularly so with respect to L1 and L77 [which > notably are the rules from which the offending complex methods derive]. What about non-offending complex methods ? What if all information is provided in a perfect way ? You don't ask, you have to find the meaning in the notes ? How does it fit in time schedules ? In my country, CC and notes are provided long before matches. Does it mean that I have to remember everything my opponents play and can't ask ? Also, the point the opponent wants to know could be very minor and not be explicitly mentioned, or be only a consequence of several sepaate items of information. IMOBO that's worsening the problem. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 30 12:03:44 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:03:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source In-Reply-To: <521FF73D.2050107@nhcc.net> References: <521B368B.5080509@ulb.ac.be> <521E1A00.6010204@nhcc.net> <521E3C62.7050007@nhcc.net> <521EA26E.4090708@nhcc.net> <521FF73D.2050107@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52206E00.2020607@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/08/2013 3:37, Steve Willner a ?crit : > You do have a point, though. In well-tuned partnerships, where each > knows the other's tendencies perfectly, they can transmit UI to each > other with no chance of detection. One such case, which I came across in a former partnership, if with two-way openings at the two-level : weak transfer or a bunch of strong hands. Partner will seldom hesitate in deciding whether to preempt (especially this particular partner) ; in the strong case he mught have memory problems, or be thinking about evaluation (is this a game hand or a near-game hand ?). We discussed it and decided to wait before preempting too, but occasionally we forgot to do it.