From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 00:22:42 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 23:22:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Fouled Board in Teams [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32515CA12@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ABF Supplementary Regulations, 2013 Spring Nationals: 8 Fouled Boards 8.1 In Teams events, the result of a fouled board is cancelled and a substitute board is played at both tables unless the result of the match is known or any of the players has left the table at the conclusion of that round. In these cases the board is cancelled and a score of 3 IMPs is assigned for both sides. Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE: "After all, when strangers meet by night on the fells, they should not disclose their names, not the names of their fathers, until they have tested each other's heart with shrewd enquiry." Then his face seemed to relax a little behind the fixed scowl of his visor. "Don't ask me why, mind, it's just the rule. Damned silly rule if you ask me. The hours I've wasted asking gnomic questions when I could have been doing something else. Is this place still called Rolfsness?" 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131201/9e09c4c3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 04:06:20 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 03:06:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32515CADD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ton Kooijman: >I just received the following, believe it or not, in which LHO >invites declarer to play from dummy before he himself plays. > >Hearts trump, declarer has H J,10 and two small clubs and in >dummy H 9,7 with two small diamonds. Declarer to lead >claims announcing a cross ruff. LHO asks him to continue >and he puts a small club on the table and says "ruff". Now >LHO asks which one and he says "7" after which LHO puts >down his 8, which declarer had forgotten. > >ton Richard Hills: In my opinion LHO has been too clever for their own good. If LHO had simply summoned the Director immediately after declarer had stated that flawed claim on a "high" cross- ruff, then the Director would have had to deem that the first club ruff in dummy was with the Nine, which would promote LHO's Eight. But now relevant is Law 70D3: "In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131202/7c836ef2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 23:46:07 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:46:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU L&EC minutes 9th September 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516023B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/minutes 5.3 Appealing to have a fine imposed on your opponents The Committee considered an appeal where part of the appellants' argument was that the TD should have imposed a procedural penalty on the other side. GR [Gordon Rainsford, Chief Tournament Director] confirmed that according to Law 92A a contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. The Committee therefore agreed that an appeal could include those grounds. However, an appeal which was lodged solely on that basis might very well be deemed frivolous. 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131202/e69bf469/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 3 03:53:51 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 21:53:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32515CADD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32515CADD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 22:06:20 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Ton Kooijman: > >> I just received the following, believe it or not, in which LHO >> invites declarer to play from dummy before he himself plays. >> >> Hearts trump, declarer has H J,10 and two small clubs and in >> dummy H 9,7 with two small diamonds. Declarer to lead >> claims announcing a cross ruff. LHO asks him to continue >> and he puts a small club on the table and says ?ruff?. Now >> LHO asks which one and he says ?7? after which LHO puts >> down his 8, which declarer had forgotten. >> >> ton >Richard Hills: >In my opinion LHO has been too clever for their own good. >If LHO had simply summoned the Director immediately > after declarer had stated that flawed claim on a ?high? cross- > ruff, then the Director would have had to deem that the first > club ruff in dummy was with the Nine, which would promote > LHO?s Eight. But now relevant is Law 70D3: >?In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if > any play has occurred after the claim this may provide > evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. > The Director may accept it as evidence of the players? > probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy > of the claim.? It's irrational to underruff. It's excessively clever to ruff high the first time. >> 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131203/0352922b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 3 04:19:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:19:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3251604B3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ton Kooijman: >>>I just received the following, believe it or not, in which LHO >>>invites declarer to play from dummy before he himself plays. >>> >>>Hearts trump, declarer has H J,10 and two small clubs and in >>>dummy H 9,7 with two small diamonds. Declarer to lead >>>claims announcing a cross ruff. LHO asks him to continue >>>and he puts a small club on the table and says "ruff". Now >>>LHO asks which one and he says "7" after which LHO puts >>>down his 8, which declarer had forgotten. >>> >>>ton Richard Hills: >>In my opinion LHO has been too clever for their own good. >> >>If LHO had simply summoned the Director immediately >>after declarer had stated that flawed claim on a "high" cross- >>ruff, then the Director would have had to deem that the first >>club ruff in dummy was with the Nine, which would promote >>LHO's Eight. But now relevant is Law 70D3: >> >>"In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if >>any play has occurred after the claim this may provide >>evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. >>The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' >>probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy >>of the claim." >It's irrational to under-ruff. Richard Hills: Correct, Law 70E1. So by reading Law 70D3 in conjunction with Law 70E1 the Director should rule that the claim, although flawed, is nevertheless successful. >It's excessively clever to ruff high the first time. Incorrect, it is merely "careless or inferior" to ruff with the Nine if declarer is under a misapprehension that the Nine and the Seven are equals. Of course, thanks to that extra Law 70D3 information, we now know that declarer will "normally" initially ruff with the Seven (but under Law 70E1 will over-ruff with the Nine if the Eight unexpectedly emerges from LHO's hand). Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE: "It's not a trick of mastering the dragons, as most people think. Dragons have no masters. The question is always the same, with a dragon: will he talk with you or will he eat you? If you can count upon his doing the former, and not doing the latter, why then you're a dragonlord." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131203/0ca3d6a6/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 3 06:40:56 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:40:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3251604B3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3251604B3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:19:22 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Ton Kooijman: > >>>> I just received the following, believe it or not, in which LHO >>>> invites declarer to play from dummy before he himself plays. >>>> >>>> Hearts trump, declarer has H J,10 and two small clubs and in >>>> dummy H 9,7 with two small diamonds. Declarer to lead >>>> claims announcing a cross ruff. LHO asks him to continue >>>> and he puts a small club on the table and says ?ruff?. Now >>>> LHO asks which one and he says ?7? after which LHO puts >>>> down his 8, which declarer had forgotten. >>>> >>>> ton >Richard Hills: > >>> In my opinion LHO has been too clever for their own good. >>> >>> If LHO had simply summoned the Director immediately >>> after declarer had stated that flawed claim on a ?high? cross- >>> ruff, then the Director would have had to deem that the first >>> club ruff in dummy was with the Nine, which would promote >>> LHO?s Eight. But now relevant is Law 70D3: >>> >>> ?In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if >>> any play has occurred after the claim this may provide >>> evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. >>> The Director may accept it as evidence of the players? >>> probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy >>> of the claim.? > >> It?s irrational to under-ruff. >Richard Hills: >Correct, Law 70E1. >So by reading Law 70D3 in conjunction with Law 70E1 the > Director should rule that the claim, although flawed, is > nevertheless successful. > >> It?s excessively clever to ruff high the first time. >Incorrect, it is merely ?careless or inferior? to ruff with the > Nine if declarer is under a misapprehension that the Nine and > the Seven are equals. It's not careless to ruff with the nine. That actually takes work. Declarer will usually just say "ruff" or "trump". So the seven is the careless playl Or notice when someone leads from AQ42 in dummy. How often do they start with the 4? >> > Of course, thanks to that extra Law 70D3 information, we > now know that declarer will ?normally? initially ruff with the > Seven (but under Law 70E1 will over-ruff with the Nine if the > Eight unexpectedly emerges from LHO?s hand). >Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE: >?It?s not a trick of mastering the dragons, as most people think. > Dragons have no masters. The question is always the same, > with a dragon: will he talk with you or will he eat you? If you > can count upon his doing the former, and not doing the latter, > why then you?re a dragonlord.? > 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131203/ca8c38d7/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Tue Dec 3 13:32:49 2013 From: schoderb at msn.com (Bill Schoder) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn Message-ID: <123668624.69196145.1386073969559.JavaMail.app@ela4-app0097.prod> LinkedIn ------------ I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Bill Bill Schoder Sports Professional Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida Area Confirm that you know Bill Schoder: https://www.linkedin.com/e/bkaw8p-hor4njp1-6x/isd/18453090351/ZdAlSQv-/?hs=false&tok=3Rip7StK4MvS01 -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/bkaw8p-hor4njp1-6x/JZe3nK4u6mHYjzY5503qsnRi/goo/blml%40rtflb%2Eorg/20061/I6035481845_1/?hs=false&tok=2xfnXVGCUMvS01 (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131203/8662decc/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 14:31:28 2013 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:31:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn In-Reply-To: <123668624.69196145.1386073969559.JavaMail.app@ela4-app0097.prod> References: <123668624.69196145.1386073969559.JavaMail.app@ela4-app0097.prod> Message-ID: <529DDD30.2080601@gmail.com> Folks, > I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. Please DON'T invite the mailing list to social networks. It tends to break things. Henk (moderator) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 4 22:33:46 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:33:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn In-Reply-To: <529DDD30.2080601@gmail.com> References: <123668624.69196145.1386073969559.JavaMail.app@ela4-app0097.prod> <529DDD30.2080601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <529F9FBA.60109@nhcc.net> On 2013-12-03 8:31 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Please DON'T invite the mailing list to social networks. I've been told that LinkedIn sometimes sends invitations to everyone in a user's address book without the user's explicit permission. That's one of many reasons I've never signed up. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 5 22:20:27 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:20:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: 2. The Commission discussed Law 40B3 and the commentary to this Law. The Commission unanimously approved the following interpretation: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play predicated on any of the following: (i) Whether a question is asked (or not asked) by it or the opposing partnership. (ii) A response by its side to an opposing player's question, or (iii) An irregularity. =+= In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D) 4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a prior understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which is apparently illegal in ACBL-land. Kind regards, 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131205/ccfddebd/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 5 22:43:33 2013 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:43:33 -0600 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52A0F385.8090304@comcast.net> On 12/5/13, 3:20 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > _http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html_ > ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: > 2. The Commission discussed Law 40B3 and the commentary > to this Law. The Commission unanimously approved the > following interpretation: > A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its > understanding during the auction or play predicated on any of > the following: > (i) Whether a question is asked (or not asked) by it or the > opposing partnership. > (ii) A response by its side to an opposing player's question, > or > (iii) An irregularity. > =+= > In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D) > 4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a prior > understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which is > apparently illegal in ACBL-land. > Kind regards, > Richard Hills Why would this be illegal...it's a different bid? 2H and 3H natural & forcing would also seem to be legal. But 3S(1D)4H that is not natural and non-forcing would seem to be illegal. --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131205/aa501e83/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 5 22:48:08 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 22:48:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002b01cef203$b00d2c00$10278400$@online.no> ?But we also have a prior understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which is apparently illegal in ACBL-land.? Yes, this appears to be an explicit agreement and therefore illegal, but I don?t see how any Authority can prohibit a partnership using general bridge knowledge (common sense) after an irregularity? Examples: 1S (1D) 1H - My GBK is that this shows a heart suit with 6-9 HCP? 1S (1D) 1S - My GBK is that this is an extremely weak ?raise?, say xxxx and 2-5 HCP? 4NT (4D) - My GBK is that PASS now shows 0 Aces, X shows 1, 4H shows 2 and so on? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 5. desember 2013 22:20 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: 2. The Commission discussed Law 40B3 and the commentary to this Law. The Commission unanimously approved the following interpretation: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play predicated on any of the following: (i) Whether a question is asked (or not asked) by it or the opposing partnership. (ii) A response by its side to an opposing player?s question, or (iii) An irregularity. =+= In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D) 4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a prior understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which is apparently illegal in ACBL-land. Kind regards, 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131205/e57d90ed/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 5 23:11:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 22:11:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166148@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>..... >>But we also have a prior understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and >>forcing, which is apparently illegal in ACBL-land. Robert Park: >Why would this be illegal...it's a different bid? 2H and 3H natural & forcing >would also seem to be legal. But 3S(1D)4H that is not natural and non- >forcing would seem to be illegal. Richard Hills: If 1S (2D) 4H = splinter bid agreeing spades as trumps, then in ACBL- land 3S (1D) 4H = splinter bid agreeing spades as trumps must be a legal prior understanding. Sven Pran: >Yes, this appears to be an explicit agreement and therefore illegal, but I >don't see how any Authority can prohibit a partnership using general >bridge knowledge (common sense) after an irregularity? > >Examples: >1S (1D) 1H - My GBK is that this shows a heart suit with 6-9 HCP? >1S (1D) 1S - My GBK is that this is an extremely weak "raise", say >xxxx and 2-5 HCP? >4NT (4D) - My GBK is that PASS now shows 0 Aces, X shows 1, 4H >shows 2 and so on? Richard Hills: General bridge knowledge (common sense) varies from player to player. For example, if the auction commences Pass (Pass) 1H and the "common sense" opening bid was made by a not-vul Herman De Wael against vul opponents, then the opponents would have "general bridge knowledge" that Herman could hold a three-card heart suit and an almost Yarborough. Prime Minister Tony Abbott: "We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131205/708e7847/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 5 23:49:32 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 22:49:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166148@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166148@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <75C3CA9AA1D64DC88DC8FF031F32F437@G3> In EBU-land, I think you are allowed to have agreements contingent on irregularities etc. For example, some pairs have developed relevant systemic variants, to profit from illegal calls; although others still think such agreements are sharp practice. There is no box on any system-card to declare such agreements. Also it seems that *both* sides are allowed to vary their agreements. I suppose that, in the context of these daft laws, that makes sense because if the non-offenders are allowed to develop appropriate conventions, then offenders shouldn't be barred from the auction -- they need counters. Even when such agreements are banned, anomalies abound. For example... Normally, if LHO opens 4H then partner would double for takeout. But what if your LHO opens 4H when partner is dealer and partner doubles? 1. Partner doubles before anybody notices that your LHO bid out of turn? 2. Partner calls the director who explains all the options. Partner accepts the BOOT and doubles. 3. Case 2 happens a second time? A third time? (On previous occasions, you guessed correctly that partner's double was intended as penalty). The simple answer is remove all options by both sides after illegal calls. From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 5 23:49:31 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:49:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166148@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166148@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <003c01cef20c$436a6aa0$ca3f3fe0$@online.no> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 5. desember 2013 23:12 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [ ] Sven Pran: >Yes, this appears to be an explicit agreement and therefore illegal, but I >don?t see how any Authority can prohibit a partnership using general >bridge knowledge (common sense) after an irregularity? > >Examples: >1S (1D) 1H - My GBK is that this shows a heart suit with 6-9 HCP? >1S (1D) 1S - My GBK is that this is an extremely weak ?raise?, say >xxxx and 2-5 HCP? >4NT (4D) - My GBK is that PASS now shows 0 Aces, X shows 1, 4H >shows 2 and so on? Richard Hills: General bridge knowledge (common sense) varies from player to player. For example, if the auction commences Pass (Pass) 1H and the ?common sense? opening bid was made by a not-vul Herman De Wael against vul opponents, then the opponents would have ?general bridge knowledge? that Herman could hold a three-card heart suit and an almost Yarborough. [Sven Pran] Bridge Knowledge is not general if it (essentially) depends on the player involved (and not the class of player!). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131205/90739d22/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 6 01:21:42 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 00:21:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166206@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013, items 3 and 5: 3. Allan Falk gave a report from the subcommittee working on revisions for the next version of the Laws. He reported that Gary Blaiss has retired as leader of the subcommittee and Allan has taken over. Other members of the subcommittee are Chris Compton, Robb Gordon, and Adam Wildavsky. The subcommittee is currently working on Laws 41-52. Allan anticipates that the subcommittee will soon be looking at Laws 53+. Contributions regarding these laws are being solicited. 5. The Commission discussed Law 56, Defender's Lead out of Turn. The current law only contains a reference to Law 54D. The Commission discussed whether the Law should be modified to more fully describe declarer's rights in this situation. The Commission agreed to recommend to the subcommittee working on the revision of the laws to expand this law. 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131206/709c1ecb/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Dec 6 04:46:37 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:46:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52A0F385.8090304@comcast.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52A0F385.8090304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <52A1489D.1080303@nhcc.net> >> _http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html_ >> ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: >> A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its >> understanding during the auction or play predicated on any of ... >> (iii) An irregularity. > On 12/5/13, 3:20 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: >> In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D) >> 4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a prior >> understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which is >> apparently illegal in ACBL-land. I don't see why that's illegal. Nothing requires bids in different auctions to mean the same thing. On 2013-12-05 4:43 PM, Robert Park wrote: > 2H and 3H natural & > forcing would also seem to be legal. But 3S(1D)4H that is not natural > and non-forcing would seem to be illegal. I don't see why. In the ACBL, nothing is ever clear, alas, but the key word is "vary." I take it to mean that in an auction with an irregularity, say 1S-1H...oops...2H-x, the double has to mean the same thing as in the auction without irregularity, 1S-2H-x. But 1S-1H-x is an entirely different auction, and I don't see why the double can't be given any meaning one likes. (ACBL allows any meaning for double in any auction. Other calls, say transfers in some auctions, might be restricted by the normal convention charts.) As I say, nothing is clear, but I don't see any other interpretation that makes sense. After all, there is no auction 1S-1H without irregularity, so there can be no agreement about it from which to vary. Personally, I think the rule (iii) is silly, but that just matches my opinion of many other ACBL rules. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 6 17:13:39 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:13:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Examples for changes in claiming procedure Message-ID: From yesterday: Declarer claims at trick 2 for down one. Opponents are unhappy that he did not show them his entire hand. They are even more unhappy when they see that someone went down 2 in the same contract. I explain that, yes, he does not have to show his hand. Defender overruffs in hearts to set the contract two. Unfortunately he has revoked. Fortunately, there is a claim around trick 8 and his other heart is never seen. The revoke is discovered that night when declarer sees the hand record. Again, for 2017, everyone should be required to sooner or later show their hands following a claim. In the first example, declarer had his claim, but it still would have saved trouble if he had shown his entire hand. Bob From g3 at nige1.com Fri Dec 6 20:51:39 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 19:51:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Examples for changes in claiming procedure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A56A74AB5864BEAB8F67B99D90987A3@G3> [Robert Frick] Declarer claims at trick 2 for down one. Opponents are unhappy that he did not show them his entire hand. They are even more unhappy when they see that someone went down 2 in the same contract. I explain that, yes, he does not have to show his hand. Defender overruffs in hearts to set the contract two. Unfortunately he has revoked. Fortunately, there is a claim around trick 8 and his other heart is never seen. The revoke is discovered that night when declarer sees the hand record. Again, for 2017, everyone should be required to sooner or later show their hands following a claim. In the first example, declarer had his claim, but it still would have saved trouble if he had shown his entire hand. [nige1] >From discussion with players, many share Robert's frustration about players who claim without showing their hand. Just as irritating are claimers who just wave their hand about for a few seconds; but current claim law is complex, overly subjective, encourages the involvement a director, and results in intriguing, inconsistent and contentious rulings, so it's unlikely to change in the near future. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 7 00:15:02 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:15:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Examples for changes in claiming procedure In-Reply-To: <4A56A74AB5864BEAB8F67B99D90987A3@G3> References: <4A56A74AB5864BEAB8F67B99D90987A3@G3> Message-ID: <000901cef2d8$fe458630$fad09290$@online.no> > [Robert Frick] > Declarer claims at trick 2 for down one. Opponents are unhappy that he did not > show them his entire hand. They are even more unhappy when they see that > someone went down 2 in the same contract. I explain that, yes, he does not > have to show his hand. > > Defender overruffs in hearts to set the contract two. Unfortunately he has > revoked. Fortunately, there is a claim around trick 8 and his other heart is never > seen. The revoke is discovered that night when declarer sees the hand record. > > Again, for 2017, everyone should be required to sooner or later show their > hands following a claim. In the first example, declarer had his claim, but it still > would have saved trouble if he had shown his entire hand. > > [nige1] > >From discussion with players, many share Robert's frustration about > >players > who claim without showing their hand. Just as irritating are claimers who just > wave their hand about for a few seconds; but current claim law is complex, > overly subjective, encourages the involvement a director, and results in > intriguing, inconsistent and contentious rulings, so it's unlikely to change in the > near future. [Sven Pran] The laws are not that difficult, and i see no reason to make any law changes to accommodate players who do not bother to call the director as the law instructs them to do when they are unhappy with a claim. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 7 02:48:24 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 20:48:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Examples for changes in claiming procedure In-Reply-To: <000001cef29f$07e2f7c0$17a8e740$@upcmail.nl> References: <000001cef29f$07e2f7c0$17a8e740$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:20:08 -0500, Anton Witzen wrote: > I think it is normal practice that declarer shows his hand after he > claims. > If he does not do that and opps are not happy, then they can call the TD, They were relative newbies; they said they had never called the director. I think they also had to worry that they would look foolish challenging a claim that probably would turn out to be obvious. And they weren't that worried until the hands were back in the board and they saw the results. > and he has the right to put the hand open on the table. > At high levels it is custom to not show, not at low levels. > Regards > anton > > A.Witzen (a.k.a. ????? ) > Boniplein 86 > 1094 sg Amsterdam > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Robert > Frick > Verzonden: vrijdag 6 december 2013 17:14 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: [BLML] Examples for changes in claiming procedure > > From yesterday: > > Declarer claims at trick 2 for down one. Opponents are unhappy that he > did > not show them his entire hand. They are even more unhappy when they see > that > someone went down 2 in the same contract. I explain that, yes, he does > not > have to show his hand. > > Defender overruffs in hearts to set the contract two. Unfortunately he > has > revoked. Fortunately, there is a claim around trick 8 and his other > heart is > never seen. The revoke is discovered that night when declarer sees the > hand > record. > > > Again, for 2017, everyone should be required to sooner or later show > their > hands following a claim. In the first example, declarer had his claim, > but > it still would have saved trouble if he had shown his entire hand. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 7 03:43:46 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:43:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fouled Board in Teams In-Reply-To: References: <5298c9b6.1941.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: <52A28B62.60401@nhcc.net> On 2013-11-29 12:50 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> A. +3 imps to both teams > Austria: > A. > But when more than 2 boards are fouled, the third and each following one > are cancelled, and the VP-scale for the remainder is used. This looks sensible, but let me make sure I have it right: if there are 7 boards scheduled, and three are fouled, you give each team +6 and score the result on a 6-board VP scale? As to what the rules ought to be, if there's only one fouled board, I don't see any answer but to give +3 IMPs to each team and score on the normal VP scale. In knockout play, you have a choice: either score the match with one fewer board, or, probably better, if with the +3 each team has "won" the match, use your tie-break procedure. (For example, if the score without the fouled board is 50-49, with the artificial scores one result is 53-49 and the other is 50-52, i.e., each team has a claim to have won. Your rules should say what to do if the original difference is 3 IMPs, i.e., the results are win+draw.) If there is more than one fouled board, the best thing to do if time allows is play makeup boards. If that's not possible, each team should get +3 IMPs times the square root of the number of fouled boards. This may not strictly comply with the Laws, but you can probably justify it under L78D. The same principle can be applied at matchpoints: score fouled boards as "not played," but give a bonus of 10% of a top times the square root of the number of missed boards unless the session score on played boards is higher. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Dec 7 08:01:50 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 08:01:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fouled Board in Teams In-Reply-To: <52A28B62.60401@nhcc.net> References: <5298c9b6.1941.0@iol.ie> <52A28B62.60401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 07.12.2013, 03:43 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner : > On 2013-11-29 12:50 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>> A. +3 imps to both teams >> Austria: >> A. >> But when more than 2 boards are fouled, the third and each following one >> are cancelled, and the VP-scale for the remainder is used. > > This looks sensible, but let me make sure I have it right: if there are > 7 boards scheduled, and three are fouled, you give each team +6 and > score the result on a 6-board VP scale? That's right (if neither team is at fault). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 05:26:15 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 04:26:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 72B2 versus Law 72B3 (was Examples ... ) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516A620@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." >>..... >>Defender over-ruffs in hearts to set the contract two. Unfortunately he has >>revoked. Fortunately, there is a claim [by declarer] around trick 8 and [the >>defender's] other heart is never seen. The revoke is discovered that night >>when declarer sees the hand record. >>..... Sven Pran: >The laws are not that difficult, and I see no reason to make any law changes >to accommodate players who do not bother to call the director as the law >instructs them to do when they are unhappy with a claim. Richard Hills: No and Yes. No, in the above example declarer was happily claiming, due to declarer not expecting the defender to "conceal" a revoke. Yes, the Laws need few substantive changes, but the Laws do need many clarifications in wording to reduce ambiguity. Below are my suggestions to reduce ambiguity. Law 72B3: "A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely." Richard Hills: However, "conceal" is a misnomer in the above example. Declarer, NOT the defender, was the one who truncated play and caused some cards to remain unseen. The defender was acting in accordance with an intended purpose of Law 72B2, which allows a revoker to avoid committing suicide by being over- penalised (e.g. failing to score their ace of trumps versus a grand slam). But ..... Once merely the equity Law 64C was applicable to the revoke, then the defender should have summoned the Director, because Law 72B2 cross- references Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131209/d66d1555/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 9 13:11:13 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:11:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 72B2 versus Law 72B3 (was Examples ... ) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516A620@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516A620@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:26:15 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Law 72B2: >?There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law > committed > by one?s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see > Laws 62A and 79A2).? > >>> ..... >>> Defender over-ruffs in hearts to set the contract two. Unfortunately >>> he has >>> revoked. Fortunately, there is a claim [by declarer] around trick 8 >>> and [the >>> defender?s] other heart is never seen. The revoke is discovered that >>> night >>> when declarer sees the hand record. >>> ..... >Sven Pran: > >> The laws are not that difficult, and I see no reason to make any law >> changes >> to accommodate players who do not bother to call the director as the law >> instructs them to do when they are unhappy with a claim. >Richard Hills: >No and Yes. >No, in the above example declarer was happily claiming, due to declarer > not expecting the defender to ?conceal? a revoke. >Yes, the Laws need few substantive changes, but the Laws do need many > clarifications in wording to reduce ambiguity. Below are my suggestions > to reduce ambiguity. >Law 72B3: >?A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a > second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards > prematurely.? >Richard Hills: >However, ?conceal? is a misnomer in the above example. Declarer, NOT > the defender, was the one who truncated play and caused some cards to > remain unseen. >The defender was acting in accordance with an intended purpose of Law > 72B2, which allows a revoker to avoid committing suicide by being over- > penalised (e.g. failing to score their ace of trumps versus a grand > slam). >But .....Once merely the equity Law 64C was applicable to the revoke, > then the > defender should have summoned the Director, because Law 72B2 cross- > references Law 79A2: >?A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his > side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could > not > lose.? Some problems. One, I heard the discussion the next day, and it really sounded like the defender was unaware of his revoke. Two. Seeing the defender's hand could reveal a mistaken explanation. (And possibly other infractions.) Three. Probably everyone wants the defenders to be able to show each other their hands following a revoke. The simple, straightforward solution is that everyone shows their cards before putting them back in the board. >> 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131209/51f5083d/attachment.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Mon Dec 9 14:22:30 2013 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier beauvillain) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:22:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] TR : ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <48E8B430AD434A51A2CB413106090737@utilisateurPC> Hello, I have no agreement in either of my partnership about the meanings of : 3S (P) 1H 1S (P) 1S Are you telling me that i am not allowed to ?change? this il opponent make an insufficient bid? If : I agree that 3S (1D) 1H is natural, NF, thats not a change, that?s ?new? I agree that 1S (1D) 1S is weak fit (<5), that?s ?new? ... Is this related to : No meaning for 1S (P) XX But 1S (X) XX is >10H Meanings of my bridge biddings change usually when opponent ?overcall? Probably i missed something ... Olivier Beauvillain -----Message d'origine----- De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Richard HILLS Envoy? : jeudi 5 d?cembre 2013 22:20 ? : Laws Bridge Objet : [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: 2. The Commission discussed Law 40B3 and the commentary to this Law. The Commission unanimously approved the following interpretation: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play predicated on any of the following: (i) Whether a question is asked (or not asked) by it or the opposing partnership. (ii) A response by its side to an opposing player?s question, or (iii) An irregularity. =+= In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D) 4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a prior understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which is apparently illegal in ACBL-land. Kind regards, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131209/8295c094/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 9 14:37:34 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 08:37:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: > > 2. The Commission discussed Law 40B3 and the commentary > to this Law. The Commission unanimously approved the > following interpretation: > > A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its > understanding during the auction or play predicated on any of > the following: > (i) Whether a question is asked (or not asked) by it or the > opposing partnership. > (ii) A response by its side to an opposing player?s question, > or > (iii) An irregularity. > > =+= > > In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D) > 4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a prior > understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which is > apparently illegal in ACBL-land. Not really. The minute is actually meaningless for this situation, as what it literally says is that your call over 3S-1D-? must have the same meaning whether or not there has been an irregularity in the auction! Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131209/47c1e336/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Mon Dec 9 18:55:42 2013 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:55:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL>, Message-ID: And what, Mr. Landau is the meaning of 3 Spades by partner 1 Heart by you without the opponents insufficient call? Kojak From: ehaa at starpower.net Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 08:37:34 -0500 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: 2. The Commission discussed Law 40B3 and the commentaryto this Law. The Commission unanimously approved thefollowing interpretation: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary itsunderstanding during the auction or play predicated on any ofthe following:(i) Whether a question is asked (or not asked) by it or theopposing partnership.(ii) A response by its side to an opposing player?s question,or(iii) An irregularity. =+= In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D)4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a priorunderstanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which isapparently illegal in ACBL-land. Not really. The minute is actually meaningless for this situation, as what it literally says is that your call over 3S-1D-? must have the same meaning whether or not there has been an irregularity in the auction! Eric LandauSilver Spring MDNew York NY _______________________________________________ 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/20131209/d0aed604/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 21:36:37 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:36:37 -0600 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL>, References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL>, Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 11:55 To: "blml" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 > And what, Mr. Landau is the meaning of 3 Spades by partner 1 Heart by you > without the opponents insufficient call? > > Kojak Having attended ACBLLC meetings my impression was that its members knew what they were talking about. Well, it comes to pass that my impression lacked sufficient data to stand the test of time. The ascribed minute is rubbish. It asserts to be an interpretation of law when it is no such thing. The posited passage of law affords empowerment to legislate; as in- it contains no prohibition [as claimed by the LC]. Which is not to suggest that the passage has good value, as it does not. regards roger pewick > From: ehaa at starpower.net > Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 08:37:34 -0500 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Richard HILLS > wrote: > ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 16th March 2013, item 2: 2. The Commission > discussed Law 40B3 and the commentary to this Law. The Commission > unanimously approved thefollowing interpretation: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play predicated on any of the following: (i) Whether a question is asked (or not asked) by it or the opposing partnership. (ii) A response by its side to an opposing player?s question, or (iii) An irregularity. =+= In my partnership we have a prior understanding that 3S (4D)4H = natural and non-forcing. But we also have a prior understanding that 3S (1D) 1H = natural and forcing, which isapparently illegal in ACBL-land. > Not really. The minute is actually meaningless for this situation, as > what it literally says is that your call over 3S-1D-? must have the same > meaning whether or not there has been an irregularity in the auction! > > > Eric LandauSilver Spring MD New York NY From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 22:31:34 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:31:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 72B2 versus Law 72B3 (was Examples ... ) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516AD17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills (prior post): >..... >Yes, the Laws need few substantive changes, but the Laws do need many >clarifications in wording to reduce ambiguity. Below are my suggestions >to reduce ambiguity. > >..... > >The defender was acting in accordance with an intended purpose of Law >72B2, which allows a revoker to avoid committing suicide by being over- >penalised (e.g. failing to score their ace of trumps versus a grand slam). > >But ..... > >Once merely the equity Law 64C was applicable to the revoke, then the >defender should have summoned the Director, because Law 72B2 cross- >references Law 79A2: > >"A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his >side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not >lose." Richard Hills (current post): A blml lurker has observed that my attempt to reduce ambiguity in these Laws is in itself somewhat ambiguous. :) :) To quote the more famous Other Richard (President Nixon), "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." Even better, I will quote the extremely famous Grattan Endicott on an analogous way to apply the controversial Law 81C3: "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 rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: >>The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any manner" allow of no >>exceptions." Richard Hills (current post): Likewise, the Law 79A2 words "must not" allow of no exceptions. Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: >> But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position >>to normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require >>that any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has >>room for manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such >>provisions as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: So I suggest that Grattan's idea about the importance of delay, avoiding giving an unfair advantage to an unobservant non-offending side (but still eventually granting equity to that non-offending side) be explicitly added to the 2015 Laws 72B2, 79A2 and 81C3. Frank Muir's to-do list: "Soup, a cauli, fridge, elastic, eggs, peas, halitosis" 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131209/b8ef9f63/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 10 16:55:11 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 16th March 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325166118@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL>, Message-ID: On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:55 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > And what, Mr. Landau is the meaning of 3 Spades by partner 1 Heart by you without the opponents insufficient call? I don't know; given that 3S-P-1H is not a legal call, I don't care, either. But 3S-1D-1H *is* a legal call, so it must have a meaning. My "unvaried" agreement is that a new suit below game after a preempt is a natural one-round force, so this is presumably a natural one-round force. Using my unvaried meta-agreements, I would assume 2H to be forcing, with hearts and a playable spade fit (we play fit-showing single jumps in competition), 3H to show long hearts with little outside (double jumps are pre-emptive in nature), and 4H to play 4H, just as over 3S-P-? Since my partner is presumably aware of the effect of L10C3 (even if he doesn't know the specific law), however, he is entitled to take whatever inferences he may from the fact that I accepted the IB before calling. But I confess to missing the point of the question. My agreements over 1C-1D-? are entirely different from my agreements over 1C-P-?, so why should the "meaning" of my calls over 3S-1D-? have anything to do with my agreements over 3S-P? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131210/8dfe4119/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 11 22:41:23 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:41:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516E015@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ABF pre-Alert regulation, clause 3.1.2: This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer pre-empts, unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, very unusual doubles++, unusual methods over the opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, ++unusual cue bids of the opponents' suit++, etc. Pay ++particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls++. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre- alerted. Sven Pran (Alerting a BOOT thread): >>>This situation can probably best be described by a discussion >>>among Norwegian directors some 30 years ago. We ended up >>>with the (ridiculous) conclusion that all doubles of low level >>>bids should be alerted whether they were for penalty or for >>>takeout because the understanding would always be unexpected >>>for some players! >>> >>>That conclusion of course never reached the regulation. Richard Hills (previous post): >>No, that attempt at "reductio ad absurdum" by the Norwegian >>Directors was flawed. >> >>The ABF Pre-Alert regulation follows the guiding principle laid >>down by Herman De Wael (what would beginners using their >>national methods think was normal and usual?), with the ABF Pre- >>Alert regulation repeatedly using the key word "unusual". >> >>The vast majority of players in ABF-land are aware of two >>++usual++ forms of the Stayman convention ("Simple" and >>"Extended"). So under the ABF Pre-Alert regulation it is not an >>infraction if a recent arrival to Australia from Norway is not pre- >>alerted about the unexpected (unexpected for this Norwegian only, >>not un-expected for her Aussie partner) use of Extended Stayman >>by her opponents. Tony Musgrove: >My sketchy understanding of the ABF regs is that 2C over 1NT is >"self-alerting", so the Norseman would need to have been pre- >alerted. In any case, all the responses to "Extended Stayman" have >to be alerted so he would quickly get back on track. On the other >hand 3C over 2NT does have to be alerted for some reason. Richard Hills (current post): If a member of the Ali-Hills partnership cue bids 2H over RHO's opening bid of 1H, that is the usual-in-Australia Michaels Cue Bid (spades and a minor), so we do not pre-alert that cue bid. However ...... At last night's South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Pairs, LHO was an expert partnering a non-expert RHO friend. LHO opened a Standard American 1C, Hashmat passed, RHO responded 1H. Now I cue bid 2H (not alerted by Hashmat, due to being a "self- alerting" call). LHO chose a "wild or gambling" action of 3H (lacking both sufficient high cards and also heart length - only three-card support). Hashmat passed again, and RHO innocently raised to 4H. I doubled, and belatedly LHO asked Hashmat about the meaning of my 2H cue bid. "Natural overcall with hearts," spake Hashmat. After 4Hx went for 800, LHO and I summoned the Director. LHO's initial argument that Hashmat should obey the spirit of the Laws, by alerting an unusual "self-alerting" call, was correctly dismissed by the Director. But LHO's second argument, that my unusual 2H overcall / cue bid should have been pre-alerted, had much more validity. How would you rule? 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131211/ffb452f6/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 12 01:05:53 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:05:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table Message-ID: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> Suppose dummy has left the table for good reason, and a) the Director, b) a spectator, or c) a player who happens to be available and has already played the board sits in to turn dummy's cards. Should the card-turner: 1. if asked, advise declarer which hand is to lead? 2. try to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand? 3. ask declarer about a possible revoke from hand? 4. after play is over, point out a defender's unnoticed revoke? Does the card-turner's status (a, b, c) make any difference? Are there official statements/guidelines anywhere, or is it a matter of taste/discretion/custom in different venues? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 01:43:58 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:43:58 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516E168@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >Suppose dummy has left the table for good reason, and a) the Director, >b) a spectator, or c) a player who happens to be available and has >already played the board sits in to turn dummy's cards. > >Should the card-turner: >1. if asked, advise declarer which hand is to lead? Richard Hills: If asked, the card-turner should reply, "I am not dummy, so I cannot exercise dummy's Law 42B Qualified Rights." >2. try to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand? No, the card-turner is not a player at the table, so the card-turner cannot prevent an irregularity pursuant to Law 9A3 (second sentence): "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." >3. ask declarer about a possible revoke from hand? No, see above. >4. after play is over, point out a defender's unnoticed revoke? > >Does the card-turner's status (a, b, c) make any difference? Yes. Law 76 (Spectators) applies to b) and c). Law 81C3's "becomes aware in any manner" applies to Directors. >Are there official statements/guidelines anywhere, or is it a >matter of taste/discretion/custom in different venues? The official statement is the Lawbook. What's the problem? The problem is that an intelligent and long- standing blmler can be so easily confused by the overly succinct and obscure language of the 2007 Lawbook. I reiterate my prior recommendation that the 2015 Lawbook should contain more indicative examples to minimise such confusion. "People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131212/a50a13c3/attachment-0001.html From lskelso at ihug.com.au Thu Dec 12 03:01:47 2013 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:01:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table In-Reply-To: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> References: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52A9190B.6020207@ihug.com.au> The Laws define 'Dummy' as "Declarer's Partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced." The persons listed are not members of the declaring side, so they have none of the rights (or responsibilities) itemised in Law 42. I would view all of Steve's card-turners* as having the status of spectators (who are constrained by Law 76B5). Laurie *The Director will still consider the application of Law 64C, but only once matters have progressed past the point referred to by Law 64B4/B5. On 12/12/2013 11:05 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > Suppose dummy has left the table for good reason, and a) the Director, > b) a spectator, or c) a player who happens to be available and has > already played the board sits in to turn dummy's cards. > > Should the card-turner: > 1. if asked, advise declarer which hand is to lead? > > 2. try to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand? > > 3. ask declarer about a possible revoke from hand? > > 4. after play is over, point out a defender's unnoticed revoke? > > Does the card-turner's status (a, b, c) make any difference? > > Are there official statements/guidelines anywhere, or is it a matter of > taste/discretion/custom in different venues? > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 04:03:10 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:03:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F2C5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 76D, Spectators, Status: "Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently. *The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation." Steve Willner: >> Suppose dummy has left the table for good reason, and a) the Director, >> b) a spectator, or c) a player who happens to be available and has >> already played the board sits in to turn dummy's cards. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laurie Kelso: >The Laws define "Dummy" as "Declarer's Partner. He becomes dummy >when the opening lead is faced." > >The persons listed are not members of the declaring side, so they have >none of the rights (or responsibilities) itemised in Law 42. >I would view all of Steve's card-turners* as having the status of >spectators (who are constrained by Law 76B5). > >Laurie > >*The Director will still consider the application of Law 64C, but only >once matters have progressed past the point referred to by Law 64B4/B5. Richard Hills quibble: I almost agree with almost everything that Laurie said. But the Director in charge of the current session cannot use Law 76D to specify the Director in charge of the current session as a mere spectator of the current session. That way leads to paradox. Lazarus Long: "A paradox can be paradoctored." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131212/f9545e37/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 04:33:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:33:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F2EB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 76D, Spectators, Status: "Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently." Richard Hills first thoughts: >I almost agree with almost everything that Laurie said. But the Director in >charge of the current session cannot use Law 76D to specify the Director in >charge of the current session as a mere spectator of the current session. > >That way leads to paradox. Richard Hills second thoughts: A careful examination of the commas in Law 76D shows that the Director in charge lacks the power to designate a player (or herself, since she is a tournament official) as being a mere spectator. Michael Quinion http://www.worldwidewords.org A feghoot is a brief story, usually in a science-fiction setting, whose punchline is an elaborate pun. The canonical feghoots feature the eponymous Ferdinand Feghoot, a member of the Society for the Aesthetic Re-Arrangement of History. Beginning in 1956, a Russian-born American author, Reginald Bretnor, created more than eighty of them under the anagrammatic pseudonym of Grendel Briarton. They are collectively known as Through Time and Space with Ferdinand Feghoot and always end with Feghoot solving some tricky problem by way of some of the most atrocious puns ever committed to paper. The late Anthony Boucher remarked: "A true Feghoot not only culminates in a pun of singular beauty and terror; it is, even before that point, an entertainingly absurd episode of a possible history." Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, Apr. 1973. One concerned poaching of cock pheasants at Balmoral. Gillie John Brown discovered they were being shot by the Lord Chief Justice of Scotland, who would hide them in a hole in the wall before coming up to the house to pay his respects to Queen Victoria. Clearly, it was impossible to treat him as a common criminal and drag him to court for poaching, so Feghoot suggested that he be charged instead with male pheasants in orifice. The stories appeared in several science-fiction magazines and are famous in SF circles. They have been affectionately imitated by other writers, including Spider Robinson. Many feghoot-like tall tales were created by Frank Muir and Denis Norden in the BBC radio programme My Word; my favourite punchline of theirs (I think it's theirs) is "The squaw on the hippopotamus equals the sons of the squaws on the other two hides." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131212/da0b92a1/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 12 05:11:46 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:11:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table In-Reply-To: <52A9190B.6020207@ihug.com.au> References: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> <52A9190B.6020207@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:01:47 -0500, Laurie Kelso wrote: > The Laws define 'Dummy' as "Declarer's Partner. He becomes dummy when > the opening lead is faced." > > The persons listed are not members of the declaring side, so they have > none of the rights (or responsibilities) itemised in Law 42. Is it sttraightforward? If you took that seriously, the player who is not dummy also does not have L45B rights ("..after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." 45D would never apply (Dummy placing in the played position a card that declarer did not name) Also problems with 65A, 65C, 65D, 66D. At the club level, we have the idea that a player might sit in for a hand, or part of a hand. IF they do they are temporarily one of the players at the table, with all of those rights. I think the same thing happens if the person is just sorting the hand or being the dummy or picking up cars at the end. That might be consistent with L4. > > I would view all of Steve's card-turners* as having the status of > spectators (who are constrained by Law 76B5). > > Laurie > > *The Director will still consider the application of Law 64C, but only > once matters have progressed past the point referred to by Law 64B4/B5. > > On 12/12/2013 11:05 AM, Steve Willner wrote: >> Suppose dummy has left the table for good reason, and a) the Director, >> b) a spectator, or c) a player who happens to be available and has >> already played the board sits in to turn dummy's cards. >> >> Should the card-turner: >> 1. if asked, advise declarer which hand is to lead? >> >> 2. try to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand? >> >> 3. ask declarer about a possible revoke from hand? >> >> 4. after play is over, point out a defender's unnoticed revoke? >> >> Does the card-turner's status (a, b, c) make any difference? >> >> Are there official statements/guidelines anywhere, or is it a matter of >> taste/discretion/custom in different venues? >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 05:38:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:38:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F4B7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL [EBU White Book, Law 4 (Partnerships), clause 4.1] 4.1 Replacement of members of a team or pair During a session [see #80.6], partnerships may be changed only with the authorisation of the TD. Normally partnerships change only: (a) In emergency, for example when a player is ill. (b) At scoring breaks. (c) In Pivot Teams, where a change of partnership is required at certain times. However, the authority lies with the TD to interpret the Tournament Organiser's rules, which includes deciding in the absence of such rules. Example Because of business reasons a team wishes to replace one of its members by another one part way through a session. If this is allowed by the Conditions of Contest it may be done, and if forbidden (eg by a rule that a team may comprise no more than four people) then it may not be done. If there are no Conditions of Contest then it is up to the TD to decide whether to permit it. However, a player may not decide to do so without permission: this Law makes it clear a player has no such right. [Richard HILLS] So an informal card-turner is not dummy, and lacks dummy's rights. But a formal Law 4 temporary substitute, authorised by the TD, is the temporary dummy, so she exercises dummy's rights while her temporary dummy role lasts. Note that the TD can exercise a dual role, being also a temporary Law 4 substitute (this often occurs at the Canberra Bridge Club, when a player is unavoidably tardy). 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131212/247d97a9/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 07:42:06 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 07:42:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516E015@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516E015@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: What's unusual by that cuebid/overcall??? Natural is the standard meaning of 2H over (1m) P (1H). 2013/12/11 Richard HILLS > UNOFFICIAL > > ABF pre-Alert regulation, clause 3.1.2: > > > > This is the stage where you should draw the opponents? attention to > > any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to > > which they may need to arrange a defence. > > > > Examples: > > transfer pre-empts, unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, > > very unusual doubles++, unusual methods over the opponents? 