From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 2 02:54:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 01:54:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E76208@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-ult1.htm Michael Quinion, World Wide Words: ..... Ultracrepidarian, somebody who gives opinions on matters beyond his knowledge, comes from a classical allusion. The Latin writer Pliny recorded that Apelles, the famous Greek painter who was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, would put his pictures where the public could see them and then stand out of sight so he could listen to their comments. A shoemaker once faulted the painter for a sandal with one loop too few, which Apelles corrected. The shoemaker, emboldened by this acceptance of his views, then criticised the subject's leg. To this Apelles is reported as replying (no doubt with expletives deleted) that the shoemaker should not judge beyond his sandals, in other words that critics should only comment on matters they know something about. In modern English, we might say "the cobbler should stick to his last", a proverb that comes from the same incident. (A last is a shoemaker's pattern, ultimately from a Germanic root meaning to follow a track, hence footstep.) ..... Ultracrepidarian question: >>But if the Director asks what would have >>happened if the player said 'I just remembered, my >>bid doesn't show any aces,' then the director has >>not remedied the problem? Do you want to say >>that? Matthias Berghaus, not an ultracrepidarian: >Since I do not really understand what your question >is: no, probably not. Richard Hills, indeed an ultracrepidarian: If the questioner is trying to argue that a corrected infraction shall be deemed to never have been an infraction, then such an argument is indeed Wrong!!! Only in the exceptional case of a Law 25A unintended call replaced by the originally intended call is the un- intended call deemed to be a nullity. Matthias Berghaus, not an ultracrepidarian: >What the law says is that opening leader is entitled >to the correct information, and only that. So the TD >has to ask himself, colleagues, and comparable >players, if available, what they would have done >with the correct information _only_. An opponent >is not entitled to know that there was a mis- >understanding, a system forget, temporary brain >death, whatever. If he can figure this out, good for >him, but he need not complain if he tries to guess >what happened and fails. Law 21A: No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. Matthias Berghaus, not an ultracrepidarian: >Any score adjustment happens on the basis of >correct information, period. Law 40B4: A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the ++meaning++ of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score. Richard Hills, indeed an ultracrepidarian: I have A Modest Proposal that the word "meaning" appear in the 2017 Definitions, given that the 2007 Drafting Committee's intended meaning of "meaning" is often subject to an ultracrepidarian misunderstanding by grass-roots players. Happy New Year, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130102/7d521f06/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 00:35:20 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:35:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Herman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E762F9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael, December 2012: >>>Dear friends on blml, >>> >>>I may reassure all of you in saying that I am still very much active >>>and alive. I have stayed away from blml during the past year and >>>have not really missed it. >>>I do keep receiving the posts, but have not read everything. >>>I must say that I missed this thread earlier, or I would have re- >>>assured you earlier. >>> >>>Have a good 2013! >>> >>>Herman. >>>(still very much convinced that the dWS is the correct one) Herman De Wael, February 2008: >>...when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question >>does not make sense. Jeff Easterson, February 2008: >Not a claim of superior wisdom? David Burn, February 2008, partially snipped: "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice - What I tell you three times is true." What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be tolerated in Herman's case. After all, he has been arguing a minority position at long odds, and the fact that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a tribute to [a] his sincerity; [b] his integrity and [c] his grasp through thick and thin of the difficulties involved. I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). I think that Herman has been unresponsive to the arguments advanced, especially by those in positions of authority, to resolve the problem (which is to say that I can well understand why Grattan Endicott and Ton Kooijman are a bit fed up with him). I think, as I have said many times, that he is wrong to rely on the "principle" that creation of UI is more to be avoided than creation of MI; and that he is wrong to say that the Laws are somehow "hierarchically" based on that principle. [two snipped parts of DALB's post are in the "Christmas Past" thread] UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130102/a34dd106/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 01:35:57 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:35:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Evil Umpire [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E76337@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL What are the Seven Deadly Sins of a Director? And how should these temptations be avoided? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130103/573267c3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 3 03:58:55 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:58:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E76208@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E76208@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Kaplan said this ruling lacked common sense. A more formal analysis reveals the same problem. 1. There should be no rectification for distal damage when there is no proximal damage. 2. The infraction can be split into two parts. (1) The player did not receive the correct partnership explanation (that the player showed no aces) and (2) the player was told by the player herself that the partnership understanding was that her bid showed one ace. 3. Once the first piece of information is corrected, the second infraction creates no (proximal) damage. It is actually good information and hence (proximal) advantage to the defense. 4. We almost always play that this information is used at one's own risk. That is the right ruling. For example, had she accidentally dropped her ace, the opening leader uses this information at his own risk. If the explanation is "It shows no aces but I have one", he uses the latter information at his own risk. 5. Kaplan said "It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong ?" The reason that is easy and tempting is that in fact there was nothing wrong. (Or to be more precise, there was nothing wrong once the first rectification was made.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 04:44:50 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:44:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Shturmovshchina (was Hermann) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E763B9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Mark Forsyth, The Horologicon, pages 137 & 138: Hermann Inclusis, or Hermann the Recluse, could be said to have engaged in a Satanic shturmovshchina. Hermann lived in the thirteenth century in Podlazice in the middle of Bohemia (which is now the Czech Republic, approximately). But Hermann was not like other monks praying and fasting and living a life of virtuous virginity. Hermann the Recluse was an Evil Monk. Nobody knows how evil Hermann was or in what particular specialities of evil he excelled, but it was quite enough to attract the notice of the other monks in the monastery, who decided that he was quite beyond any normal redemption or punishment and decided to immure him, which is to say that they put him in a room and then built a wall where the door had once been. This done they settled down, like good Christians, to let him starve to death. ..... So, Herman the Recluse struck a deal whereby he could expiate his guilt by writing the biggest book in the whole wide world in a single night. He set to work, but like many writers who signed their contract thinking that it would be easy, he discovered the deadline charging towards him like a herd of elephants. He then struck a second deal, this one with the Devil (I told you that Hermann the Recluse was an evil monk). The Devil agreed to help him write the book, but only in exchange for Hermann's soul. Deal done, the book was produced in a single, after which Hermann tried to strike a third deal giving him forgiveness and salvation, this time with the Virgin Mary, who, I suppose, happened to be around. However, just before he could sign on the dotted line, he died and went to Hell. There are historians and cynics who question the absolute accuracy and veracity of the stories above, but no writer who has ever worked to a deadline would doubt a word of it. Anyway, the book that was produced survives to this day. It's called the Codex Gigas and is kept in the National Library of Sweden. It's just under a metre tall, half a metre wide, and twenty centimetres thick. Richard Hills: Compared to the slender rulebooks of comparable games of skill (for example, chess), the Duplicate Lawbook is an information overloading Codex Gigas. And the shturmovshchina of the 1997 Drafting Committee meant that the 1997 Laws were often ambiguous and/or ridiculous (most notoriously the ridiculous 1997 Law 25B). Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130103/be29fa3f/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 06:42:40 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:42:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU L&EC draft September minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E7640C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/general/frontpage/minutes.htm 2.3.2 Appeals booklets for 2010 and 2011 FH had sent out the material prepared by NM to the reviewers. A deadline for replies was set at December 1st, with a view to having them ready by the middle of January 2013. Action: FH 5.5 OB, TB and WB rewrites for August 2013 The committee considered how best to embark on a major rewrite of the Orange Book, given that the last edition was produced in 2006 and all subsequent editions have been based on amendments. The chairman offered some suggestions as to how to do the work, but he hoped that the new Orange Book would be no more than half the size of the present one. MA considered that a rewrite of the OB/TB could not be done without a major review of the White Book as well. FH said that the intention had been that the OB had been for tournament players, the TB for club players and the WB for TDs but people from other groups used them, so it was an artificial division. There was much duplication, material was just in the wrong place and some L&E decisions were not in either. It was agreed to proceed as follows: White Book: All regulations to be included. The new edition would be divided into (possibly three) sections (Laws commentaries, guidance, regulations). It was also suggested that it be formulated so that pages could be changed easily without the need to completely publish a new edition each year. Orange Book / Tangerine Book: the ideal solution will be to merge the OB and TB back into one book by removing regulations to the WB, but with references as to where to find them. Principally the OB would just contain agreements and disclosure. It was agreed that in time for the January L&E meeting that: NM and JD - to look at the WB / OB split, removing unnecessary duplications FH and DB - to look at the bidding regulations JD - to look at suggested changes to alerting and announcing MA and GE - to look at the WB law commentaries JP - to check through L&E minutes for regulations changed and amended not incorporated in either the WB or OB. FH - offered to do the final editing when all the preparation work had been completed. It was agreed that the Chairman would remind the Club Committee of the work in progress and invite comments by the end of the year. Action: ALL 5.7 Removal of boards from tables for slow play There was discussion on two cases where boards had been removed for slow play and an adjusted score given. GR asked that any guidance should be just that - the TD always has judgement as to whether to allow a board to be played. It was suggested that now that time-clocks were regularly in use at EBU events that a rule of thumb should be that no new boards should be started once the time shown on the clock for the round falls below 3-minutes. It was suggested that this could be included in congress programmes, but was a matter for the Tournament Committee to decide on. Regarding the adjusted score to be given, it was agreed that giving more than 100% on a board (e.g. 60%/50%) should be rare as it appeared to reward a table that was slow. However it was agreed that when one pair was clearly not at fault and the other pair partly at fault (perhaps from an earlier table) for the slowness then it was permitted. 12.025 Crockfords Final The chief TD had to intervene in a case where the Appeal Committee were on the verge of giving an illegal (Reveley) ruling. It was confirmed that chief TDs could do this if they became aware. Appeal Committees are encouraged to check points of law with the Chief TD in case of doubt. It was agreed that new referees and Appeal Chairmen should be offered some training in what their roles and permitted courses of action should be. Discussion would take place at a future meeting on the format of this. 12.050 Brighton Mixed Pivot Teams The appeals committee had changed its mind after making the ruling regarding the number of tricks a contract was likely to make. It was confirmed that appeals committees had all the powers conferred by the laws on a TD and if they made a ruling they realised was incorrect they were empowered to change 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. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130103/0cd814ef/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 22:16:20 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:16:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU L&EC draft September minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E76464@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >2.3.2 Appeals booklets for 2010 and 2011 >FH had sent out the material prepared by NM to the reviewers. A deadline for replies was >set at December 1st, with a view to having them ready by the middle of January 2013. >Action: FH The complete booklets can be found at http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm and click on 2010 and 2011 booklets. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130103/e89394ea/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 4 02:30:39 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 01:30:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E764E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn, AC Chair 007, has a licence to kill the Laws. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills EBU Appeals Booklet 2010, appeal number 10.045 Tournament Director: Mike Amos Appeals Committee: David Burn, Jeffrey Allerton and Mike Ash Swiss Pairs (matchpoints => VPs) Brd: 15..............QJ8 Dlr: South...........QJT643 Vul: North-South.....AK6 .....................4 KT53......................................A6 K7........................................A85 J74.......................................QT2 AKQT......................................J9873 .....................9742 .....................92 .....................9853 .....................652 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......Pass 1C........1H........2C........Pass Pass......X.........2H........Pass 2NT.......Pass......3NT.......Pass Pass......Pass 1C may be as short as two card suit Basic systems: North-South: 2/1 GF 5 card M East-West: 5 card majors, short club, 12-14 NT Result at table: 3NT + 2 by West Director first called: At end of auction by North Director's statement of facts: North drew attention to East's 2C bid which had not been alerted. He raised concerns about unauthorised information and misinformation. E/W's convention card showed that they were playing inverted minors, but was silent about continuations after intervention. The TD was recalled at the end of play. E/W's bidding not seem to raise concerns but North expressed the opinion that if he had known East's 2C was forcing he would have passed 2C out. Director's ruling: 80% of 2C+3 N/S -150 20% of 3NT+2 N/S -460 Details of ruling: The TD is convinced that E/W do not have an agreement. North should have been told that there was no agreement. In this case passing 2C would involve some risk. Appeal lodged by: E/W Basis of appeal: E/W believe ruling too severe. Director's comments: North is entitled to know E/W's agreements or that they have a lack of agreement. He can draw conclusions at his own risk. TD's opinion was that Pass is more likely to gain but sometimes North might fear missing game and so still bid 2H - hence the split score. Appeals Committee decision: The TD's ruling was upheld and the deposit returned. Appeals Committee's comments: [Subsequent write-up by David Burn] This is an attachment to an appeals form completed by Mike Amos at the Brighton Swiss Pairs. It attempts to summarize the deliberations of the Appeals Committee (myself as chair, Jeffrey Allerton, Mike Ash) that lasted well over an hour and at the end of which I wrote on the form "This is a difficult case". I began to write more before realising that the resulting opus would be about half as long as Paradise Lost and only twice as funny, and would in any case not fit in the space provided. So, I promised to complete the form later. Later is now. A very good player (vulnerable against not, as I recall) had QJx QJ10xxx AKx x and heard pass opposite, 1C to his right (could be short in the context of a weak no trump system). He bid 1H and heard 2C (not alerted) followed by two passes. He doubled, the opponents bid in short order to 3NT and made eleven tricks after misdefence (ten were available in any case). It transpired that his LHO intended 2C as forcing; had our hero known this, he would have chosen to defend that contract and been minus 150 instead. The Director awarded a score of 80% of minus 150 to the North-South pair, 20% of minus 460. This was based on the second of three arguments discussed below. Argument 1 - Virtual Screens If, as is normal in championship play, North (the over- caller) and East (the 2C bidder) had been on the same side of the screen. North would have known (because East would have told him) that 2C was intended by East as forcing. In that case, North would always pass out 2C and North-South would always be minus 150. This was the score that one of the Committee (Ash, J.) strongly maintained should be awarded. The other members of the Committee (Allerton, J. Burn, J.) pointed out that if North had shared a screen with West instead, North would have "known" (because West would have passed) that 2C was "by agreement" not forcing, so North would always act (because he did) and be minus 460. Ash remained unconvinced by any of this. The explanation a player gets with screens obviously (and randomly, and undesirably) depends on which opponent is his screen-mate. The concept of a "virtual screen" is of limited use unless extended to the concept of an "online screen", where a player is able to receive explanations from both opponents at once (those explanations being visible to no one except the player concerned). But the concept of an "on- line screen" is of doubtful legality; it is generally held that a player is not permitted to know as a matter of course that his opponents are cocking up the auction. Argument 2 - Virtual System File It is envisaged by the Laws that North-South are presumed to have access not only to the full set of East-West's explicit agreements, but to the full history of the East-West partnership including past experience of cocking up the auction, past discussions with one another or with other players, implicit agreements that might have a bearing on the sequence in question, and anything else short of a commitment between East and West to enter into a civil partnership (unless in Washington DC, where even this needs to be disclosed well in advance). It is obvious that East- West cannot in the course of any given deal provide North- South will all the information in the Virtual System File, but one adopts as a legal fiction the notion not only that they can, but that they have. It was held by the Director (Amos), who had been most diligent in collecting evidence, with the Chief Director (Bavin) concurring, that if North-South had access to the Virtual System File, they would have found under Pass-1C-1H- 2C the notation "Undiscussed". This, in addition to the fact that East-West did play 2C as forcing if North had passed, was all the information to which North was entitled. In those circumstances North might bid again but would probably pass - the weighting assigned to the respective probabilities was that North would pass four times out of five, so the score awarded by the TD was 80% of NS -150, 20% of NS -460. This, I freely confess, seemed perfectly reasonable to me until Allerton, J. submitted Argument 3 - Ex nihilo nihil fit In order for a player to claim damage, it must first be shown that his opponents have committed an infraction of Law or regulation. When East bid 2C: if that were forcing then East-West had a clear duty to alert it; if it were non-forcing they had a clear duty not to alert it. Failure in either of those duties would be an infraction, but the truth was that the partnership had no agreement as to whether 2C was forcing or not, so whether 2C was alertable was (at best) unclear. OB5B5 says this: "If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category." OB5B10 says this: "A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement." Well, West may or may not have been sure that 2C was alertable (in fact, he was sure it was not, but see below). At any rate, he wasn't going to act as though it was (since he passed), so OB5B10 did not apply. OB5B5, therefore, left North able to assume that there was no agreement that 2C was forcing (which would have been alertable) - but it did not leave him recourse if it turned out that 2? was intended by East as forcing but misunderstood by West as non-forcing; North was on his own in that respect, since neither "non- forcing" nor "undiscussed" was alertable, and in not alerting West had committed no infraction. In short: East could bid what he liked; West had no duty to inform the opponents that East might be bidding a forcing 2C; no one had committed an infraction; where no one has committed an infraction, there can be no damage. Allerton, J's succinct phrase was "no agreement is not alertable", a principle that the Laws and Ethics Committee might profitably discuss. Ruling Faced, after about an hour's discussion, with one member of the Appeals Committee who thought that North-South should be minus 150 (by the Virtual Screens argument) and another member who thought that North-South should be minus 460 (by the ex nihilo nihil fit, or "no foul, no harm") argument, I as chair had to do something. So, we waffled around for a bit before deciding that East- West possibly did have something they ought to have told North-South about regarding the auction (they are an established partnership, after all). We estimated the probability that East-West had actually committed a foul as, say, 20% and we ruled on that basis (miraculously, this required no score adjustment). In conversation afterwards, I discovered that this was fairly close to the mark - East had twitched a bit before bidding 2C, West had shrugged a bit before passing. This restored my faith in something, although I am not quite sure what. This ruling was certainly illegal and may go down in history as the worst since (or even before) that of Ted Reveley, but it coincided with our sense of natural justice and our desire to rejoin our partners for the evening session at some point before that session had already begun. The truth is that the "ex nihilo nihil fit" argument is technically correct but in practice a cheat's charter, while the "virtual system file" argument is technically wrong but in practice coincident with what most people think should happen. What can be done about this? Well, we could give it some thought... UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130104/c2c9d85a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 4 04:14:49 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 03:14:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E76506@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Chief Justice Burn quoting Justice Allerton: [snip] >Allerton, J's succinct phrase was "no agreement is not >alertable", a principle that the Laws and Ethics Committee >might profitably discuss. [snip] Profitable discussion in the ABF Alert Regs, clause 3.2.2: Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: *Responder's first round jump shift on weak hands. *A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention). *A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE). (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: *A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit. *A jump raise of opener's one-level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive. *A single raise of partner's suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1D - 2D forcing. *The rebid in a canap? sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first. *A 1H opening which denies holding 4+ spades. Richard Hills: Note the repeated key phrase in the ABF Alert Regs of: "your opponents are unlikely to expect"; which is the fundamental reason why the concept of alerting has been widespread for four decades. Hence in ABF-land an unexpected 1C - (1H) - 2C non-agreement or (from an alternative point of view) an unexpected two-way forcing/non-forcing implicit agreement about a 2C raise is indeed necessarily alertable. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130104/7228e809/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Jan 4 21:07:07 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:07:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:09:59 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> None. I leave the table and let him explain it. >> >> For shame. You know darn well you can't do that except with the >> director's permission. > > Director can rectify for damages. Which never happens. Because there > aren't any. I don't follow stupid petty foolish rules when there is no > punishment and breaking the rule just makes everyone happy. There are > different levels of morality, Ed. "stupid, petty, etc"? Who appointed you God? "Different levels of morality". Pfui. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 4 22:47:43 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:47:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> References: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E765BE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>Director can rectify for damages. Which never happens. Because >>there aren't any. I don't follow stupid petty foolish rules when >>there is no punishment and breaking the rule just makes >>everyone happy. There are different levels of morality, Ed. Ed Reppert: >"stupid, petty, etc"? Who appointed you God? > >"Different levels of morality". Pfui. Richard Hills: Yes and No. In 1925 Harold Vanderbilt appointed himself God when he abolished "the stupid petty foolish rules" of Auction Bridge to create the rules of Contract Bridge (the original foundation for the Laws of Duplicate Bridge). On the other hand, I do not believe that morality is necessarily only relative morality. One of my immutable principles is Thou Shalt Not Steal. So I believe that only an Evil Umpire would steal masterpoints from a non-offending side to award them to an offending side, because she ignores "the stupid petty foolish rule" that an offending side must never gain an artificial score of Average-Plus. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130104/9dace1b2/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 5 01:27:51 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:27:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E76208@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Are the defenders entitled to a correct explanation of the partnership agreement? Or are they entitled to a correct explanation *instead* of the "wrong" explanation. Or as Matthew says, the correct explanation _only_. Ironically, Kaplan wrote: "bridge law requires something quite different: declarer must give her opponent an accurate explanation of the partnership agreement." No "instead". No "only". Just a statement corresponding exactly to the position I have suggested. Why would he write this? The only reasonable explanation is that he did not perceive a choice -- he did not imagine the possibility of rectifying for only the missing information. He did not think of the question "What would the lead have been if the declarer had corrected her explanation before the opening lead?" Bob > Kaplan said this ruling lacked common sense. A more formal analysis > reveals the same problem. > > 1. There should be no rectification for distal damage when there is no > proximal damage. > > 2. The infraction can be split into two parts. (1) The player did not > receive the correct partnership explanation (that the player showed no > aces) and (2) the player was told by the player herself that the > partnership understanding was that her bid showed one ace. > > 3. Once the first piece of information is corrected, the second > infraction > creates no (proximal) damage. It is actually good information and hence > (proximal) advantage to the defense. > > 4. We almost always play that this information is used at one's own risk. > That is the right ruling. For example, had she accidentally dropped her > ace, the opening leader uses this information at his own risk. If the > explanation is "It shows no aces but I have one", he uses the latter > information at his own risk. > > 5. Kaplan said "It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong > ?" The reason that is easy and tempting is that in fact there was nothing > wrong. (Or to be more precise, there was nothing wrong once the first > rectification was made.) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 5 04:24:01 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:24:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] moralitliy was Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> References: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:07:07 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:09:59 -0500, Ed Reppert >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> None. I leave the table and let him explain it. >>> >>> For shame. You know darn well you can't do that except with the >>> director's permission. >> >> Director can rectify for damages. Which never happens. Because there >> aren't any. I don't follow stupid petty foolish rules when there is no >> punishment and breaking the rule just makes everyone happy. There are >> different levels of morality, Ed. > > "stupid, petty, etc"? Who appointed you God? > > "Different levels of morality". Pfui. Hi Ed. Are you trying to be ultracrepidarian? Kohlberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development) did the original work on Stages of Morality. I think there is lots of room to disagree with his ideas. But they are also intriguing, enduring, and I think important to at least understand. Anyway, my fault for not mentioning his name in my post so you could know where my comment was coming from and thereby enabling you to make a more intelligent response. "In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society... A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would?thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 7 02:31:55 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 01:31:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6EEB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn?s AC Chair comments: [snip] >>We estimated the probability that East-West had actually [not] committed >>a foul as, say, 20% and we ruled on that basis (miraculously, this required >>no score adjustment). [snip] >>This ruling was certainly illegal and may go down in history as the worst >>since (or even before) that of Ted Reveley, but it coincided with our sense >>of natural justice [snip] Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments: >I don?t believe that the eventual AC ruling was illegal (I would not have >agreed to it if I had so believed!) During our lengthy discussion, one AC >member suggested that the sequence 1C-(1suit)-2C must have come up >several times before for this pair and, given that the pair must have played >thousands of boards together, the other two AC members considered that >he was quite possibly right (notwithstanding the pair?s claim that they had >never had the sequence before). Richard Hills quibble: Pairs who play that their natural 1C opening could be as few as two cards (as East-West did) also often have the agreement that 2C raises must be based on 5-card club support (and East did hold 5-card support). If East- West did have such a 5-card agreement for a 2C raise, then the East-West assertion that 1C-(1 suit)-2C had never occurred in their partnership was entirely plausible. Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments: >On this basis it seems legal to rule that there was a partnership agreement >for 2C and that, as the TD is to presume mistaken explanation in the >absence of evidence to the contrary, Richard Hills quibble: But the Director did indeed gather evidence to the contrary, therefore ruling that 1C-(1 suit)-2C was ?undiscussed?. Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments: >the actual agreement for 2C should be deemed to be forcing. > >We were happy to leave the 20% weighting of -460 as even given the >explanation of ?forcing? North might have protected anyway (after all, >from his point of view, Opener might have psyched - he has just passed a >forcing bid!). Richard Hills quibble: Most clauses of the WBF Code of Practice have been adopted as EBU regulations. In particular this WBF CoP clause is an EBU reg: ?The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director?s ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented. For this reason the Director must inform the committee if a ruling in favour of the non?offending side reflects a margin of doubt that continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure.? So to overturn the Director?s factual assessment of ?zero partnership understanding?, the Appeals Committee cannot merely apply its cynical suspicion of East-West speaking terminological inexactitudes. The AC must additionally discover new evidence not available to the TD. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130107/8b4cb851/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 7 04:20:48 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:20:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> References: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6F0D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ACBL Laws Commission minutes, March 2012, items 5 & 6: The Drafting Committee made a presentation regarding their work on the future revision of the Laws of the Duplicate Bridge. Chris Compton objected to the length of the current Laws and commented on the difficulty of simplifying the Laws. The Commission discussed the possibility of a simplified version of the Laws to cover most situations. The Drafting Committee has reviewed the first 16 Laws and presented their comments about these Laws. Chip Martel thanked the Committee for their hard work on this project. The Commission discussed the situation where partner's explanation does not match the actual hand held. Chris Compton argued that it was bad Law to allow a player to avoid explaining what his bid meant simply because you have a contrary reference in your notes. Several members of the Commission agreed with this sentiment. There was some sentiment on the Commission for making the new version of the Laws go further to protect against this inequity. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130107/da507fe2/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 7 13:38:42 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:38:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6EEB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6EEB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <50EAC1D2.5060508@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > > So to overturn the Director?s factual assessment of ?zero partnership > > understanding?, the Appeals Committee cannot merely apply its cynical > > suspicion of East-West speaking terminological inexactitudes. The AC must > > additionally discover new evidence not available to the TD. > > Best wishes, > > R.J.B. Hills > And why would "cynical suspicion" not count as "new evidence". After all, the AC heard the players before coming to it's conclusion. Calling that conclusion "cynical suspicion" does not in itself render the "new evidence" not evidence. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 7 18:17:28 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:17:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6EEB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6EEB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:31:55 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > David Burn?s AC Chair comments: > > [snip] >>> We estimated the probability that East-West had actually [not] >>> committed >>> a foul as, say, 20% and we ruled on that basis (miraculously, this >>> required >>> no score adjustment). > [snip] >>> This ruling was certainly illegal and may go down in history as the >>> worst >>> since (or even before) that of Ted Reveley, but it coincided with our >>> sense >>> of natural justice > [snip] > > Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments: > >> I don?t believe that the eventual AC ruling was illegal (I would not >> have >> agreed to it if I had so believed!) During our lengthy discussion, one >> AC >> member suggested that the sequence 1C-(1suit)-2C must have come up >> several times before for this pair and, given that the pair must have >> played >> thousands of boards together, the other two AC members considered that >> he was quite possibly right (notwithstanding the pair?s claim that they >> had >> never had the sequence before). > > Richard Hills quibble: > > Pairs who play that their natural 1C opening could be as few as two cards > (as East-West did) also often have the agreement that 2C raises must be > based on 5-card club support (and East did hold 5-card support). If East- > West did have such a 5-card agreement for a 2C raise, then the East-West > assertion that 1C-(1 suit)-2C had never occurred in their partnership was > entirely plausible. > > Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments: > >> On this basis it seems legal to rule that there was a partnership >> agreement >> for 2C and that, as the TD is to presume mistaken explanation in the >> absence of evidence to the contrary, > > Richard Hills quibble: > > But the Director did indeed gather evidence to the contrary, therefore > ruling > that 1C-(1 suit)-2C was ?undiscussed?. > > Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments: > >> the actual agreement for 2C should be deemed to be forcing. >> >> We were happy to leave the 20% weighting of -460 as even given the >> explanation of ?forcing? North might have protected anyway (after all, >> from his point of view, Opener might have psyched - he has just passed a >> forcing bid!). > > Richard Hills quibble: > > Most clauses of the WBF Code of Practice have been adopted as EBU > regulations. In particular this WBF CoP clause is an EBU reg: > > ?The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially > that > the Director?s ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the > basis of > evidence presented. For this reason the Director must inform the > committee > if a ruling in favour of the non?offending side reflects a margin of > doubt that > continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure.? > > So to overturn the Director?s factual assessment of ?zero partnership > understanding?, the Appeals Committee cannot merely apply its cynical > suspicion of East-West speaking terminological inexactitudes. The AC must > additionally discover new evidence not available to the TD. Plus, we have excellent objective evidence they did not have a *mutual* partnership understanding -- the bidding itself. One player obviously thought the bid was forcing; the other player just as obvious thought it was not. In thousands of boards, a similar situation would almost certainly have come up, though probably not this exact bidding sequence. (I am not sure how the EBU defines similar.) But apparently one of the players forgot. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 7 22:52:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:52:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC7028@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 21B1(b): The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Herman De Wael: >And why would "cynical suspicion" not count as "new >evidence". After all, the AC heard the players before >coming to its conclusion. Calling that conclusion >"cynical suspicion" does not in itself render the "new >evidence" not evidence. Richard Hills: Last week South (Hashmat Ali) opened a strong 1C, West overcalled a 1S Wonder Bid (spades or 3-suited without spades), Pass, Pass, 1NT rebid by Hashmat. Now West continued with 2D. East described West's 2D as showing a 0-4-5-4 shape. West actually held five spades and four diamonds. The East-West system cards did not list their continuations after a Wonder Bid. The normal result on that board was 3NT +630. I did not declare such a boring contract as North, instead opting to bid to 4S in a 4-1 fit, -400. If the Director had applied Law 21B1(b) due to a mere "cynical suspicion", then 4S by me would have been an Impossible Error, so the score should therefore have been adjusted to NS +630 and EW -630. But instead the Chief Director of Australia ignored Law 21B1(b). Sean applied the over-riding Law 85, because Sean uncovered evidence that the very irregular East-West partnership had zero understanding about West's 2D rebid. This made a difference in the adjusted score. If I had been correctly informed that 2D was so-called "un- discussed", then my 4S contract would downgrade from an Impossible Error to a mere Serious Error. Thus Sean applied Law 12C1(b), awarding -630 to East-West and -400 to North-South. Sean quipped that he wanted to award me a worse score for my grotesque 4S bid, but the Laws did not permit him. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130107/e4a89408/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 8 01:01:51 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 00:01:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6F0D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <25723A82-757F-47D7-9529-0A69F67AF89E@mac.com> <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC6F0D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC70AA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ACBL Laws Commission minutes, March 2012, item 6: >The Commission discussed the situation where partner's >explanation does not match the actual hand held. Chris >Compton argued that it was bad Law to allow a player to >avoid explaining what his bid meant simply because you >have a contrary reference in your notes. Several members of >the Commission agreed with this sentiment. There was some >sentiment on the Commission for making the new version of >the Laws go further to protect against this inequity. Presumably the ACBL LC has the laudable intent to further strengthen those parts of Law 40 (notably Law 40C1) which define pseudo-psyches as actually implicit understandings. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130108/94471803/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 02:35:47 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:35:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC86B9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn, not giving a damn, February 2008: >>"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." is a line from >>the 1939 film Gone with the Wind starring Clark Gable >>and Vivien Leigh. >> >>Indeed, but it nearly wasn't. The use of the word "damn" >>was permitted only because it was "essential and >>required for portrayal, in proper historical context, of >>any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or >>folklore, or a quotation from a literary work". It was >>stipulated, however, that the word should not be >>emphasised, which is why Gable had to utter the >>immortal line with an unnatural stress on "give" rather >>than "damn". >> >>It may be refreshing to note that ridiculous legal >>arguments are not solely the province of bridge players. >> >>David Burn >>London, England Ridiculous legal argument, January 2013: >Plus, we have excellent objective evidence they did not >have a *mutual* partnership understanding -- the bidding >itself. One player obviously thought the bid was forcing; >the other player just as obviously thought it was not. > >In thousands of boards, a similar situation would almost >certainly have come up, though probably not this exact >bidding sequence. (I am not sure how the EBU defines >similar.) But apparently one of the players forgot. Richard Hills, nasty ridicule of the ridiculous, January 2013: The above post is contradictory, with the first paragraph arguing that the partnership Does Not have a mutual understanding, which is immediately contradicted by the second paragraph arguing that the partnership Does have a mutual implicit understanding. A Law 75 mutual partnership understanding remains a Law 75 mutual partnership understanding notwithstanding one (or both) partners forgetting; unless and until such forgettery is sufficiently frequent so as to trigger a new Law 40C1 mutual implicit partnership understanding. What's the problem? The problem is my lack of Wisdom. Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar, page 79: At a meeting of the college faculty, an angel suddenly appears and tells the head of the philosophy department, "I will grant you whichever of three blessings you choose: Wisdom, Beauty - or ten million dollars." Immediately, the professor chooses Wisdom. The is a flash of lightning, and the professor appears transformed, but he just sits there, staring down at the table. One of his colleagues whispers, "Say something." The professor says, "I should have taken the money." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130109/627c5969/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 9 03:07:53 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:07:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC86B9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC86B9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:35:47 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > David Burn, not giving a damn, February 2008: > >>> "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." is a line from >>> the 1939 film Gone with the Wind starring Clark Gable >>> and Vivien Leigh. >>> >>> Indeed, but it nearly wasn't. The use of the word "damn" >>> was permitted only because it was "essential and >>> required for portrayal, in proper historical context, of >>> any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or >>> folklore, or a quotation from a literary work". It was >>> stipulated, however, that the word should not be >>> emphasised, which is why Gable had to utter the >>> immortal line with an unnatural stress on "give" rather >>> than "damn". >>> >>> It may be refreshing to note that ridiculous legal >>> arguments are not solely the province of bridge players. >>> >>> David Burn >>> London, England > > Ridiculous legal argument, January 2013: > >> Plus, we have excellent objective evidence they did not >> have a *mutual* partnership understanding -- the bidding >> itself. One player obviously thought the bid was forcing; >> the other player just as obviously thought it was not. >> >> In thousands of boards, a similar situation would almost >> certainly have come up, though probably not this exact >> bidding sequence. (I am not sure how the EBU defines >> similar.) But apparently one of the players forgot. > > Richard Hills, nasty ridicule of the ridiculous, January 2013: > > The above post is contradictory, with the first paragraph > arguing that the partnership Does Not have a mutual > understanding, which is immediately contradicted by the > second paragraph arguing that the partnership Does have > a mutual implicit understanding. Ironically, I have published research in implicit learning, so that might mislead me as to how the terms are used in bridge. If they ran into this situation and talked about it before, that is not implicit learning, it is explicit learning IF it occurs. But it looks like one of them forgot. If they had the experience for implicit learning, it still didn't work. Anyway, they had no mutual partnership understanding when they made those bids. One thought 2 Clubs was strong and forcing, the other thought it was limited and nonforcing. The second paragraph just says they had an agreement. You can have an agreement with no mutual understanding. > > A Law 75 mutual partnership understanding remains a Law > 75 mutual partnership understanding notwithstanding one > (or both) partners forgetting; unless and until such forgettery > is sufficiently frequent so as to trigger a new Law 40C1 > mutual implicit partnership understanding. Now you are just making up laws. Right? You can claim that the laws require players only to report their mutual partnership understandings. > > What's the problem? The problem is my lack of Wisdom. > > Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk > Into a Bar, page 79: > > At a meeting of the college faculty, an angel suddenly appears > and tells the head of the philosophy department, "I will grant > you whichever of three blessings you choose: Wisdom, Beauty > - or ten million dollars." > > Immediately, the professor chooses Wisdom. > > The is a flash of lightning, and the professor appears > transformed, but he just sits there, staring down at the table. > One of his colleagues whispers, "Say something." > > The professor says, "I should have taken the money." > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 03:47:49 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 02:47:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC86EE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >You can have an agreement with no mutual understanding. >..... Law 40B1(b), first sentence: Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. >Ironically, I have published research in implicit learning, so >that might mislead me as to how the terms are used in bridge. >...... The colloquial meaning of "turn a trick" differs from the bridge meaning. :) :) As a default the official language of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is dictionary English BUT with over-riding exceptions appearing in the Definitions and/or in the numbered Laws. For example, a "logical alternative" is not necessarily logical, an "odd trick" is not queer, and "an agreement" - which in real- life could be a contract not understood by someone signing on the dotted line - under the Laws must be initially understood by both partners. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130109/dc345116/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 9 04:11:27 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:11:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC86EE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC86EE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:47:49 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >> ..... >> You can have an agreement with no mutual understanding. >> ..... > > Law 40B1(b), first sentence: > > Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is > a partnership understanding. > >> Ironically, I have published research in implicit learning, so >> that might mislead me as to how the terms are used in bridge. >> ...... > > The colloquial meaning of "turn a trick" differs from the bridge > meaning. :) :) > > As a default the official language of the Laws of Duplicate > Bridge is dictionary English BUT with over-riding exceptions > appearing in the Definitions and/or in the numbered Laws. > > For example, a "logical alternative" is not necessarily logical, > an "odd trick" is not queer, and "an agreement" - which in real- > life could be a contract not understood by someone signing on > the dotted line - under the Laws must be initially understood by > both partners. Eric actually disagrees about "logical alternative". He says it is not defined in the laws, the laws just suggest one way of judging it. And I am running into the same problem now with "quitted trick" and "inspecting". Where is your law saying that an agreement must be initially understood by both people? That doesn't fit natural language usage, but I don't see it in the laws. I am just saying you have a really complicated position that you can't justify with the laws. Or a simple position that doesn't work. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 04:36:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:36:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC877B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >... >Where is your law saying that an agreement must be initially >understood by both people? >... Not "my" law but the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I suggest RTFLB before posting heterodox questions. But for the benefit of newbies to blml: Law 75C says "...the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." This clearly demonstrates (except to a heresiarch) that a North- South partnership agreement continues to exist even when the South player has temporarily forgotten her agreement. Also, Law 40A1(a) says "the players", NOT "one player". Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130109/f43ef638/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 06:59:36 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:59:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC87C6@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Matthew Vaughn's self-created film company MARV (named after his initials) financed and distributed his ultra-violent but ultra- funny 2012 superhero film "Kick-Ass": "With no power comes no responsibility, except that wasn't true." Marv French, August 2002: >Washington DC NABC Life Master Pairs > >With neither pair at fault for starting a second board very late in >the round, we were told to play the board later despite being two >bids into the auction. > >Does BLML find this acceptable? Richard Hills, January 2013: This was of debatable (and frequently debated) legality under the then 1997 Lawbook, but now clarified in the 2007 Law 82B2: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: require, postpone, or cancel the play of a board." If Marv's case occurred again today, the "error in procedure" would be unintentional failure to obey the Director's Law 8A1 instruction on "progression of contestants". See also Law 8B2: "When the Director exercises his authority to postpone play of a board, for that board the round does not end for the players concerned until the board has been played and the score agreed and recorded or the Director has cancelled the play of 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. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130109/1dff59dc/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 9 17:24:17 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:24:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC877B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC877B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:36:25 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >> ... >> Where is your law saying that an agreement must be initially >> understood by both people? >> ... > > Not "my" law but the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I suggest > RTFLB before posting heterodox questions. But for the benefit > of newbies to blml: > > Law 75C says "...the mistake was in South's call. Here there > is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have > no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." > > This clearly demonstrates (except to a heresiarch) that a North- > South partnership agreement continues to exist even when the > South player has temporarily forgotten her agreement. > > Also, Law 40A1(a) says "the players", NOT "one player". > > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 9 17:39:02 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:39:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC877B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC877B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:36:25 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >> ... >> Where is your law saying that an agreement must be initially >> understood by both people? >> ... > > Not "my" law but the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. I suggest > RTFLB before posting heterodox questions. But for the benefit > of newbies to blml: > > Law 75C says "...the mistake was in South's call. Here there > is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have > no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." > > This clearly demonstrates (except to a heresiarch) that a North- > South partnership agreement continues to exist even when the > South player has temporarily forgotten her agreement. I think you forgot what you set out to show. It is natural language usage that an *agreement* exists even when one (or even both) people forget it. Or even if neither one understood it (which could happen, for example, when lawyers are involved, or when I okay that I accept an agreement I never read). Law 75 merely confirms this usage. It is natural language usage that when one player forgets, they don't have a mutual partnership *understanding*. You may recall that you define "mutual partnership understanding" as them thinking and understanding the same thing. To try to save your interpretation from self-destructing, you claimed (this time around) that "partnership understanding" had a technical definition in the laws. This doesn't seem to be true; it's a very bad sign that you could only find a paragraph that doesn't mention the term but instead talks about agreements. > > Also, Law 40A1(a) says "the players", NOT "one player". > > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 23:10:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 22:10:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8878@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>..... >>It is natural language usage that when one player >>forgets, they don't have a mutual partnership >>*understanding*. You may recall that you Richard Hills: No, not me but instead the official and authorised interpretation of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. >>define "mutual partnership understanding" as >>them thinking and understanding the same thing. >> >>To try to save your interpretation Richard Hills: No, not me but instead the official and authorised interpretation of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. >>from self-destructing, you claimed (this time >>around) that "partnership understanding" had a >>technical definition in the laws. This doesn't seem >>to be true; Richard Hills imitating Matthias Berghaus: Rubbish, to put it kindly. >>it's a very bad sign that you could only find a >>paragraph that doesn't mention the term but >>instead talks about agreements. Law 40B1(b): Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning. Best RFTLB, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130109/e286306d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 10 00:54:27 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 23:54:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8926@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Horrible Histories (hilarious but accurate TV series): My name is Diogenes I'm not one to say thanks or please Poked statues and walked barefoot In the snow. Never believed in possessions Thought they gave the wrong impression Put faith in total freedom Don't you know. Marv (October 2009) quotes a Jeff Rubens question: >(10) Where the Laws are ambiguous (as for example, >over what constitutes an "attempt to conceal an >inadvertent infraction"), should one interpret a >doubtful passage (s) to one's own interest or (t) >unfavorably to one's own interest? Richard (January 2013): When I have significant reason to believe that my own side might have perpetrated an unintentional infraction, I choose to summon the Director (if not prohibited by Law, e.g. Law 20F5) against my side's own interests. Law 9 is carefully written to permit such a disinterested summoning of the Director. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130109/b3c58b89/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 10 05:21:30 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:21:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8878@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8878@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:10:54 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >>> ..... >>> It is natural language usage that when one player >>> forgets, they don't have a mutual partnership >>> *understanding*. You may recall that you > > Richard Hills: > > No, not me but instead the official and authorised > interpretation of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > >>> define "mutual partnership understanding" as >>> them thinking and understanding the same thing. >>> >>> To try to save your interpretation > > Richard Hills: > > No, not me but instead the official and authorised > interpretation of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > >>> from self-destructing, you claimed (this time >>> around) that "partnership understanding" had a >>> technical definition in the laws. This doesn't seem >>> to be true; > > Richard Hills imitating Matthias Berghaus: > > Rubbish, to put it kindly. > >>> it's a very bad sign that you could only find a >>> paragraph that doesn't mention the term but >>> instead talks about agreements. > > Law 40B1(b): > > Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between > partners is a partnership understanding. A > convention is included, unless the Regulating > Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements > and treatments that constitute special partnership > understandings as is the case with any call that has > an artificial meaning. Nicely done, that supports your point in this particular discussion, though it seems to undercut everything else you have said on this topic. The question is, when players agree on a convention name (e.g., Stayman), what are the opponents entitled to know? Your answer used the natural language definition of "understanding". Your answer doesn't make any sense otherwise. If you are have abandoned your old position, that's great. In case you have forgotten it... Your notion was this. When the players agree on Stayman, they both have an understanding -- beliefs in their mind. Their "mutual partnership understanding" was then the beliefs they had in common. You then argued that the opponents were entitled only to the mutual partnership understanding. Well, you actually said that the opponents were entitled to the *peak* mutual partnership understanding across time. So if they had a mutual understanding when they made the agreement, then one person forgot, the opponents were entitled to the good mutual understanding when the agreement was first made. If they did not have a mutual understanding when they made the agreement, but then learned something that created a better mutual agreement, the opponents were entitled to that. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 10 06:52:00 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:52:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8AAE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Horrible Histories, King Richard the Third (third verse): Never had a limp Always walked my full height Never had a hunch And my arm was all right Never took the crown With illegal power Never killed my nephews The princes in the tower Tudor propaganda It's all absurd Time to tell the truth About King Richard the Third Marv (October 2009) quotes a Jeff Rubens question: >>>(8) If an active player wishes to plan for the future, should >>>that be done (o) at earliest opportunity or (p) at the first >>>juncture that there is a problem what to play next? Kojak (October 2009): >>Here I go again. >> >>I don't see where there is room for "discussion". You have a >>singleton in a closed hand which you must play to this trick. >>So you stop to think about the rest of the hand? Why not >>play the singleton in tempo AND THEN THINK TO YOUR >>HEART'S CONTENT? Or is that asking too much? Is there >>any other action that AS CLEARLY gives no chance for >>creating a false premise? "I'm not thinking about this trick >>but about the rest of the hand", -- or something like that - is >>a poor excuse for not playing in tempo. I don't see that as a >>courtesy -- if anything it leads to confusion. 73D is fine, but >>let's not forget 73F. >> >>Just for fun give me the "...demonstrable bridge reason..." >>for breaking tempo in this circumstance. And while you are >>at it explain "....could have known...." not applying along >>the way. >> >>Kojak Richard (October 2009): >"I am not thinking about my current call, I am thinking about >the future direction of the auction," is not a permissible >courteous statement but instead either: > >(a) a lie, infracting Law 73D2 and Law 73E, > >or > >(b) the truth, infracting Law 73A1 and Law 73B1. > >It does, however, seem permissible for declarer (and declarer >only) to make these truthful courteous statements: > >"I am delaying my play of a singleton on this current trick >three because I foresee a difficult problem in guessing whether >to play dummy's King or Jack at trick five. So my LHO should >smoothly play in tempo when I lead towards dummy at trick >five." > >if it were not for the fact that Law 72A now requires declarer >to play "to obtain a higher score". > >So yes, Kojak is unquestionably(1) correct, declarer should >play her trick three singleton in tempo and only then should >declarer start thinking about her forthcoming trick five guess. > >(1) Of course, blml specialises in questioning(2) correct >statements. Richard (January 2013): (2) More precisely, there is a one-to-one relationship between the frequency of a blmler's posts and their perverse invalidity. Which of course proves that I am a Pervect. :) :) Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130110/78077b54/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 11 03:06:13 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:06:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8B86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1C 3D........X (1).....Pass......? (1) Old-fashioned cooperative penalty double, typically with a diamond holding of three cards to a top honour (as was recommended by S.J. Simon in his classic book "Why You Lose At Bridge") You, South, hold: AQ74 63 4 KJ8642 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130111/b91fa07c/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jan 12 18:48:03 2013 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:48:03 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8B86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <6827546A37E2465C9D56B1916B919BA2@MARVIN> UNOFFICIAL Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1C 3D........X (1).....Pass......? (1) Old-fashioned cooperative penalty double, typically with a diamond holding of three cards to a top honour (as was recommended by S.J. Simon in his classic book "Why You Lose At Bridge") You, South, hold: AQ74 63 4 KJ8642 What call do you make? 3S, no choice. Searching the authorities for info on pulling doubles of overcalls, I had to go back to Culbertson 1932 to find a pass mandatory. In the 1936 Gold Book he changed his mind: "The opener should usually take out the double with a void or singleton in the opponent's suit." Goren, in The Standard Book of Bidding, 1949: "If a player's hand is completely unsuitable for defensive purposes he is at perfect liberty to decline to stand for the double." Simon's general rules: Pass with three, pass with two unless highly distributional, pull with one when lacking great defense, pull with a void, always. This was in Why You Lose at Bridge, a very popular book in ACBL-land, and most good players followed these rules. You would often hear from them, "I had to pull the double." An NABC AC ruled that opener MUST pass the double, especially since responder had hesitated a long time before doubling. However, if their system calls for a pull of the double, then opener has no choice and MUST pull. When opener pointed out that all authorities agree with this, an AC member said, "You can find anything in books." and the score was adjusted to 3DX making an overtrick, for both sides. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 21:05:04 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:05:04 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Marv Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Marvin French wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......---.......---.......1C > 3D........X (1).....Pass......? > > (1) Old-fashioned cooperative penalty > double, typically with a diamond holding > of three cards to a top honour (as was > recommended by S.J. Simon in his classic > book "Why You Lose At Bridge") > > You, South, hold: > > AQ74 > 63 > 4 > KJ8642 > > What call do you make? > > 3S, no choice. Searching the authorities for info on pulling > doubles of overcalls, I had to go back to Culbertson 1932 > to find a pass mandatory. In the 1936 Gold Book he > changed his mind: "The opener should usually take out > the double with a void or singleton in the opponent's suit." "Usually" and "no choice" are different. The Culbertson quote, containing "usually," does not support Marv's assertion, which contains the term "no choice." > > Goren, in The Standard Book of Bidding, 1949: "If a > player's hand is completely unsuitable for defensive > purposes he is at perfect liberty to decline to stand for > the double." Again, this is not at all the same as "no choice but to pull the double." This hand, with AQ of spades, is not "completely unsuitable for defense." Somewhat unsuitable? Yes. Completely unsuitable? No. Even if it was completely unsuitable, Goren only wrote that in the completely-unsuitable case you are "at liberty" to pull the double. Not that you have "no choice". > > Simon's general rules: Pass with three, pass with two unless highly > distributional, pull with one when lacking great defense, pull with a > void, > always. This was in Why You Lose at Bridge, a very popular book in > ACBL-land, and most good players followed these rules. You would often > hear from them, "I had to pull the double." General rules like this are great when your partner hesitates before doubling. You can follow the general rule after the hesitation, but pass following a quick double. > > An NABC AC ruled that opener MUST pass the double, especially since > responder had hesitated a long time before doubling. "especially since" or "because"? > However, if their > system calls for a pull of the double, then opener has no choice and MUST > pull. When opener pointed out that all authorities agree with this, an AC > member said, "You can find anything in books." and the score was adjusted > to 3DX making an overtrick, for both sides. > "All authorities agree" is false, as I have just shown. I wish my memory of names was better, but as I recall, one American pro, perhaps with the last name Cohen, has written, more than once, that he has never seen a pull of quick and decisive cooperative double. Though I have much less experience, I haven't either. I have difficulty seeing how much evidence I would need to allow the pull in this case, but it would likely require more evidence than they have. I would therefore probably agree with this AC decision. Jerry Fusselman From g3 at nige1.com Sun Jan 13 01:53:25 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:53:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6827546A37E2465C9D56B1916B919BA2@MARVIN> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8B86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <6827546A37E2465C9D56B1916B919BA2@MARVIN> Message-ID: <75D4F5B089E4447E9B8C94DE682B2C57@G3> Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, South, hold: S: A Q 7 4 H: 6 3 D: 4 C: KJ8642 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1C 3D........X (1).....Pass......? (1) Old-fashioned cooperative penalty double, typically with a diamond holding of three cards to a top honour (as was recommended by S.J. Simon in his classic book "Why You Lose At Bridge") [Nigel] IMO Pass = 10, 3S = 9. A close choice. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jan 13 22:39:46 2013 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:39:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EC8B86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><6827546A37E2465C9D56B1916B919BA2@MARVIN> <75D4F5B089E4447E9B8C94DE682B2C57@G3> Message-ID: <121CA8B0481341F0A106F1BEE55BF00B@MARVIN> > Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West > You, South, hold: S: A Q 7 4 H: 6 3 D: 4 C: KJ8642 > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......---.......---.......1C > 3D........X (1).....Pass......? > (1) Old-fashioned cooperative penalty double, typically with a diamond > holding of three cards to a top honour (as was recommended by S.J. Simon > in > his classic book "Why You Lose At Bridge") Simon showed one double with Jxx > > [Nigel] > IMO Pass = 10, 3S = 9. A close choice. It was not close for me, since our sytem agreement was that we must not pass with a hand like this, no matter how much UI there was. UI cannot affect firm system agreements. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 13 23:07:42 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:07:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECDCC7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 16B1(b): A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using ++the methods of the partnership++, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. >>General rules like this are great when your partner hesitates >>before doubling. You can follow the general rule after the >>hesitation, but pass following a quick double. Richard Hills: The above comment is both defamatory and also irrelevant. A similar defamatory obiter dictum by the actual Appeals Committee was correctly rejected by the Casebook Editor, Rich Colker: >The methods South described can be found, as claimed, in >S.J. Simon's book (page 80 of the 1967 edition). The fact >that those methods are foreign to modern bidding practices >is not sufficient reason to presume that no one plays them, >or that the claim to be playing them is specious (or self- >serving). On that basis I have a small measure of sympathy >for N/S here. > >The Committee's statement, "... that if North's spade and >diamond suits had been interchanged, the hesitation was not >likely to have occurred ..." is therefore inconsistent with >N/S's system and thus irrelevant to this decision. By the >methods professed by N/S (what player who didn't play them >would be able to cite their source so readily?) North >couldn't hold the hand the Committee wanted to give her for >her double. Also, the requirement Simon proposes for >leaving in such a double (four-plus defensive tricks if >opener has only a singleton trump) does not even remotely >resemble South's hand, which has a clear-cut pull according >to those methods. Of course North's tempo still places an >onus upon South to take only what would be considered a >"normal" or majority action. But South's cards clearly >point to pulling in this case. [snip] Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130113/a23e0553/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 13 23:43:52 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:43:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Director (blmler Mike Amos) statement of facts: ..... >E/W's convention card showed that they were >playing inverted minors, but was silent about >continuations after intervention. ..... Details of Mike Amos ruling: >The TD is convinced that E/W do not have an >agreement. North should have been told that >there was no agreement. In this case passing >2C would involve some risk. Details of heterodox ruling by a different blmler: Look up "Inverted Minors" in Amalya Kearse's tome Bridge Conventions Complete, discover that they do not apply after the 1H overcall by North, rule that East has made an unalertable misbid and therefore there is no infraction. :( :( Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130113/3c8221db/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 14 01:18:33 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:18:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:43:52 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > Director (blmler Mike Amos) statement of facts: > > ..... >> E/W's convention card showed that they were >> playing inverted minors, but was silent about >> continuations after intervention. > ..... > > Details of Mike Amos ruling: > >> The TD is convinced that E/W do not have an >> agreement. North should have been told that >> there was no agreement. In this case passing >> 2C would involve some risk. > > Details of heterodox ruling by a different blmler: > > Look up "Inverted Minors" in Amalya Kearse's > tome Bridge Conventions Complete, discover > that they do not apply after the 1H overcall by > North, rule that East has made an unalertable > misbid and therefore there is no infraction. :( :( One could, in theory, agree to inverted minor raises and then claim 1C P 2C was undiscussed. But most directors face and solve the problem of what players mean when they make an agreement. It is pretty standard (at least here) that inverted minors are off in competition. Or, to give an example from this week, Standard American: 1D P 1NT P 2C 2C was (bizarrely) meant as Stayman. They had agreed to play Stayman, they had not discussed this particular sequence. Except for Richard and EBU-land, I expect a lot of company in ruling misbid. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 01:48:19 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:48:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE55D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Details of heterodox ruling by a different blmler: >>Look up "Inverted Minors" in Amalya Kearse's >>tome Bridge Conventions Complete, discover >>that they do not apply after the 1H overcall by >>North, rule that East has made an unalertable >>misbid and therefore there is no infraction. :( :( >..... >It is pretty standard (at least here) that inverted >minors are off in competition. >.... It is so-called "pretty standard" that if a partnership has an explicit understanding that 1C - (Pass) - 1H - (1S) - X = Support Double, then that partnership so-called "must" have an implicit understanding that 1C - (Pass) - 1H - (X) - XX = Support Redouble. But that ain't so. Pretty expert player Larry Cohen has correctly observed that secondary implications of conventions often have zero partnership understandings. >Except for ..... EBU-land, I expect a lot of >company in ruling misbid. No, professional ACBL Directors professionally use the same official and authorised interpretation of the Laws on partnership understandings as professional EBU Directors professionally follow, no matter what a heterodox blmler may happen to dogmatically believe. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130114/7b6d39ff/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 04:07:51 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:07:51 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Marv In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [ Marvin, a few days ago] Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1C 3D........X (1).....Pass......? (1) Old-fashioned cooperative penalty double, typically with a diamond holding of three cards to a top honour (as was recommended by S.J. Simon in his classic book "Why You Lose At Bridge") You, South, hold: AQ74 63 4 KJ8642 What call do you make? 3S, no choice. Searching the authorities for info on pulling doubles of overcalls, I had to go back to Culbertson 1932 to find a pass mandatory. In the 1936 Gold Book he changed his mind: "The opener should usually take out the double with a void or singleton in the opponent's suit." [ Jerry, in response] "Usually" and "no choice" are different. The Culbertson quote, containing "usually," does not support Marv's assertion, which contains the term "no choice." [ Marvin, a few days ago] Goren, in The Standard Book of Bidding, 1949: "If a player's hand is completely unsuitable for defensive purposes he is at perfect liberty to decline to stand for the double." [ Jerry, in response] Again, this is not at all the same as "no choice but to pull the double." This hand, with AQ of spades, is not "completely unsuitable for defense." Somewhat unsuitable? Yes. Completely unsuitable? No. Even if it was completely unsuitable, Goren only wrote that in the completely-unsuitable case you are "at liberty" to pull the double. Not that you have "no choice". [ Marvin, a few days ago] Simon's general rules: Pass with three, pass with two unless highly distributional, pull with one when lacking great defense, pull with a void, always. This was in Why You Lose at Bridge, a very popular book in ACBL-land, and most good players followed these rules. You would often hear from them, "I had to pull the double." [ Jerry, in response] General rules like this are great when your partner hesitates before doubling. You can follow the general rule after the hesitation, but pass following a quick double. [Richard Hills, without any trace of justification] The above comment is both defamatory and also irrelevant. [Jerry now] Does RH care to say why what I wrote is defamatory, or to whom it is defamatory, or why it is irrelevant? Really, RH should do all three if he wants to be honest. I think what I brought up is a central issue, but perhaps RH can educate us otherwise. Also, please note that I have quoted everyone correctly, as I have always done on BLML, without exception. In contrast, RH has scores of times on BLML intentionally quoted people incorrectly. That is, he has repeatedly quoted X as saying Y when X did no such thing. Perhaps RH will do his incorrect quoting trick again, which, for some reason, has been proven to be his right on BLML. We'll see. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 04:34:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:34:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECF9F7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >In contrast, RH has scores of times on BLML intentionally >quoted people incorrectly. >..... Because of the word "intentionally", the above statement is an unintentional lie. For education on the ethics of Bridge Laws discussion, see the attached correct quote of Randy Cohen. Best wishes, Richard Hills Randy Cohen, author of advice column "The Ethicist", one of his ten best questions that he's never been asked, posted by him in "Slate" 18th March 2002: "Although I'm happy in my current job, having recently received a promotion (I'm the new Thane of Cawdor), that's not enough for my wife who is eager for me to get ahead. I'm not saying I lack ambition, but I am reluctant to do what it takes to climb higher - the long hours, the bloody murders. And yet, don't I have a special obligation to consider my wife's desires? We are, after all, a family. - Macbeth, Scotland. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130114/07aa25fd/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 05:08:09 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:08:09 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECF9F7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECF9F7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: >>..... >>In contrast, RH has scores of times on BLML intentionally >>quoted people incorrectly. >>..... > > Because of the word ?intentionally?, the above statement is an > unintentional lie. > Alright, I'll bite: How many times, is RH willing to admit, has he quoted people incorrectly on BLML---by changing their words in what he claimed was what they said? 0? 1? 5? 25? 100? More? Whatever it is, lets hear it. And of these changes of quotes of the words that previous posters on BLML have used, how many would he like us to believe are unintentional? If RH claims he never misquoted anyone, I'll only provide one example to prove him wrong. If he admits he did it 100 times, but all should be forgiven because all accidental, then I am not that interested in providing cases. 100 accidental cases is too absurd to be believed: No one changes words in quotes 100 times accidentally. I am not interested in this exercise until RH states (or admits) what he has done, so that I can be clear on what I need to prove. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 06:44:55 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:44:55 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECF9F7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECF9F7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >>..... >>In contrast, RH has scores of times on BLML intentionally >>quoted people incorrectly. >>..... > > Because of the word ?intentionally?, the above statement is an > unintentional lie. [...] Here, I offer RH a second choice to clarify: Is RH admitting that he has quoted people incorrectly scores of times on BLML, while asserting that all of his misquotes were unintentional? Or is he denying that he misquoted posts on BLML scores of times? Or is he admitting scores of misquotes, of which some, many, or most were accidental? It has to be one of these, if RH is to be believed. I would like to be clear on exactly what I am asked to prove. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 06:48:36 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 05:48:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECFA93@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Randy Cohen, author of advice column "The Ethicist", one of his ten best questions that he's never been asked, posted by him in "Slate" 18th March 2002: >"Although I'm happy in my current job, having recently >received a promotion (I'm the new Thane of Cawdor), that's not >enough for my wife who is eager for me to get ahead. I'm not >saying I lack ambition, but I am reluctant to do what it takes to >climb higher - the long hours, the bloody murders. And yet, >don't I have a special obligation to consider my wife's desires? >We are, after all, a family." - Macbeth, Scotland. Albus Dumbledore: "Really, Hagrid, if you are holding out for universal popularity, I'm afraid you will be in this cabin for a very long time." Richard Hills: The Thane of Cawdor eventually gained popularity with his wife after a further promotion, but - according to Shakespeare - was unpopular with the trees of Burnam Wood. (These moving trees were the direct inspiration for Tolkien's Ents of Fangorn Forest.) Likewise I lack universal popularity on blml. I do value, however, my friendships with blmlers such as Nigel Guthrie and Marvin French (and many others). Although we have many significant differences in our personal worldviews, we agree to disagree. And now the Bridge Laws question. Hypothetically this is a key decision that you, East, have to make: Hypothetical matchpoint pairs Hypothetical Dlr: South Hypothetical Vul: East-West The bidding has hypothetically gone: WEST......NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH ---.......---......---......1C 3D(1).....X (2)....Pass(3)..3S Pass......4S(4) 4D(5).....4S.......? (1) Hypothetical failure to play Stop! card. (2) Hypothetical Alert! card from South. (3) Hypothetical answer to East's question of "Penalty double." (4) Hypothetical Law 20F4 summoning of the Director by South, who then gives a corrected explanation, "Old-fashioned cooperative penalty double, typically with a diamond holding of three cards to a top honour (as was recommended by S.J. Simon in his classic book 'Why You Lose At Bridge')." (5) Hypothetical Law 20B1(a) change of West's Pass to 4D. You, East, hypothetically hold: T962 KT97 Q53 Q3 Hypothetically, what call do you make? Hypothetically, what other calls do you consider making? Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130114/25370d6a/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 09:55:21 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:55:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <50F3C7F9.5050208@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > Or, to give an example from this week, Standard American: > > 1D P 1NT P > 2C > > 2C was (bizarrely) meant as Stayman. They had agreed to play Stayman, they > had not discussed this particular sequence. Except for Richard and > EBU-land, I expect a lot of company in ruling misbid. > > I had a similar (although opposite) case last week: 2C dbl 2S p 3D dbl p 3H 2C was either weak in diamonds or several strong options. 3D was explained by both players (behind screens) as a strong option, although with some reservations. Of course 4H was made and I ruled it 100% bid, considering that although they apparently had agreed that 3D ought to be strong, in this particular auction they had no bid available with the actual hand (disregarding the fact that opener should have passed - he had 2 spades!). Since the bid was apparently warrented, it had to be systemic and I ruled misinformation. The logic of a system should always be used in deciding. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 14 15:27:01 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:27:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECF9F7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:44:55 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >> >>> ..... >>> In contrast, RH has scores of times on BLML intentionally >>> quoted people incorrectly. >>> ..... >> >> Because of the word ?intentionally?, the above statement is an >> unintentional lie. > [...] > > Here, I offer RH a second choice to clarify: > > Is RH admitting that he has quoted people incorrectly scores of times > on BLML, while asserting that all of his misquotes were unintentional? My impression is that Richard artfully deletes context, so that his quote is misleading. Does he also just simply misquote people? My vague memory is that this has happened a few times, but I am not sure and this does not seem like the common problem. I think he also misportrays people's positions, but that too is usually artful choice of words. And he is careful that what he says is close to the truth. Richard is smart and hard-working and his slander is excellent. IMO the quality has been off the last few months, but it is still far better than most people could do. Or even be able to appreciate. For example, a careful analysis will show that his slander of you was almost right, or maybe right, but also ridiculous. But good luck getting people to read a boring long post on a topic they don't care about. Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 17:57:02 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:57:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50F3C7F9.5050208@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50F3C7F9.5050208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <50F438DE.7000305@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/01/2013 9:55, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Robert Frick schreef: >> Or, to give an example from this week, Standard American: >> >> 1D P 1NT P >> 2C >> >> 2C was (bizarrely) meant as Stayman. They had agreed to play Stayman, they >> had not discussed this particular sequence. Except for Richard and >> EBU-land, I expect a lot of company in ruling misbid. >> >> > I had a similar (although opposite) case last week: > > 2C dbl 2S p > 3D dbl p 3H > > 2C was either weak in diamonds or several strong options. > 3D was explained by both players (behind screens) as a strong option, > although with some reservations. > Of course 4H was made and I ruled it 100% bid, considering that although > they apparently had agreed that 3D ought to be strong, in this > particular auction they had no bid available with the actual hand > (disregarding the fact that opener should have passed - he had 2 > spades!). Since the bid was apparently warrented, it had to be systemic > and I ruled misinformation. > > The logic of a system should always be used in deciding. > > AG : I don't understand why you should use your logic rather than theirs. In the one partnership where we use this opening, 3D is indeed strong. The weak hand chooses between pass, 3S and 3C (a re-transfer), letting the strong hand play the contract (which will also be the case after 3D, strong). To say that they agreed 3D to be strong, but it nevertheless is weak in their system is a complete contradicton. and if there is no bid to show the particular type of hand held in this case, that's their (bad) system. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 18:07:22 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:07:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50F438DE.7000305@ulb.ac.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50F3C7F9.5050208@skynet.be> <50F438DE.7000305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50F43B4A.3050305@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner schreef: >> > AG : I don't understand why you should use your logic rather than theirs. > > In the one partnership where we use this opening, 3D is indeed strong. > The weak hand chooses between pass, 3S and 3C (a re-transfer), letting > the strong hand play the contract (which will also be the case after 3D, > strong). > > To say that they agreed 3D to be strong, but it nevertheless is weak in > their system is a complete contradicton. and if there is no bid to show > the particular type of hand held in this case, that's their (bad) system. > > > Best regards > > > Alain > Your system is complete and logical. Theirs wasn't. Neither of them stated that 3C would be the re-transfer. They both thought that in this sequence, 3D might be weak. The situation is not the same as yours. OK? PS - of course they also could not prove conclusively that the bid was strong. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 21:41:15 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:41:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECFB19@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Hypothetical matchpoint pairs >Hypothetical Dlr: South >Hypothetical Vul: East-West > >The bidding has hypothetically gone: > >WEST......NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH >---.......---......---......1C >3D(1).....X (2)....Pass(3)..3S >Pass......4S(4) >4D(5).....4S.......? > >(1) Hypothetical failure to play Stop! card. >(2) Hypothetical Alert! card from South. >(3) Hypothetical answer to East's question of "Penalty double." >(4) Hypothetical Law 20F4 summoning of the Director by South, who >then gives a corrected explanation, "Old-fashioned cooperative >penalty double, typically with a diamond holding of three cards to >a top honour (as was recommended by S.J. Simon in his classic book >'Why You Lose At Bridge')." >(5) Hypothetical Law 20B1(a) change of West's Pass to 4D. > >You, East, hypothetically hold: > >T962 >KT97 >Q53 >Q3 My hypothetical opinion is that North's failure to cooperatively Double 4D is significant, as is West's decision to re-preempt. So, I choose 5D, perhaps gaining a double-game swing or perhaps finding the rare cheap vulnerable 5D save against a cold non- vulnerable 4S game (or perhaps pushing South, who obviously has wild distribution, to 5S -50). But the real point of this problem is that Law 20F4 is one of the Laws most frequently violated. Most Souths would correct their original explanation without summoning the Director, so most Wests would be unaware of their Law 20B1(a) rights. Doctor Who, "The Face of Evil" (1977): "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." One very stupid blmler alters my facts with her Confirmation Bias. Despite my research and memory skills (thanked in the Preface of the 2007 Lawbook), because I am the second-most prolific blmler it is inevitable that I might rarely err by unintentionally quoting out of context, which she stupidly assumes must be intentional. For example, many years ago I carelessly snipped a lengthy post of Eric Landau's in the wrong place, inverting the meaning of one of Eric's points. Since I was responding to a different, unaltered, Landau point there was zero evidence that my error was intentional, but the stupid blmler has been pouncing on my real or imagined errors ever since, wasting my time and hers. (In a private email to Eric I offered to publicly apologise on blml for my error, but he graciously responded that that was not necessary, given that all blmlers were well aware of his actual position.) On the other hand a very powerful blmler objects to my very lengthy posts and their over-frequent use of Monty Python quotes. Because the unlikely soul-mates Herman De Wael and Marvin French might say that too much Monty Python is never enough, ergo -> "It's not pining, it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!" Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130114/be4e4fc9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 15 04:39:26 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:39:26 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECFD1A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jim Fox, September 2009: >>>I feel Richard was imposing his standards on the rest of the group. Grattan Endicott, September 2009: >>+=+ I think this could be said oftentimes of many of us. So what: This >>is a cut and thrust forum and provided civil language is used all the >>better for it. Grattan +=+ Richard Hills, uncivil sentence, January 2013: >One very stupid blmler alters my facts with her Confirmation Bias. Richard Hills, civil rectification, January 2013: One very intelligent but misguided blmler has unintentionally misguessed my intentions over the past three-and-a-half years. Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965), Presidential candidate 1952 and 1956: "He who slings mud generally loses ground." Richard Hills, unreserved apology, January 2013: The best kind of an apology is a mutual apology. So I unreservedly apologise to Jerry Fusselman, Robert Frick and Brian Meadows for both my intentional and unintentional offences against them, especially me slinging mud with my uncivil euphemism-free language. No doubt those three gentleman will likewise unreservedly apologise for their use of uncivil euphemism-free language against me. Richard Hills, memory of worst-case Law 74A2 infraction: Many years ago at the Canberra Bridge Club two players got into a ginormous barney. Alas, one of the two players was the real-life partner of the then Director. The Director ingeniously solved this conflict-of-interest problem by summoning the Secretary of the Canberra Bridge Club from her table to take written notes as an independent scribe. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130115/dae2bbe5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 15 06:39:23 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:39:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Google search, October 2002 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECFD9A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >>We should all try to avoid drawing inferences that were >>never intended by the writer. [snip] >>In my experience, careless language is at least 10 >>times more likely than deliberate rudeness. On BLML in >>particular, that 10 is much larger, maybe 100. [snip] >>I have too little experience of opponents who use relay >>systems to have an opinion. >> >>What I have said is that relay users are obliged to >>explain what the relay shows, not just (or at all) what >>it asks for. As Richard H. has pointed out, in some >>methods and for some partnerships, this will be very >>little. But that is nothing new. Completing a >>transfer, especially if super-accepts are forbidden, >>conveys very little information. When that's the case, >>so be it. But when information is conveyed by the >>relay, the opponents are entitled to know what it is. In the thread, "Is Stayman alertable?", Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [snip] >Once and for all, let's use a simple syllogism : > >a) what opponents are entitled to know is the meaning of > the bid >b) the bid doesn't tell ; it asks >c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to > nothing about this bid Richard Hills: In the spirit of Steve Willner's posting, I hope that Alain does not take any offence when I argue that his syllogism is flawed. My syllogism would be: a) what opponents are entitled to know are explicit and implicit partnership agreements about a relay bid b) the relay bid asks, but there is a partnership agreement about when the relay bid would *not* be used c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to the agreed negative inferences about this bid In the thread, "Is Stayman alertable?", Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [snip] >The main reason why no more people play relay systems >is that they are always suspected of hiding information. >I was an optimist : I thought that in blml, at least, >this would not happen. > >Too bad ... Richard Hills: Totally disagree. None of my opponents have ever suspected that I hide information. I have, however, had opponents souvenir my relay auction written- bidding slips to show off to their friends. :-) Best wishes Richard UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130115/fc86f757/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jan 15 16:42:49 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:42:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE55D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE55D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: >Details of heterodox ruling by a different blmler: >>..... >>It is pretty standard (at least here) that inverted >>minors are off in competition. >>.... >It is so-called "pretty standard" that if a partnership >has an explicit understanding that 1C - (Pass) - 1H >- (1S) - X = Support Double, then that partnership >so-called "must" have an implicit understanding >that 1C - (Pass) - 1H - (X) - XX = Support >Redouble. >But that ain't so. Pretty expert player Larry Cohen >has correctly observed that secondary implications >of conventions often have zero partnership >understandings. In fact, players don't even have secondary partnership understandings which are a necessary part of the convention. The standard meaning of 1NT-2C-2H-2NT is that responder has an invitational hand with four spades. This is a common agreement among players who play four-suit transfers, even though it leaves responder with no bid on an invitational hand without a four-card major; I have had three different good partners get this wrong. The necessary secondary agreement is 2S with four spades and 2NT denying four spades (both alertable in the ACBL). If responder bids 2NT without four spades (not alerted), opening leader avoids the spade lead which would beat 2NT, and declarer claims they never discussed this, do you rule misinformation? From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 20:17:43 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:17:43 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Marv Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > > One very intelligent but misguided blmler has unintentionally misguessed > my intentions over the past three-and-a-half years. > Not possible. Richard HILLS (RH) obviously intended to change words and leave his edited version of the statement as if it was the original posters' own words. Also, RH has repeatedly changed words and phrases for "humorous" effect, especially or exclusively for those he disagreed with, such as Herman. (Is this not common knowledge on BLML?) There is essentially zero chance that this was accidental. > > > Richard Hills, unreserved apology, January 2013: > > > > The best kind of an apology is a mutual apology. So I unreservedly > apologise to Jerry Fusselman, Robert Frick and Brian Meadows for both > my intentional and unintentional offences against them, especially me > slinging mud with my uncivil euphemism-free language. Funny! Thanks to RH for including my name in a sentence with Robert Frick and Brain Meadows. That's great company! I admire their posts on BLML. They're good for BLML. > No doubt those > three gentleman will likewise unreservedly apologise for their use of > uncivil euphemism-free language against me. > I hope not! Robert's and Brian's posts have been generous, truthful, civil, interesting, fair, and measured. What should either of them apologize for? As for my name in RH's list, I specifically asked a day or two ago what RH was complaining about from my recent post, but of course, RH could not answer. For my part, I don't care so much for RH's apologies. They're always non-apology apologies, because they are full of excuses, demands, and false promises about his future behavior. Obviously, his future behavior will match his past. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 15 21:55:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:55:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marv [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED0E41@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Mr X, January 2013: >..... >Also, RH has repeatedly changed words and phrases >for "humorous" effect, especially or exclusively for those >he disagreed with, such as Herman. (Is this not common >knowledge on BLML?) There is essentially zero chance >that this was accidental. >..... Richard Hills, January 2013: There is essentially zero chance that the above false assertion (and, if made at a bridge table, a severe Law 74A2 infraction subject to a Disciplinary Committee hearing) is so-called "common knowledge on blml". Indeed, Herman De Wael himself would reject it. Richard Hills, December 2002: >>>In some of my postings critical of the De Wael School, >>>I overstepped the mark by making ad hominem attacks >>>on Herman De Wael. Herman, I sincerely apologise. Herman De Wael, December 2002: >>I have never thought the attacks were "ad hominem". >> >>I may however have ascribed some of the points of view >>as those of a ****, and I apologise in return for any >>impression that may have given that I called Richard >>****. I don't think anyone overstepped any marks, but >>it is good to remember that others might place the marks >>at other places. Richard Hills, December 2002: >>>I will take meticulous care to avoid future ad hominem >>>attacks on Herman (or indeed any blmler). Herman De Wael, December 2002: >>As long as the attacks are directed at the ideas, not at the >>person, or if they are intended as funny (and are), I don't >>mind being the target for your attacks, Richard. I may >>believe you are wrong, but you have always tried to >>argue your case admirably. Richard Hills, December 2002: >>>Best wishes Herman De Wael, December 2002: >>I do believe the time has come to begin extending >>season's wishes to our friends all across the globe. Richard Hills, January 2013: In accordance with Mr X's repeated requests, I shall depart from blml temporarily while I am on holidays. I SHALL RETURN after the conclusion of the Summer Festival of Bridge. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130115/23009eac/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 00:33:45 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:33:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Marv In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50F5E759.6050503@gmail.com> On 01/15/2013 02:17 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: >> >> One very intelligent but misguided blmler has unintentionally misguessed >> my intentions over the past three-and-a-half years. >> > > Not possible. Richard HILLS (RH) obviously intended to change words > and leave his edited version of the statement as if it was the > original posters' own words. Also, RH has repeatedly changed words > and phrases for "humorous" effect, especially or exclusively for those > he disagreed with, such as Herman. (Is this not common knowledge on > BLML?) There is essentially zero chance that this was accidental. > >> >> >> Richard Hills, unreserved apology, January 2013: >> >> >> >> The best kind of an apology is a mutual apology. So I unreservedly >> apologise to Jerry Fusselman, Robert Frick and Brian Meadows for both >> my intentional and unintentional offences against them, especially me >> slinging mud with my uncivil euphemism-free language. > > Funny! Thanks to RH for including my name in a sentence with Robert > Frick and Brain Meadows. That's great company! I admire their posts > on BLML. They're good for BLML. > >> No doubt those >> three gentleman will likewise unreservedly apologise for their use of >> uncivil euphemism-free language against me. >> > As I've stated before, Richard Hills is one of only two BLMLers with a permanent place in my kill-file. I therefore didn't see the above until Jerry quoted it back. I've made my views of RH's behaviour very clear, and I was very specific about my complaints. At such point as RH can provide verifiable evidence of my having perpetrated his sort of tactics in any public reply to one of his postings, then and *ONLY* then will he get his return apology. Absent such evidence, he's getting nothing of the sort. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 16 12:47:22 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:47:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50F43B4A.3050305@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50F3C7F9.5050208@skynet.be> <50F438DE.7000305@ulb.ac.be> <50F43B4A.3050305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <50F6934A.6000605@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/01/2013 18:07, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner schreef: >> AG : I don't understand why you should use your logic rather than theirs. >> >> In the one partnership where we use this opening, 3D is indeed strong. >> The weak hand chooses between pass, 3S and 3C (a re-transfer), letting >> the strong hand play the contract (which will also be the case after 3D, >> strong). >> >> To say that they agreed 3D to be strong, but it nevertheless is weak in >> their system is a complete contradicton. and if there is no bid to show >> the particular type of hand held in this case, that's their (bad) system. >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Alain >> > Your system is complete and logical. > Theirs wasn't. > Neither of them stated that 3C would be the re-transfer. AG : agreed that it makes the situation different, but incomplete systems do exist and there is currently no law against this (although I suppose the OB can disallow them). > > They both thought that in this sequence, 3D might be weak. > The situation is not the same as yours. > > OK? > > PS - of course they also could not prove conclusively that the bid was > strong. So the only evidence we have is their explanation, which happens to be identical on both sides ; not a small hint - notice that the player who bid 3D apparently realized there was a problem, but nevertheless described his system rather than his hand. Sorry, but I fail to see any infraction. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 14:02:05 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:02:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50F6934A.6000605@ulb.ac.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ECE4F1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50F3C7F9.5050208@skynet.be> <50F438DE.7000305@ulb.ac.be> <50F43B4A.3050305@skynet.be> <50F6934A.6000605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50F6A4CD.5090003@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner schreef: > Le 14/01/2013 18:07, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner schreef: >> >> They both thought that in this sequence, 3D might be weak. >> The situation is not the same as yours. >> >> OK? >> >> PS - of course they also could not prove conclusively that the bid was >> strong. > So the only evidence we have is their explanation, which happens to be > identical on both sides ; not a small hint - notice that the player who > bid 3D apparently realized there was a problem, but nevertheless > described his system rather than his hand. > No, that is not the only evidence we have - we also (could) have their explanations about other bids which would tell us that they have no way to describe the hand in question (just diamonds, weak, no spade support). In particular, they did not explain -as you did- that 3C would be a re-transfer. So we have (or could have) quite compelling evidence that the bid to describe the hand in question is precisely the bid of 3D. Logical conclusions from evidence at hand is also evidence. > Sorry, but I fail to see any infraction. > Tell that to Haacht and advice them to appeal. If you need, the case can be found on the VBL website - competitie (VBL) - Liga 2E - match Haacht-Begijntje. Others than Alain (and our northern neighbours) - don't bother to try and find it - it's in Dutch. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 24 17:47:25 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:47:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke Message-ID: The defender realizes that declarer revoked at trick 1. It is trick 3. Does that defender point out the revoke? Strategy. Will it help partner to know there is a revoke? Will it help declarer to know there was a revoke. I assume defender has a choice to call the director or not and that the information is AI to everyone. True? But it isn't so clear in the laws, and the key section would seem to be in 66C, not the revoke section. Maybe that should be changed for 2017 From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 24 19:23:39 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:23:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002701cdfa5f$eeda3f50$cc8ebdf0$@xs4all.nl> 9A2 You are allowed(thus not required) to point out the irregularity. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: donderdag 24 januari 2013 17:47 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke The defender realizes that declarer revoked at trick 1. It is trick 3. Does that defender point out the revoke? Strategy. Will it help partner to know there is a revoke? Will it help declarer to know there was a revoke. I assume defender has a choice to call the director or not and that the information is AI to everyone. True? But it isn't so clear in the laws, and the key section would seem to be in 66C, not the revoke section. Maybe that should be changed for 2017 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Jan 24 22:03:30 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:03:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As a director I urge players not to make directors calls about revokes, especially if they are established, during the play of the hand. Every player has the right to play a hand without being distracted by other issues. If a revoke has occurred it can be dealt with after the play is over and not cause a player or players to lose their train of thought. Of course, it is likely to be less experienced players who call the director during play so I tell them to complete play of the hand and call me back. I don't concern myself about whether pointing out a revoke will benefit one side or the other. Fair completion of play of the hand is most important to me. Jack On 1/24/13 12:47 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >The defender realizes that declarer revoked at trick 1. It is trick 3. >Does that defender point out the revoke? Strategy. Will it help partner >to >know there is a revoke? Will it help declarer to know there was a revoke. > >I assume defender has a choice to call the director or not and that the >information is AI to everyone. True? > >But it isn't so clear in the laws, and the key section would seem to be >in >66C, not the revoke section. Maybe that should be changed for 2017 >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 24 23:22:53 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:22:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001b01cdfa81$5aee1510$10ca3f30$@online.no> This is not an acceptable attitude for a Director. Any player (except Dummy) has an unconditional right to call attention to an irregularity committed during the play (unless explicitly prohibited in the laws). He also in case has the unconditional right to call the Director who then shall explain all matters related to the irregularity. In the case of an established revoke the players are there and then entitled to full information of the eventual rectification that will be made so that they can plan their play correspondingly. This is particularly important at IMP scoring where the "fight" might change from making or setting a game contract (when there is no irregularity) to making or avoiding an overtrick (when declarer is the offender) or to setting a contract only one down or at least two down (when a defender is the offender). Incomplete information from the Director here could easily result in a Law 82C ruling (TD Error). > Jack Rhind > As a director I urge players not to make directors calls about revokes, > especially if they are established, during the play of the hand. Every player > has the right to play a hand without being distracted by other issues. If a > revoke has occurred it can be dealt with after the play is over and not cause a > player or players to lose their train of thought. > > Of course, it is likely to be less experienced players who call the director > during play so I tell them to complete play of the hand and call me back. > > I don't concern myself about whether pointing out a revoke will benefit one > side or the other. Fair completion of play of the hand is most important to > me. > > Jack > > On 1/24/13 12:47 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > > >The defender realizes that declarer revoked at trick 1. It is trick 3. > >Does that defender point out the revoke? Strategy. Will it help partner > >to know there is a revoke? Will it help declarer to know there was a > >revoke. > > > >I assume defender has a choice to call the director or not and that the > >information is AI to everyone. True? > > > >But it isn't so clear in the laws, and the key section would seem to be > >in 66C, not the revoke section. Maybe that should be changed for 2017 > >_______________________________________________ > >Blml mailing list > >Blml at rtflb.org > >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jan 25 01:44:40 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:44:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8985702F0B3E4BA1816BF040EF63EDD3@erdos> "Jack Rhind" writes: > As a director I urge players not to make directors calls about revokes, > especially if they are established, during the play of the hand. Unestablished revokes *must* be dealt with by a director call, at least if made by a defender; declarer is not supposed to make his own ruling about the resulting penalty card. Players' rulings about penalty cards often forget about the lead penalties; East is entitled to know about the lead restrictions from West's penalty card before East plays a card that could potentiallty win a trick. > Every > player has the right to play a hand without being distracted by other > issues. If a revoke has occurred it can be dealt with after the play is > over and not cause a player or players to lose their train of thought. > > Of course, it is likely to be less experienced players who call the > director during play so I tell them to complete play of the hand and call > me back. And it is likely to be less experienced players who need to know the rules. If there is a one-trick penalty against the defenders for a revoke in a 4S contract, both sides need to know that declarer's goal is now to take nine tricks in the play. From jrhind at therock.bm Fri Jan 25 13:47:03 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:47:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke In-Reply-To: <8985702F0B3E4BA1816BF040EF63EDD3@erdos> Message-ID: David, perhaps my response was not clear or well worded. Of course it is important to deal with a revoke that has not been established due to the various factors that arise. What I was really addressing was the original question of an established revoke. The number of times I have seen a hand be completely disrupted only to find out that a revoke did not actually occur. Meanwhile declarer now has to recover his/her train of thought and try to carry on. Jack On 1/24/13 8:44 PM, "David Grabiner" wrote: >"Jack Rhind" writes: > >> As a director I urge players not to make directors calls about revokes, >> especially if they are established, during the play of the hand. > >Unestablished revokes *must* be dealt with by a director call, at least >if made >by a defender; declarer is not supposed to make his own ruling about the >resulting penalty card. Players' rulings about penalty cards often >forget about >the lead penalties; East is entitled to know about the lead restrictions >from >West's penalty card before East plays a card that could potentiallty win >a >trick. > >> Every >> player has the right to play a hand without being distracted by other >> issues. If a revoke has occurred it can be dealt with after the play is >> over and not cause a player or players to lose their train of thought. >> >> Of course, it is likely to be less experienced players who call the >> director during play so I tell them to complete play of the hand and >>call >> me back. > >And it is likely to be less experienced players who need to know the >rules. If >there is a one-trick penalty against the defenders for a revoke in a 4S >contract, both sides need to know that declarer's goal is now to take >nine >tricks in the play. > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 25 14:07:34 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:07:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51028396.6020905@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/01/2013 22:03, Jack Rhind a ?crit : > As a director I urge players not to make directors calls about revokes, > especially if they are established, during the play of the hand. Every > player has the right to play a hand without being distracted by other > issues. If a revoke has occurred it can be dealt with after the play is > over and not cause a player or players to lose their train of thought. AG: : I beg to differ. The risk of necessitating an extraordinary adjustment increses as the number of cards played after the revoke increases. > > I don't concern myself about whether pointing out a revoke will benefit > one side or the other. Fair completion of play of the hand is most > important to me. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 25 14:17:02 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:17:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510285CE.2050103@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/01/2013 13:47, Jack Rhind a ?crit : > David, perhaps my response was not clear or well worded. Of course it is > important to deal with a revoke that has not been established due to the > various factors that arise. What I was really addressing was the original > question of an established revoke. The number of times I have seen a hand > be completely disrupted only to find out that a revoke did not actually > occur. Meanwhile declarer now has to recover his/her train of thought and > try to carry on. AG : I think that the TD may not disallow checking for the revoke. Say that W is conscious of the revoke and E isn't. By asking for an immediate ruling about the revoke, W can help partner know his side's objectives. It might have a big impact on the play. I even know one pair who changes their signals when the contract is already at least one down. Why should they be deprived of that ? And what if W is unsure about E being conscious of the revoke ? Doens't their defense risk chaos, with W trying to play neutral, but not knowing whether E is on the same wavelength ? Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 28 11:14:45 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out a revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED16E3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner: >Unestablished revokes *must* be dealt with by a director >call, at least if made by a defender; Richard Hills: It seems to me, reading Law 62A in conjunction with Law 9B1(a), that an unestablished revoke by declarer must also be dealt with by a Director call. Indeed declarer must herself summon the Director if she is the first to realise that she has perpetrated an unestablished revoke. David Grabiner: >declarer is not supposed to make his own ruling about the >resulting penalty card. Players' rulings about penalty >cards often forget about the lead penalties; East is entitled >to know about the lead restrictions from West's penalty >card before East plays a card that could potentially win a >trick. Law 10A - Right to Determine Rectification The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative. David Grabiner: >And it is likely to be less experienced players who need to >know the rules. If there is a one-trick penalty against the >defenders for a revoke in a 4S contract, both sides need to >know that declarer's goal is now to take nine tricks in the >play. Law 11A - Forfeiture of the right to Rectification The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. Cathy Hunsberger, Secrets Your Bridge Friends Never Tell You, page 40: Frank is called to the table to straighten out a little problem. A card played earlier by a new player was declared a penalty card by the opposing "experts" and the guilty player was told to leave it on the table. Now the guilty one was on lead. The experts decide this is the time to call the director. Frank, protector of the innocent, declares that this card can be picked up and there will be no penalty. He advises everyone that they should call the director immediately, not later, when there is a potential problem. The experts sputter in self-righteous indignation. "Well," says Frank, "I am the director and it's only a Penalty card if I say it is. Now get on with things." And they do. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130128/72c32d39/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 30 03:55:14 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:55:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2AE4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner: >In fact, players don't even have secondary partnership >understandings which are a necessary part of the >convention. The standard meaning of 1NT-2C-2H-2NT is >that responder has an invitational hand with four spades. Richard Hills: I differ from another blmler's unilateral view of "standard" (she ridiculously argued that a one hcp difference in a 2NT opening bid was unfairly highly unusual). Indeed, note that the indicative example in Law 75 assumes a different standard for Stayman (the formerly popular "Double Barrelled Stayman"). David Grabiner: >This is a common agreement among players who play four- >suit transfers, even though it leaves responder with no bid >on an invitational hand without a four-card major; I have >had three different good partners get this wrong. The >necessary secondary agreement is 2S with four spades and >2NT denying four spades (both alertable in the ACBL). Richard Hills: My experience with Canberra experts who are not bidding theorists causes me to believe that David's "necessary secondary agreement" is merely an "effective and efficient secondary agreement". The explicit understandings of many Canberra experts who use four-suit transfers is that a 2S rebid is non-systemic, while a 2NT response is ambiguous (neither promising nor denying four spades). Of course, compared to David's suggested convention, this method is inefficient, as sometimes Canberra experts declare 2NT when ACBL experts with corresponding cards would declare a safe 2S. David Grabiner: >If responder bids 2NT without four spades (not alerted), >opening leader avoids the spade lead which would beat >2NT, and declarer claims they never discussed this, do >you rule misinformation? Richard Hills: Neither Yes nor No. As senior Director (and blmler) Mike Amos correctly demonstrated in the original ruling at the start of this thread, if I was TD then I would necessarily follow the mandatory Law 85 requirement to delve for more evidence. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130130/d3cd127c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 30 07:38:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:38:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Imps (with screens) Dlr: South Vul: East-West Your North-South partnership is playing a variant of Acol, with 4-card majors and a 15-17 1NT in 3rd and 4th seat. The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......Pass Pass......1H........X.........1S 2D........??? You, North, hold: K984 AK942 85 KQ What call do you make? What call do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130130/ccf4e5a8/attachment.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 07:43:10 2013 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:43:10 +1300 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I would rebid 2S or 3S. Normally with this shape and hcp strength I would rebid 3S but the club KQ is a flaw as is the real possibility that trumps are not breaking. Therefore I might go low on this occasion. These are the only calls that I would give serious consideration to. On 30 January 2013 19:38, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Imps (with screens) > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > Your North-South partnership is playing a > variant of Acol, with 4-card majors and a > 15-17 1NT in 3rd and 4th seat. > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......---.......---.......Pass > Pass......1H........X.........1S > 2D........??? > > You, North, hold: > > K984 > AK942 > 85 > KQ > > What call do you make? > What call do you consider making? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130130/0610e381/attachment-0001.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jan 31 01:48:58 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:48:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <234AE45ADE624738A390C139C1750841@erdos> The double means a likelihood of a poor spade break, and the doubleton diamond is likely to be matched by a doubleton in partner's hand. On the other hand, I do have useful spade spots (which will be particularly important if the suit breaks 4-1), the AK of hearts opposite partner's probable shortness are good cards, and partner need not bid 1S just to keep the bidding open and thus should have either good spades or some values. Game is less likely since both opponents have shown values; West would have discounted the QJ of hearts and thus presumably has values in clubs and diamonds which will take tricks on defense. I choose 3S because I have the right high cards (KQ of clubs opposite partner's probable second suit, AK of hearts opposite partner's shortness), but I seriously considered 2S. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard HILLS To: Laws Bridge Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:38 AM Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Imps (with screens) Dlr: South Vul: East-West Your North-South partnership is playing a variant of Acol, with 4-card majors and a 15-17 1NT in 3rd and 4th seat. The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......Pass Pass......1H........X.........1S 2D........??? You, North, hold: K984 AK942 85 KQ What call do you make? What call do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130131/19201535/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Thu Jan 31 14:30:20 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:30:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <234AE45ADE624738A390C139C1750841@erdos> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <234AE45ADE624738A390C139C1750841@erdos> Message-ID: <510A71EC.6020608@aol.com> I have no problem with 2S or 3S. I would choose the former. I think I know the hand and partner psyched 1S. There is a different duty when you have UI and when you might be fielding a psyche. If one passed here, that would be fielding. If you have UI then you are obliged to select the LA that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. There is no requirement whatsoever to select between LAs one that does not cater for partner having psyched. Pass would strongly suggest a CPU. Neither 2S nor 3S suggest that at all. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Jan 31 14:49:34 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:49:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><234AE45ADE624738A390C139C1750841@erdos> <510A71EC.6020608@aol.com> Message-ID: <4716A75F8DDE42F5BEF5ED9ABF16BAAC@changeme1> Around these parts, there has long been the concept of 'lowest ethical bid' (LEB). In this case, where one may suspect that pard has psyched (why ??), then I reckon that 2S is the LEB. However, if this pard has a 'history', then some TDs and ACs may consider that an attempt at limiting damage. L >I have no problem with 2S or 3S. I would choose >the former. I think I > know the hand and partner psyched 1S. There is > a different duty when you > have UI and when you might be fielding a > psyche. If one passed here, > that would be fielding. If you have UI then > you are obliged to select > the LA that is not demonstrably suggested by > the UI. There is no > requirement whatsoever to select between LAs > one that does not cater for > partner having psyched. Pass would strongly > suggest a CPU. Neither 2S > nor 3S suggest that at all. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Jan 31 15:59:51 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:59:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <510A71EC.6020608@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><234AE45ADE624738A390C139C1750841@erdos> <510A71EC.6020608@aol.com> Message-ID: [Paul] I have no problem with 2S or 3S. I would choose the former. I think I know the hand and partner psyched 1S. There is a different duty when you have UI and when you might be fielding a psyche. If one passed here, that would be fielding. If you have UI then you are obliged to select the LA that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. There is no requirement whatsoever to select between LAs one that does not cater for partner having psyched. Pass would strongly suggest a CPU. Neither 2S nor 3S suggest that at all. [Nige1] If the UI indicates that partner may have psyched, then pass is out; but, IMO, 2S is out too, if that also caters for the UI; provided that an LA (3S) is available, not suggested by the UI. From gampas at aol.com Thu Jan 31 19:17:14 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:17:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED2BAA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><234AE45ADE624738A390C139C1750841@erdos> <510A71EC.6020608@aol.com> Message-ID: <510AB52A.4040203@aol.com> On 31/01/2013 14:59, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Paul] > I have no problem with 2S or 3S. I would choose the former. I think I > know the hand and partner psyched 1S. There is a different duty when you > have UI and when you might be fielding a psyche. If one passed here, > that would be fielding. If you have UI then you are obliged to select > the LA that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. There is no > requirement whatsoever to select between LAs one that does not cater for > partner having psyched. Pass would strongly suggest a CPU. Neither 2S > nor 3S suggest that at all. > [Nige1] > If the UI indicates that partner may have psyched, then pass is out; but, > IMO, 2S is out too, if that also caters for the UI; provided that an LA > (3S) is available, not suggested by the UI. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml The point you are missing is that the possibility of a psyche is authorised, but UI is not. A psyche does not convey UI, nor does the frequency of it. The ONLY issue is whether its frequency creates a CPU From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 31 22:38:46 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:38:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3185@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 40A3: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). Law 40C1: A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. Paul, EBU-land: >>>I have no problem with 2S or 3S. I would choose >>>the former. I think I know the hand and partner >>>psyched 1S. There is a different duty when you >>>have UI and when you might be fielding a psyche. >>>If one passed here, that would be fielding. If you >>>have UI then you are obliged to select the LA that >>>is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. There is >>>no requirement whatsoever to select between LAs >>>one that does not cater for partner having >>>psyched. Pass would strongly suggest a CPU. >>>Neither 2S nor 3S suggest that at all. Larry, EBU-land: >>Around these parts, there has long been the concept >>of 'lowest ethical bid' (LEB). >> >>In this case, where one may suspect that pard has >>psyched (why ??), then I reckon that 2S is the LEB. >> >>However, if this pard has a 'history', then some TDs >>and ACs may consider that an attempt at limiting >>damage. >> >>L DALB, EBU-land, January 2010: >..... >Terminology has become sloppy, beginning with the >"controlled psyche" that formed part of the "methods" >of some top American players for many years. There >is no such thing as, and there never was any such thing >as, a "controlled psyche"; the term is and always was >self-contradictory, like a "triangular circle" >..... Richard, ABF-land: There are no such things as, and there never were any such things as, an unLawful "Fielding" response or a Lawful "Lowest Ethical Bid" response. It is not the responses by one partner which are defined as Lawful or unLawful. Rather, it is the initial call by the other partner which is either a Lawful Law 40A3 psyche (in which case all responses are so-called "ethical"), or an unLawful Law 40C1 undisclosed implicit partnership understanding (in which case all responses cannot alter the infraction). What's the problem? In my opinion muddy thinking in EBU-land is caused by the sloppy names of their Red Psyche / Amber Psyche / Green Psyche regulations. If EBU-land switched to the different terminology of Red Heffalump / Amber Heffalump / Green Heffalump, then EBU players and TDs might better be able to understand what is and is not an infraction according to the Laws. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130131/97a1bfca/attachment-0001.html