1NT > > or strong club openings, ++unusual cue bids of the opponents? suit++, > > *etc*. > > > > Pay ++particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls++. These > > should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre- > > alerted. > > > > Sven Pran (Alerting a BOOT thread): > > > > >>>This situation can probably best be described by a discussion > > >>>among Norwegian directors some 30 years ago. We ended up > > >>>with the (ridiculous) conclusion that all doubles of low level > > >>>bids should be alerted whether they were for penalty or for > > >>>takeout because the understanding would always be unexpected > > >>>for some players! > > >>> > > >>>That conclusion of course never reached the regulation. > > > > Richard Hills (previous post): > > > > >>No, that attempt at ?reductio ad absurdum? by the Norwegian > > >>Directors was flawed. > > >> > > >>The ABF Pre-Alert regulation follows the guiding principle laid > > >>down by Herman De Wael (what would beginners using their > > >>national methods think was normal and usual?), with the ABF Pre- > > >>Alert regulation repeatedly using the key word ?unusual?. > > >> > > >>The vast majority of players in ABF-land are aware of two > > >>++usual++ forms of the Stayman convention (?Simple? and > > >>?Extended?). So under the ABF Pre-Alert regulation it is not an > > >>infraction if a recent arrival to Australia from Norway is not pre- > > >>alerted about the unexpected (unexpected for this Norwegian only, > > >>not un-expected for her Aussie partner) use of Extended Stayman > > >>by her opponents. > > > > Tony Musgrove: > > > > >My sketchy understanding of the ABF regs is that 2C over 1NT is > > >?self-alerting?, so the Norseman would need to have been pre- > > >alerted. In any case, all the responses to ?Extended Stayman? have > > >to be alerted so he would quickly get back on track. On the other > > >hand 3C over 2NT does have to be alerted for some reason. > > > > Richard Hills (current post): > > > > If a member of the Ali-Hills partnership cue bids 2H over RHO?s > > opening bid of 1H, that is the usual-in-Australia Michaels Cue Bid > > (spades and a minor), so we do not pre-alert that cue bid. > > > > However ...... > > > > At last night?s South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Pairs, LHO > > was an expert partnering a non-expert RHO friend. LHO opened a > > Standard American 1C, Hashmat passed, RHO responded 1H. > > > > Now I cue bid 2H (not alerted by Hashmat, due to being a ?self- > > alerting? call). LHO chose a ?wild or gambling? action of 3H > > (lacking both sufficient high cards and also heart length ? only > > three-card support). Hashmat passed again, and RHO innocently > > raised to 4H. I doubled, and belatedly LHO asked Hashmat > > about the meaning of my 2H cue bid. ?Natural overcall with > > hearts,? spake Hashmat. After 4Hx went for 800, LHO and I > > summoned the Director. > > > > LHO?s initial argument that Hashmat should obey the spirit of > > the Laws, by alerting an unusual ?self-alerting? call, was > > correctly dismissed by the Director. But LHO?s second > > argument, that my unusual 2H overcall / cue bid should have > > been pre-alerted, had much more validity. > > > > How would you rule? > > 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131212/fab880c4/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 12 09:48:40 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:48:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516E015@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516E015@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52A97868.3080908@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > > Richard Hills (current post): > > If a member of the Ali-Hills partnership cue bids 2H over RHO?s > > opening bid of 1H, that is the usual-in-Australia Michaels Cue Bid > > (spades and a minor), so we do not pre-alert that cue bid. > > However ...... > > At last night?s South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Pairs, LHO > > was an expert partnering a non-expert RHO friend. LHO opened a > > Standard American 1C, Hashmat passed, RHO responded 1H. > > Now I cue bid 2H (not alerted by Hashmat, due to being a ?self- > > alerting? call). LHO chose a ?wild or gambling? action of 3H > > (lacking both sufficient high cards and also heart length ? only > > three-card support). Hashmat passed again, and RHO innocently > > raised to 4H. I doubled, and belatedly LHO asked Hashmat > > about the meaning of my 2H cue bid. ?Natural overcall with > > hearts,? spake Hashmat. After 4Hx went for 800, LHO and I > > summoned the Director. > > LHO?s initial argument that Hashmat should obey the spirit of > > the Laws, by alerting an unusual ?self-alerting? call, was > > correctly dismissed by the Director. But LHO?s second > > argument, that my unusual 2H overcall / cue bid should have > > been pre-alerted, had much more validity. > > How would you rule? > > UNOFFICIAL > > I regularly say at a table "I'm not allowed to alert that". I know it's against the rules, but it's certainly for the spirit of the game. And hiding behind rules just to obscure some meaning from your opponents is not the way I want to be playing bridge. And hence, the arguument that you should have pre-alerted is a very good one, and I would rule against you for having not done so. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 12 09:51:28 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:51:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table In-Reply-To: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> References: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52A97910.7030307@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > Suppose dummy has left the table for good reason, and a) the Director, > b) a spectator, or c) a player who happens to be available and has > already played the board sits in to turn dummy's cards. > > Should the card-turner: > 1. if asked, advise declarer which hand is to lead? > > 2. try to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand? > > 3. ask declarer about a possible revoke from hand? > > 4. after play is over, point out a defender's unnoticed revoke? > > Does the card-turner's status (a, b, c) make any difference? > > Are there official statements/guidelines anywhere, or is it a matter of > taste/discretion/custom in different venues? > Sitting as dummy last weekend (I was director) I saw a trick: Three of clubs Five of clubs (my dummy) Four of clubs Three of spades (in a no-trump contract) I had noticed what had happened, but I let the opponents do it. Three minutes later, they finally told declarer he had won the trick in dummy (this was only the second club trick, so it really was surprising to everyone). I believe a card turner is not dummy and has none of the rights of dummy. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 12 11:08:47 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:08:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table In-Reply-To: <52A97910.7030307@skynet.be> References: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> <52A97910.7030307@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:51:28 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Steve Willner schreef: >> Suppose dummy has left the table for good reason, and a) the Director, >> b) a spectator, or c) a player who happens to be available and has >> already played the board sits in to turn dummy's cards. >> >> Should the card-turner: >> 1. if asked, advise declarer which hand is to lead? >> >> 2. try to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand? >> >> 3. ask declarer about a possible revoke from hand? >> >> 4. after play is over, point out a defender's unnoticed revoke? >> >> Does the card-turner's status (a, b, c) make any difference? >> >> Are there official statements/guidelines anywhere, or is it a matter of >> taste/discretion/custom in different venues? >> > > Sitting as dummy last weekend (I was director) I saw a trick: > > Three of clubs > Five of clubs (my dummy) > Four of clubs > Three of spades (in a no-trump contract) > > I had noticed what had happened, but I let the opponents do it. > Three minutes later, they finally told declarer he had won the trick in > dummy (this was only the second club trick, so it really was surprising > to everyone). > > I believe a card turner is not dummy and has none of the rights of dummy. Although in your example that served only to waste 3 minutes of everyone's time. Does the card turner have any of the responsibilities of the dummy, if as you say the card turner is not dummy? Once, the playing director left on the last hand to begin scoring the game (good reason). I volunteered to be dummy. The declarer was very old and nearly blind. The defense revoked and gained a trick from the revoke. I called the director at the end of the hand and she rectified. That still feels right to me. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 22:26:43 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:26:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F577@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Harald Berre Skj?ran: >What?s unusual by that cuebid/overcall??? >Natural is the standard meaning of 2H over (1m) P (1H). Richard Hills: There is no such animal as ?standard meaning?. Natural may be the usual meaning of the 2H cuebid / overcall in Norway and ACBL-land, but 5/5 in the unbid suits is the usual meaning of the 2H cuebid / overcall in Australia. To me the key legal question is How Much of the Ali-Hills system is required to be pre-Alerted by the ABF Alert reg. IF we pre-Alert all of our unusual methods, THEN the session will conclude before we have played a board. ABF Alert regulation, Introduction: ?You should follow the principle of full disclosure (as required by the Laws) in following these Regulations and in explanations of calls. Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you ++can++, and as ++comprehensibly++ as you can.? Richard Hills: When playing against non-experts for the first time, we try to avoid confusing them with information overload. So we give this very succinct and comprehensible pre- Alert explanation at the start of the imps match: ?We play strong club, five-card majors, 11-14 1NT, an amorphous 1D with RCO Twos. Our leads and signals are idiosyncratic, varying depending upon whether we are defending a suit contract or a NT contract (so ask when you are declarer). We play lots of penalty doubles and very few negative doubles. Since our opening bids are similar to Precision, use your normal defence to Precision.? Ergo, we believe that we are following the ?can? and the ?comprehensibly? requirement of the ABF Alert reg by neither pre-Alerting our very rare 4NT opening bid, nor by pre-Alerting our very rare 2H overcall / cue bid. A review of a game from the BoardGameGeek website: ?I like an unusual theme and I think making dresses for the court of Louis XV counts as one for me. However some gamers may be put off by the theme. For a start I have not seen a single Zombie in the game. And so far no spaceships or hobbits either.? 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131212/e3c593ee/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 23:02:30 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:02:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F5D5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >I regularly say at a table "I'm not allowed to alert that". >I know it's against the rules, but it's certainly for the spirit of >the game. >And hiding behind rules just to obscure some meaning from >your opponents is not the way I want to be playing bridge. >..... Richard Hills: Yes and No. Yes, the ABF alert reg concurs with Herman in stating a strong distaste for Secretary Bird sea-lawyers. ABF Alert reg, Introduction, third and fourth paragraphs: You should follow the principle of full disclosure (as required by the Laws) in following these Regulations and in explanations of calls. Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can. A careless failure to follow this policy may result in an adjusted score, and possibly procedural penalties, where opponents have been damaged. If you make a positive effort to meet your obligations under full disclosure, you will rarely if ever fall foul of these regulations. Your agreements include not only specific agreements appearing on your system card but also partnership understandings which have arisen through partnership discussion or experience. The opponents are entitled to know about these understandings. General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there has been no prior discussion, are not alertable, but any inferences that can be drawn from partnership experience must be disclosed. Richard Hills: No, I agree with Grattan Endicott that the spirit of the game is defined by the Laws of the game (in my personal opinion the most spiritual Laws are The Proprieties, Laws 72 to 75). Obeying unwritten rules, infracting the Lawbook to save the Lawbook, is analogous to this apocryphal quote from the Vietnam War: "We had to destroy the village to save it." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131212/3874939c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 13 01:41:06 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:41:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hard cases make bad law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6AD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ACBL Long Beach summer 2003 case book, appeal number 37: The Facts: 4S went down one, +50 for N/S. The opening lead was a low heart. South, as she led to trick two, knocked over her card holder, briefly exposing her cards to the rest of the players at the table. She covered them quickly and pulled them into her lap. E/W called the Director who said they believed North had seen South's cards. The Director applied [1997] Law 50, instructing the players that South's prematurely exposed (but not led) cards would not be treated as penalty cards and to resume play. He remained at the table and monitored the play, which he reported went as shown in the diagram. At the end of the play, the Director was satisfied that there had been no damage from the briefly exposed cards ([1997] Law 16) and allowed the table result to stand. The Panel Decision: The Panel, although divided, believed that the table Director had upheld the spirit of the laws in applying the first paragraph of [1997] Law 50 to this situation. That paragraph reads: A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see [1997] Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when he deems that [1997] Law 72B1 applies. [1997] Law 72B1 reads: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. They also decided that the Director's observation that no damage resulted from the incident was sufficient to uphold his application of the law. Since he was able to provide both the hand and the play (uncontested by the players) they accepted his observations and assigned the result of the board as 4S down one, +50 for N/S. Richard Hills: Three quibbles: (1) The ruling by the Director and the Appeals Committee to cancel multiple Penalty Cards may well have been consistent with the obscure 1997 Lawbook then in force. But in 2013 such a ruling would be a Director's Error, contrary to Law 49: "Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face ..... his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50) ..... " In 2013 the only legal way for the Director to cancel multiple Penalty Cards would be by a Law 81C5 request for a waiver of Penalty Cards from the non-offending side (if I was a 2013 non- offending player I would of course request a waiver, but I would not condemn a non-offending side who chose otherwise). (2) The 2003 AC's criterion "upheld the spirit of the laws" would be zero justification for a 2013 TD and AC infracting Law 49. (3) In 2013 "damage" would NOT be measured by what would have happened had zero infractions occurred. But rather by what would have happened had the hypothetical 2013 TD avoided the Director's Error of cancelling 13 Penalty Cards. In such a situation 4S would not have been -50, but would instead have been making with overtricks. Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls (1974): "Mr. Balcombe realised that the claim of the executors here had no merit whatsoever. He started off by reminding us that 'hard cases make bad law'. He repeated it time after time. He treated it as if it was an ultimate truth. But it is a maxim which is quite mis- leading. It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: 'Unjust decisions make good law': whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law. But in the present case it has been prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale" Richard Hills: What's the problem? The problem is the long-standing inequity of Penalty Cards (only partially mitigated by the introduction of the concept of Minor Penalty Cards a few decades ago). In the 2015 Lawbook all Penalty Cards (Minor or Major) should be abolished. Instead defenders who unintentionally expose a card or cards should be dealt with by the equitable Law 16D2: "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131213/eeb3dcfc/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 13 02:07:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 01:07:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6E2@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Anton Witzen: >In Holland we have the rule that you should alert everything >you think your opps do not understand. >That resolves all the problems I think. Richard Hills: North and South conduct a somewhat obscure auction. Then --> North: "4C" South: "Alert!" East: "Howzat?" South: "I am taking it as Gerber." This leaves unresolved the problem that North actually intended her 4C as a natural call, so she has Law 75 UI. Hence the ABF chose to resolve the UI problem by defining some calls (e.g. Gerber and cue bids) as "self-alerting". 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131213/ff2fe3bf/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 13 03:42:08 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:42:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hard cases make bad law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6AD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6AD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Did the player have a physical disability? It just says she was using a card holder? >> UNOFFICIAL >ACBL Long Beach summer 2003 case book, appeal number 37: >The Facts: > 4S went down one, +50 for N/S. The opening lead was a low > heart. South, as she led to trick two, knocked over her card > holder, briefly exposing her cards to the rest of the players at > the table. She covered them quickly and pulled them into her > lap. E/W called the Director who said they believed North had > seen South?s cards. The Director applied [1997] Law 50, > instructing the players that South?s prematurely exposed (but not > led) cards would not be treated as penalty cards and to resume > play. He remained at the table and monitored the play, which he > reported went as shown in the diagram. At the end of the play, > the Director was satisfied that there had been no damage from > the briefly exposed cards ([1997] Law 16) and allowed the table > result to stand. >The Panel Decision: > The Panel, although divided, believed that the table Director had > upheld the spirit of the laws in applying the first paragraph of > [1997] Law 50 to this situation. That paragraph reads: >A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see [1997] Law 57) by > a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates > otherwise. The Director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of > the rectifications below, when he deems that [1997] Law 72B1 > applies. >[1997] Law 72B1 reads: >Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have > known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would > be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the > auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted > score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage > through the irregularity. >They also decided that the Director?s observation that no > damage resulted from the incident was sufficient to uphold his > application of the law. Since he was able to provide both the > hand and the play (uncontested by the players) they accepted > his observations and assigned the result of the board as 4S > down one, +50 for N/S. >Richard Hills: >Three quibbles: >(1) The ruling by the Director and the Appeals Committee to > cancel multiple Penalty Cards may well have been consistent > with the obscure 1997 Lawbook then in force. But in 2013 > such a ruling would be a Director?s Error, contrary to Law 49: >?Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see > for example Law 47E), when a defender?s card is in a position in > which his partner could possibly see its face ..... his hand, each > such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50) ..... ? >In 2013 the only legal way for the Director to cancel multiple > Penalty Cards would be by a Law 81C5 request for a waiver of > Penalty Cards from the non-offending side (if I was a 2013 non- > offending player I would of course request a waiver, but I would > not condemn a non-offending side who chose otherwise). >(2) The 2003 AC?s criterion ?upheld the spirit of the laws? would > be zero justification for a 2013 TD and AC infracting Law 49. >(3) In 2013 ?damage? would NOT be measured by what would > have happened had zero infractions occurred. But rather by what > would have happened had the hypothetical 2013 TD avoided the > Director?s Error of cancelling 13 Penalty Cards. In such a > situation 4S would not have been -50, but would instead have > been making with overtricks. >Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls (1974): >?Mr. Balcombe realised that the claim of the executors here had > no merit whatsoever. He started off by reminding us that ?hard > cases make bad law?. He repeated it time after time. He treated it > as if it was an ultimate truth. But it is a maxim which is quite mis- > leading. It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: > ?Unjust decisions make good law?: whereas they do nothing of the > kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge > who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, > then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to > mitigate the rigour of the law. But in the present case it has been > prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale? >Richard Hills: >What?s the problem? The problem is the long-standing inequity of > Penalty Cards (only partially mitigated by the introduction of the > concept of Minor Penalty Cards a few decades ago). In the 2015 > Lawbook all Penalty Cards (Minor or Major) should be abolished. >Instead defenders who unintentionally expose a card or cards should > be dealt with by the equitable Law 16D2: >?For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn > action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is > unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the unauthorized 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131213/646f455d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 13 04:17:24 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:17:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hard cases make bad law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F86C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, 2003 casebook panellist, unofficial opinion: "Unless knocking over the card holder was deemed a purposeful action there was no infraction. South did not act to make UI available, it occurred adventitiously. If North saw anything significant as the outcome of the accident, Law 16B would apply. Everything the Director did was within the powers the relevant law gives, regardless of spirit, and I have no inclination to challenge the Director's conclusions in addressing the question of whether North had UI and took advantage of it." Jeff Goldsmith, 2003 casebook panellist, unofficial opinion: "I didn't know that Law 50 allows Directors to judge that an exposed card provides no penalty. Law 50B says 'a card...exposed inadvertently...becomes a minor penalty card,' which suggests to me that Law 50 was misapplied, but I think it would be a good thing if Law 50 could be applied as it was, particularly with respect to handicapped players." [snip] 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131213/a4853c37/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 13 06:48:24 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:48:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516FCD7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >And hence, the argument that you should have pre- >alerted is a very good one, and I would rule against >you for having not done so. > >Herman. Richard Hills: The ABF has recently provided an editable Adobe Acrobat template for system cards. Compared to the old hard copy hand-written system cards, there is much more room for disclosure in the front-of-card Pre-Alerts box. So I have now added this item: "Expect the unexpected (for example, LHO opens 1 banana, RHO responds 1 grape, a 'cue bid' of 2 bananas or 2 grapes is a natural overcall)" 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131213/2d230aff/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Fri Dec 13 10:45:58 2013 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:45:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6E2@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6E2@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002701cef7e8$2047c1d0$60d74570$@upcmail.nl> We also are not allowed to say i take it as huppeldepupJ We only have to tell our agreements or say no agreement if we dont know what it is. And we do not know self-alerts tooJ Regards anton A.Witzen (a.k.a. ????? ) Boniplein 86 1094 sg Amsterdam Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Richard HILLS Verzonden: vrijdag 13 december 2013 2:07 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Anton Witzen: >In Holland we have the rule that you should alert everything >you think your opps do not understand. >That resolves all the problems I think. Richard Hills: North and South conduct a somewhat obscure auction. Then ? North: ?4C? South: ?Alert!? East: ?Howzat?? South: ?I am taking it as Gerber.? This leaves unresolved the problem that North actually intended her 4C as a natural call, so she has Law 75 UI. Hence the ABF chose to resolve the UI problem by defining some calls (e.g. Gerber and cue bids) as ?self-alerting?. 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131213/d34fc58c/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 13 10:49:05 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:49:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516E015@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52AAD811.1040906@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/12/2013 7:42, Harald Berre Skj?ran a ?crit : > What's unusual by that cuebid/overcall??? > Natural is the standard meaning of 2H over (1m) P (1H). But only for some players (in my country it is perhaps 60/40), and here I agree that some calls are uncommon to at least some players, whatever the meaning. Of course, requiring that one explains within half a minute the meaning of all cue-bids in one's system is ridiculous, whence the pre-alert requirement is impossible to comply with. As are a dozen other alert requirements. Best regards Alain > > > 2013/12/11 Richard HILLS > > > UNOFFICIAL > > ABF pre-Alert regulation, clause 3.1.2: > > This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to > > any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to > > which they may need to arrange a defence. > > Examples: > > transfer pre-empts, unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, > > very unusual doubles++, unusual methods over the opponents' 1NT > > or strong club openings, ++unusual cue bids of the opponents' suit++, > > /etc/. > > Pay ++particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls++. These > > should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre- > > alerted. > > Sven Pran (Alerting a BOOT thread): > > >>>This situation can probably best be described by a discussion > > >>>among Norwegian directors some 30 years ago. We ended up > > >>>with the (ridiculous) conclusion that all doubles of low level > > >>>bids should be alerted whether they were for penalty or for > > >>>takeout because the understanding would always be unexpected > > >>>for some players! > > >>> > > >>>That conclusion of course never reached the regulation. > > Richard Hills (previous post): > > >>No, that attempt at "reductio ad absurdum" by the Norwegian > > >>Directors was flawed. > > >> > > >>The ABF Pre-Alert regulation follows the guiding principle laid > > >>down by Herman De Wael (what would beginners using their > > >>national methods think was normal and usual?), with the ABF Pre- > > >>Alert regulation repeatedly using the key word "unusual". > > >> > > >>The vast majority of players in ABF-land are aware of two > > >>++usual++ forms of the Stayman convention ("Simple" and > > >>"Extended"). So under the ABF Pre-Alert regulation it is not an > > >>infraction if a recent arrival to Australia from Norway is not pre- > > >>alerted about the unexpected (unexpected for this Norwegian only, > > >>not un-expected for her Aussie partner) use of Extended Stayman > > >>by her opponents. > > Tony Musgrove: > > >My sketchy understanding of the ABF regs is that 2C over 1NT is > > >"self-alerting", so the Norseman would need to have been pre- > > >alerted. In any case, all the responses to "Extended Stayman" have > > >to be alerted so he would quickly get back on track. On the other > > >hand 3C over 2NT does have to be alerted for some reason. > > Richard Hills (current post): > > If a member of the Ali-Hills partnership cue bids 2H over RHO's > > opening bid of 1H, that is the usual-in-Australia Michaels Cue Bid > > (spades and a minor), so we do not pre-alert that cue bid. > > However ...... > > At last night's South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Pairs, LHO > > was an expert partnering a non-expert RHO friend. LHO opened a > > Standard American 1C, Hashmat passed, RHO responded 1H. > > Now I cue bid 2H (not alerted by Hashmat, due to being a "self- > > alerting" call). LHO chose a "wild or gambling" action of 3H > > (lacking both sufficient high cards and also heart length -- only > > three-card support). Hashmat passed again, and RHO innocently > > raised to 4H. I doubled, and belatedly LHO asked Hashmat > > about the meaning of my 2H cue bid. "Natural overcall with > > hearts," spake Hashmat. After 4Hx went for 800, LHO and I > > summoned the Director. > > LHO's initial argument that Hashmat should obey the spirit of > > the Laws, by alerting an unusual "self-alerting" call, was > > correctly dismissed by the Director. But LHO's second > > argument, that my unusual 2H overcall / cue bid should have > > been pre-alerted, had much more validity. > > How would you rule? > > 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au . See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20131213/0e348b84/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 13 11:00:50 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:00:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002701cef7e8$2047c1d0$60d74570$@upcmail.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6E2@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <002701cef7e8$2047c1d0$60d74570$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: <52AADAD2.9060307@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/12/2013 10:45, Anton Witzen a ?crit : > > We also are not allowed to say i take it as huppeldepupJ > > We only have to tell our agreements or say no agreement if we dont > know what it is. > > AG : another rule with which I find difficult to comply. I agree with Herman's fuzzy logic problem : when there is some complexity in the bidding, one is never 100% sure - although one often pretends to be. Now, how uncertain one must be to be classified as 'not knowing' ? What if we are 90% sure ? What if 99% ? Where is the limit ? How many stones make a heap ? (hey, it's not a joke, it's a genuine mathematical problem) And what consttutes proof of the degree of certitude ? We all know that 'it isn't written' doesn't mean 'we don't know what it is'. So, when is it demonstrable that we don't know ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131213/3cc1a6d0/attachment-0001.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Dec 13 16:18:29 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:18:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002701cef7e8$2047c1d0$60d74570$@upcmail.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32516F6E2@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <002701cef7e8$2047c1d0$60d74570$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: <982874516.15228929.1386947909091.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Anton Witzen" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Vendredi 13 D?cembre 2013 10:45:58 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > We also are not allowed to say i take it as huppeldepup J > We only have to tell our agreements or say no agreement if we dont know what > it is. > And we do not know self-alerts too at last a wise league jpr > Regards > anton > A.Witzen (a.k.a. ????? ) > Boniplein 86 > 1094 sg Amsterdam > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Richard > HILLS > Verzonden: vrijdag 13 december 2013 2:07 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > UNOFFICIAL > Anton Witzen: > >In Holland we have the rule that you should alert everything > >you think your opps do not understand. > >That resolves all the problems I think. > Richard Hills: > North and South conduct a somewhat obscure auction. Then ? > North: ?4C? > South: ?Alert!? > East: ?Howzat?? > South: ?I am taking it as Gerber.? > This leaves unresolved the problem that North actually > intended her 4C as a natural call, so she has Law 75 UI. > Hence the ABF chose to resolve the UI problem by defining > some calls (e.g. Gerber and cue bids) as ?self-alerting?. > 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131213/008a378e/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 14 04:03:21 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:03:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table In-Reply-To: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> References: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52ABCA79.3050800@nhcc.net> Thanks for comments. The following is the opinion I wrote on RGB after reading comments here. Any objections? In normal circumstances, the stand-in is just a card turner and should never point out any irregularity or do anything else except turn cards. Like any spectator, the stand-in can speak to "fact or law" if the Director so requests. If the Director says so, the stand-in could be designated a substitute player. That would mean exercising all of dummy's normal rights. (There's a complication if the stand-in has seen declarer's cards, e.g., a player who has already played the board, but I think the consequences of Law 43B2 are obvious and rarely relevant.) A substitute player has to be specifically approved by the Director, but I can imagine circumstances where the Director would do so retroactively. Finally, the stand-in being the Director is a special case. The Director cannot relinquish his status, even temporarily. That means restoring equity for any irregularity but not giving the declaring side an undue advantage. That was the basis of my opinion about a revoke: if declarer doesn't notice, the Director restores equity under Law 64C if necessary but doesn't call attention until it's too late for L64A rectification tricks. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 15 22:30:08 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:30:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Christmas on Caradhras [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Gil-Galad was an Elven-king. Of him kibitzers sadly sing: The last whose table fees were free Inside his club beside the sea. His thoughts were long, his bidding keen, His shining smile afar was seen; And victories in all bridge fields Were graven on his cups and shields. But long ago he passed away, And where he shuffles none can say; For into darkness fell this star In Mordor where the psychers are. As Legolas the Elf was singing that song, the Nine Walkers were shivering in the snow halfway up the Pass of Caradhras. Half of them were keeping warm by playing a game involving a beer-can and a small fireball (Can-a-star). Meanwhile, Gandalf and Aragorn were naturally playing a friendly rubber against the Forcing Pass pair of Frodo and Sam. The first deal saw the hobbits take twenty-one bids to reach a frigid seven notrumps. On the second deal, Gandalf and Aragorn retaliated by striding into an equally cold grand in only two bids. This was to be the deciding hand of the rubber: DLR: South Aragorn VUL: All *AK *KJ *AK97654 *32 Sam Frodo *954 *1087632 *63 *A84 *82 *Q10 *AKQ974 *85 Gandalf *QJ *Q109752 *J3 *J106 Gandalf believed in the obvious principle of "the higher your opening, the stronger your hand". As he explained, "You don't open six notrumps with a Tuckborough and you shouldn't pass with an opening hand!" glaring at Frodo as he spoke. Therefore, the Grey Pilgrim opened 1* (weak one). Sam was torn between making a lead-directing overcall of 2* and a weak jump overcall of 3*. However, he remembered that he was vulnerable and settled for silence. With his eighteen point hand Aragorn made a slam try of 4*, but all passed. Frodo had recently taught Sam a new leading method, called Chronicler Leads. Sam therefore led the queen of clubs (thirds and fifths). Upon seeing dummy, Sam decided that the most likely way to defeat the contract was by a trump promotion, so he continued with two more high clubs. Gandalf carefully ruffed with the king of trumps as Frodo equally carefully discarded the ten of diamonds. While Gandalf was eliminating the spades, Frodo was happily thinking how he would win the jack of hearts with the ace, and return the queen of diamonds to leave the master hearts lonely in declarer's hand. But the wily Wizard cashed the ace of diamonds before advancing the jack of hearts. Hoping that Sam held the nine of trumps Frodo ducked, but Gandalf overtook with the queen and continued high trumps for game and rubber. Frodo asked, "How did you guess that my ten of diamonds wasn't my only one?" Gandalf gruffly replied, "Even Sam would have overcalled with ace-king-queen to six clubs AND the queen of diamonds!" Due to the severe snow storm, the Fellowship abandoned its bid to open the Pass of Caradhras, and decided instead to go through by way of the ancient Mines of Moria. They arrived at the magic door to Moria at sunset. Beside it was a dark pool, which had oily ripples disturbing its surface. Gandalf passed his hand over the Door causing shining silver lines to be revealed. They said, "Speak, friend, and enter." "What does it mean by 'speak, friend, and enter'?" asked Merry. "That is plain enough," said Gimli. "If you are a friend, speak the password and the door will open, and you can enter." Further writing appeared on the Door: Rueful Rabbit *--- *AKQJ1098765432 *--- *--- Karapet the Unlucky Papa the Greek *KQJ108642 *A *--- *--- *AKQJ9 *864 *--- *AKQJ108642 Hideous Hog *9753 *--- *107532 *9753 Below the hand an inscription said: "Imps, all vul. Karapet dealt and opened 6S, R.R. overcalled 7H and Papa raised to 7S. Papa impatiently wanted to discover if 7S is cold, so he exchanged hands with Karapet. H.H. now Took advantage of Law 24C to sacrifice in a necessarily undoubled seven notrumps. Plan the defence." Boromir scoffed, "What trivial pursuit is this, when the defence has twenty top tricks!" Gandalf replied, "There is more to this than meets the lidless eye," and tanked by the water. Meanwhile Sam was saying goodbye to Bill the pony. He said, "If I was on lead, Bill, I would make one of Mr Frodo's Chronicler leads, and lead my fifth highest diamond." Gandalf chuckled, then burst out laughing. "Of course! You are right Sam - the problem is to prove that you are a friend by finding a triple dummy friendly defence which lets seven notrumps make!" Puzzled, Boromir queried, "If North could get the lead, sure. But how can South make thirteen tricks on that rubbish when dummy has nothing but lonely hearts?" While the ripples on the pool grew larger, Gandalf explained: "East-West have 26 penalty cards, so declarer can cast this Wingardium Leviosa spell to pull cards up from the defenders' hands: West leads their fifth highest diamond, East playing the eight and South winning with the ten. South now 'cashes' four clubs while West discards their remaining diamonds. Now South can win four more rounds of diamonds while the spade honours are being pitched. South then scores four spades to make seven notrumps." Gleefully, Gandalf tapped the nine of diamonds with his staff while saying, "Friend!" and the Door swung open. Suddenly, Frodo felt his ankle being hooked from under him, as twenty tentacles plotched from the pool. Merry Christmas, 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131215/ea231545/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 16 05:33:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 04:33:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325171EDE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >...... >If the Director says so, the stand-in could be designated a substitute >player. That would mean exercising all of dummy's normal rights. >(There's a complication if the stand-in has seen declarer's cards, >e.g., a player who has already played the board, but I think the >consequences of Law 43B2 are obvious and rarely relevant.) >..... Richard Hills: The conflict-of-interest consequence of a Law 4 substitution (whether as a temporary dummy, or as a temp for a full session) by a player who belongs to another contestant is frequently relevant. For example, commonplace at the Canberra Bridge Club are multi- session Swiss Teams events. The Conditions of Contest preclude a member of a team-of-six who has been benched from playing as a substitute for a different team. Michael Quinion http://www.worldwidewords.org When in 1887 James Murray was compiling entries beginning with the letter B for what was then called the New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, now the Oxford English Dictionary, he was able to find only two examples of blatteroon, both from the seventeenth century. It had been taken from the Latin blatero, a babbler, to generate an insult which Thomas Blount defined in his Glossographia of 1656 as "a babbler, an idle-headed fellow". The other curiosity is the appearance of the word in a variety of commercial code books. These weren't designed to hide the sense of messages - the books were published for all to read who could beg, buy, borrow or steal a copy - but to provide one-word equivalents for common phrases to reduce the cost of cablegrams. Lieber's code of 1896 said blatteroon meant "did you reserve?"; the New General and Mining Telegraph Code of 1903 translated it as "almost certain to float"; while the Western Union Telegraphic Code of 1901 left its meaning blank for sender and recipient to select their own. 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131216/6c68a4df/attachment-0002.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 16 05:33:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 04:33:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325171EDE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >...... >If the Director says so, the stand-in could be designated a substitute >player. That would mean exercising all of dummy's normal rights. >(There's a complication if the stand-in has seen declarer's cards, >e.g., a player who has already played the board, but I think the >consequences of Law 43B2 are obvious and rarely relevant.) >..... Richard Hills: The conflict-of-interest consequence of a Law 4 substitution (whether as a temporary dummy, or as a temp for a full session) by a player who belongs to another contestant is frequently relevant. For example, commonplace at the Canberra Bridge Club are multi- session Swiss Teams events. The Conditions of Contest preclude a member of a team-of-six who has been benched from playing as a substitute for a different team. Michael Quinion http://www.worldwidewords.org When in 1887 James Murray was compiling entries beginning with the letter B for what was then called the New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, now the Oxford English Dictionary, he was able to find only two examples of blatteroon, both from the seventeenth century. It had been taken from the Latin blatero, a babbler, to generate an insult which Thomas Blount defined in his Glossographia of 1656 as "a babbler, an idle-headed fellow". The other curiosity is the appearance of the word in a variety of commercial code books. These weren't designed to hide the sense of messages - the books were published for all to read who could beg, buy, borrow or steal a copy - but to provide one-word equivalents for common phrases to reduce the cost of cablegrams. Lieber's code of 1896 said blatteroon meant "did you reserve?"; the New General and Mining Telegraph Code of 1903 translated it as "almost certain to float"; while the Western Union Telegraphic Code of 1901 left its meaning blank for sender and recipient to select their own. 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131216/6c68a4df/attachment-0003.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 16 19:04:16 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:04:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dummy leaving the table In-Reply-To: <52ABCA79.3050800@nhcc.net> References: <52A8FDE1.1030605@nhcc.net> <52ABCA79.3050800@nhcc.net> Message-ID: There is another way of seeing this, which comes to the same thing but avoids the extra-legal concept of "card turner" (and assigning rights thereof) Director can reassign partnerships, for example assigning someone to play with you if your partner has to leave for 20 minutes. Similarly, director has full rights to make someone your partner as dummy. If your partner leaves before you declare the last hand and someone else steps in to play dummy for him, then he has my implicit approval, and he knows that. That dummy will not only turn cards, but he will also probably keep track of who won each trick (with how the played cards are arranged). And of course that player would display the dummy if your partner left before the opening lead. The rest is probably the stand-in trying to guess what his/her role should be. I probably don't want them asking "No more spades?", and hopefully the stand-in dummy will guess that question isn't appropriate. Note, however, that if I ask your partner to help me for two minutes while someone else plays the dummy, I wouldn't think about it, but I would be comfortable with that player asking "no more spades?" Bob On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:03:21 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > Thanks for comments. The following is the opinion I wrote on RGB after > reading comments here. Any objections? > > In normal circumstances, the stand-in is just a card turner and should > never point out any irregularity or do anything else except turn cards. > Like any spectator, the stand-in can speak to "fact or law" if the > Director so requests. > > If the Director says so, the stand-in could be designated a substitute > player. That would mean exercising all of dummy's normal rights. > (There's a complication if the stand-in has seen declarer's cards, e.g., > a player who has already played the board, but I think the consequences > of Law 43B2 are obvious and rarely relevant.) A substitute player has > to be specifically approved by the Director, but I can imagine > circumstances where the Director would do so retroactively. > > Finally, the stand-in being the Director is a special case. The > Director cannot relinquish his status, even temporarily. That means > restoring equity for any irregularity but not giving the declaring side > an undue advantage. That was the basis of my opinion about a revoke: if > declarer doesn't notice, the Director restores equity under Law 64C if > necessary but doesn't call attention until it's too late for L64A > rectification tricks. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 16 23:40:03 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:40:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517275A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Of course, requiring that one explains within half a minute the >meaning of all cue-bids in one's system is ridiculous, whence the pre- >alert requirement is impossible to comply with. As are a dozen other >alert requirements. > >Best regards > >Alain Of course, requiring that one explains within half a minute the meaning of Significant cue-bids in one's system is Sensible, whence the pre-alert requirement is Possible to comply with. As are a dozen other alert requirements. Best wishes, Richard Sir Humphrey Appleby (slightly misquoted): "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure to Alert, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure to Alert. Ivory Tower critics of Alert regulations do not appreciate the significance of 'significant'." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131216/e2bb4096/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 17 04:13:08 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 03:13:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3251728A0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, September 2002: +=+ Aye, Herman..... my first comment on this did observe that the 'system file' could be conceptual, in the head, and not on paper or disk. If a partnership discusses the inferences of a specific situation in their bidding, takes 10, 20, 30 minutes to do so, they should recognize that it is nothing less than unfair to opponents to expect them to work out the inferences in the course of a round of the auction when the partnership has them already worked out and mutually agreed. Obviously it is any inference that can affect ++the particular auction++ [RH emphasis] (or the subsequent play of the cards) that is important information for the opponents to have. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Initially the ABF deemed opening bids at the three- level to be "self-alerting" calls, The ABF rescinded this clause of the ABF alert regulation when the ABF discovered that those pairs employing transfer pre- empts were gaining an unfair advantage. Likewise, the ABF may wish to cancel the "self- alerting" status of cue bids, to prevent a pair from innocently bidding 4H after an opponent has chosen an unusual cue bid / natural overcall of 2H. "What do you read, my Lord?" "Words, words, words." 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131217/7409b474/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 18 22:44:52 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 21:44:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appalling appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319D1165@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau, April 1996: [snip] Rulings based on committee members' judgment of how well someone plays are invariably problematic; regular committee folks know this all too well and hate to be required to do it. Often both sides go away angry -- one side at having lost the case, the other side at having been told that they won the case only because they're lousy players! And it opens the door to some appalling behavior. I've personally seen one of the US's top players (McKenney winner) on two occasions get off in situations where any of us would hang by browbeating the committees into conceding (truthfully, to be sure) that he's a better bridge player than any of them, convincing them, on that basis, to accept his "bridge judgment" as superior to their own, and giving him a favorable ruling based on his own analysis. [snip] 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131218/98fc31ad/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 23 05:23:11 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 04:23:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319DB325@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Likewise, the ABF may wish to cancel the "self- >alerting" status of cue bids, to prevent a pair from >innocently bidding 4H after an opponent has chosen >an unusual cue bid / natural overcall of 2H. Unfortunately the above is an innocent suggestion by an innocent. If hypothetically the ABF had previously cancelled the "self-alerting" status of cue bids, so that in the auction (1C) - Pass - (1H) - 2H Hashmat was permitted to alert my 2H bid, my expert LHO would still have been misled. LHO would NOT expect Hashmat to be alerting a very unusual (in Australia) natural overcall. Rather, LHO would expect Hashmat to be alerting me holding 5/5 in diamonds & spades, a commonplace convention. Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark "What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators, Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?" So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply "They are merely conventional signs!" Many years ago, the Ali-Hills unfairly gained a huge number of imps due to necessarily incomplete disclosure. After several rounds of artificial game- force relays (during which one of my relays had been 1NT), Hashmat bid an artificial 3D. My very expert RHO held KJT9 in diamonds and observed that if the contract was eventually 3NT her partner would be on lead. So she chose a lead-directing double. Alas, the various informations Hashmat had transmitted to me during the relay auction included the nugget that he held five diamonds. Looking at my own hand I observed an additional four diamonds. 3Dxx +1240. Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark "Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes! But we've got our brave Captain to thank:" (So the crew would protest) "that he's bought us the best- A perfect and absolute blank!" So my second thoughts on how Ali-Hills could have been prevented from gaining the above two unfair advantages are a perfect and absolute blank! That is, our opponents could request (with the permission of the Director) to blank the ABF Alert reg for all of our calls. Instead of Ali-Hills merely Announcing our 1C and 1NT opening bids, we would Announce each and every one of our calls. Merry Christmas, 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131223/bbdeca47/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Dec 23 06:43:10 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:43:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319DB325@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319DB325@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <189C218B73CF4C658C2E07D533FE0598@erdos> RIchard Hills writes: >UNOFFICIAL >>Likewise, the ABF may wish to cancel the "self- >>alerting" status of cue bids, to prevent a pair from >>innocently bidding 4H after an opponent has chosen >>an unusual cue bid / natural overcall of 2H. >Unfortunately the above is an innocent suggestion by >an innocent. If hypothetically the ABF had previously >cancelled the "self-alerting" status of cue bids, so that >in the auction (1C) - Pass - (1H) - 2H Hashmat was >permitted to alert my 2H bid, my expert LHO would >still have been misled. LHO would NOT expect >Hashmat to be alerting a very unusual (in Australia) >natural overcall. Rather, LHO would expect Hashmat >to be alerting me holding 5/5 in diamonds & spades, a >commonplace convention. This is the logic behind the ACBL's three-tier system, with the brief experiment with Special Alerts (which nobody understood), followed by the current Announcements for a few common conventions. The most important use of Announcements in the ACBL is to distinguish between a 2D transfer to hearts over 1NT and another meaning of 2D such as forcing Stayman. Before Announcements and Special Alerts, players with heart suits kept quiet over forcing Stayman and then didn't get their heart leads against the final 3NT or 4S contract. Similarly, a 1C opener which may be a doubleton is announced as "May be short", so that it isn't confused with a Precision club which usually has a special defense. A 1NT response to 1H which is forcing is announced as "Forcing", so that a 1NT response showing spades can be alerted. Unfortunately, the cure may be worse than the disease. Many ACBL players announce "Transfer" when 2S is bid in response to 1NT, rather than alerting. If 2S is a transfer to clubs, this is a correct explanation in the wrong form. But if 2S requires opener to bid 3C and then responder can sign off in 3D, there is misinformation; fourth hand with clubs may be unable to bid the suit until the auction reaches 3D, and fourth hand with the red suits and a singleton club may bid 2NT on an unexpected misfit deal. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 23 13:49:28 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:49:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pre-alerting a cue bid? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319DB325@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319DB325@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52B83158.1020504@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/12/2013 5:23, Richard HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > >Likewise, the ABF may wish to cancel the "self- > >alerting" status of cue bids, to prevent a pair from > >innocently bidding 4H after an opponent has chosen > >an unusual cue bid / natural overcall of 2H. > Unfortunately the above is an innocent suggestion by > an innocent. If hypothetically the ABF had previously > cancelled the "self-alerting" status of cue bids, so that > in the auction (1C) -- Pass -- (1H) -- 2H Hashmat was > permitted to alert my 2H bid, my expert LHO would > still have been misled. LHO would NOT expect > Hashmat to be alerting a very unusual (in Australia) > natural overcall. Rather, LHO would expect Hashmat > to be alerting me holding 5/5 in diamonds & spades, a > commonplace convention. It all depends on how alertability is defined. If according to artificiality, you're right. In my country, where both meanings are fairly common, I would alert the 2-suited meaning, and intermediate-level tournament players would expect the natural meaning not to be. If according to unexpectedness, then you're opponents' expectancies are wrong. Unfortunately, the latter way to define alertability, while it is better for practical purposes, isn't often used, and there is at least one good reason for this : you can't demand that occasional visitors know what is commonplace in your club. Best regards Alain > Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark > "What's the good of Mercator's > North Poles and Equators, > Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?" > So the Bellman would cry: > and the crew would reply > "They are merely conventional signs!" > Many years ago, the Ali-Hills unfairly gained a huge > number of imps due to necessarily incomplete > disclosure. After several rounds of artificial game- > force relays (during which one of my relays had been > 1NT), Hashmat bid an artificial 3D. My very expert > RHO held KJT9 in diamonds and observed that if the > contract was eventually 3NT her partner would be on > lead. So she chose a lead-directing double. Alas, the > various informations Hashmat had transmitted to me > during the relay auction included the nugget that he > held five diamonds. Looking at my own hand I > observed an additional four diamonds. 3Dxx +1240. > Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark > "Other maps are such shapes, > with their islands and capes! > But we've got our brave Captain to thank:" > (So the crew would protest) > "that he's bought us the best--- > A perfect and absolute blank!" > So my second thoughts on how Ali-Hills could have > been prevented from gaining the above two unfair > advantages are a perfect and absolute blank! That is, > our opponents could request (with the permission of > the Director) to blank the ABF Alert reg for all of our > calls. Instead of Ali-Hills merely Announcing our 1C > and 1NT opening bids, we would Announce each and > every one of our calls. > Merry Christmas, > 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20131223/ab858e61/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 31 03:16:41 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 21:16:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim Message-ID: Declarer claims with 3 high cards and the deuce of trump, saying "that's it." There was a higher trump out, and if declarer starts with the deuce of trumps, then the defenders take 3 tricks. Is this an easy ruling? It seems like a common situation. Is this one of those things where it's okay to use judgment, so some directors might rule one way and some another? I think we can rule out that that the ruling is obvious given the current laws because (1) the director ruled one way, (2) a committee overturned the director, (3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and (4) I would side with the committee. A director at the game tonight said he originally sided with the committee, changed his mind when he heard the rationale for the ACBL ruling, and seems to be changing it again as I argue with him. Does the ruling depend on what declarer's trump is? Different answers on that too, of course. Needless to say, I am a fan of the way I would rule and, more importantly, that things be standardized. Bob From g3 at nige1.com Tue Dec 31 05:16:51 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 04:16:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Robert Frick] (1) the director ruled one way, (2) a committee overturned the director, (3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and (4) I would side with the committee. [Nigel] IMO ... This kind of opinion-split is typical of rulings In basic cases with agreed facts, in BLML and other fora. The rules are too subjective and sophisticated for players, directors, and law-makers to understand and apply. Local idiosyncratic and chauvinist regulations exacerbate the inconsistency. In competitive Bridge, secretary-bird skills rival basic bridge-skills in importance and director-decisions decide too many results. Rule-makers should forget their obsession with so-called "equity" and the devolution of responsibility. Instead they should concentrate on simpler, clearer, less subjective, universal, comprehensive, deterrent rules that players can understand. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 31 09:01:43 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 09:01:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52C279E7.3010701@skynet.be> I agree that there ought to be standardization. And everyone does. As long as the standard is theirs. This case is very close to one where the EBL AC ruled in favour of the claimer - one does not play trumps as other suits, trumps are kept to last. But not even European directors wished to follow the EBL AC's lead and accept this as a precedent. So waht we need is not just standardization, but also a willingness of directors to accept the standards set by others. A very merry year 2014 to all - maybe it will bring us good claim procedures. Herman. Robert Frick schreef: > Declarer claims with 3 high cards and the deuce of trump, saying "that's > it." There was a higher trump out, and if declarer starts with the deuce > of trumps, then the defenders take 3 tricks. > > Is this an easy ruling? It seems like a common situation. Is this one of > those things where it's okay to use judgment, so some directors might rule > one way and some another? > > I think we can rule out that that the ruling is obvious given the current > laws because (1) the director ruled one way, (2) a committee overturned > the director, (3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and (4) I would > side with the committee. A director at the game tonight said he originally > sided with the committee, changed his mind when he heard the rationale for > the ACBL ruling, and seems to be changing it again as I argue with him. > > Does the ruling depend on what declarer's trump is? Different answers on > that too, of course. > > Needless to say, I am a fan of the way I would rule and, more importantly, > that things be standardized. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >