From gampas at aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:47:35 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 17:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <51A5BEB2.7060608@btinternet.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5BEB2.7060608@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <8D02DF1EDA3E453-20F4-4FB5E@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> Dburn in 2011 wrote: I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so is a violation of Law 73. Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx Axxxx Kxxx xx Kx The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with "illogical alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Mon Jun 3 00:36:15 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (rysiek.sliwinski) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 00:36:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative Message-ID: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> Read point 3 of the Minutes from Philadelphia ?October 8, 2010. Sended from my Samsung Mobil -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Fr?n: Paul Lamford Datum: Till: blml at rtflb.org Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative Dburn in 2011 wrote: I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so is a violation of Law 73. Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx Axxxx Kxxx xx Kx The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with "illogical alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! _______________________________________________ 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/20130602/156ae469/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 3 00:59:09 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> References: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> Message-ID: <8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> [rysiek.sliwinski ] Read point 3 of the Minutes from Philadelphia October 8, 2010. [paul lamford] I think we found this: 3. There was a discussion of the definition of a ?logical alternative?. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances. The last sentence is very vague. How is such a call handled? Is it automatically a breach of Law 73? Fr?n: Paul Lamford Datum: Till: blml at rtflb.org Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative Dburn in 2011 wrote: I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so is a violation of Law 73. Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx Axxxx Kxxx xx Kx The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with "illogical alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Jun 3 01:59:45 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 19:59:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> References: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> <8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: A call which would be impossible to contemplate should be allowed to stand. For example: S N 1H 3C! 3D P 3C is explained as a limit raise in hearts; in fact, North has x KJxx Qxxx xxxx, a constructive raise, and the system bid was 3D. South's 3D is a game invitation but says nothing about diamonds. Without the UI, North's only logical alternative is 4H; if North bids 3H and 4H does not make, you would adjust. But North accidentally passed; even with the UI, North could not have reasonably wanted to pass 3D. Therefore, even if 3D happens to make when 3H or 4H would go down, the result in 3D stands. The logic is that the decision to pass 3D could not have been influenced by the UI; it was simply a misbid. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Lamford" To: Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative > [rysiek.sliwinski ] > Read point 3 of the Minutes from Philadelphia October 8, 2010. > > [paul lamford] > I think we found this: > 3. There was a discussion of the definition of a ?logical alternative?. > It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally > considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the > application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call > that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular > circumstances. > > The last sentence is very vague. How is such a call handled? Is it > automatically a breach of Law 73? > > Fr?n: Paul Lamford > Datum: > Till: blml at rtflb.org > Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative > > > Dburn in 2011 wrote: > I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among > logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if > it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the > provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so > is a violation of Law 73. > > Kxxx > xx > Kxxx > xxx > > Axxxx > Kxxx > xx > Kx > > The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but > South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all > aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an > LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with "illogical > alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jun 3 02:59:31 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 20:59:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: References: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> <8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <51ABEA73.9090901@nhcc.net> On 2013-06-02 7:59 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > A call which would be impossible to contemplate should be allowed to stand. A bit of an overstatement, I think, though David makes a correct point that I hadn't seen before. If the player fails to "carefully avoid" taking advantage of the UI, adjust the score. If the player has a random accident that happens to work, unaffected by UI, no adjustment. In Paul's original case, I don't see that the slow 3S suggests anything in particular, but that's a matter of bridge judgment to be based on all available evidence. If it really does suggest 4S over a logical alternative (pass), the 4S bid is illegal with the usual consequences. From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Mon Jun 3 03:30:57 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (rysiek.sliwinski) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:30:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative Message-ID: Is pass really impossible to contemplate in the circumstances you described? 1. I know 4 hearts has almost no chance to make. 2. I know that bidding 3 hearts is using UI. 3. I have 4 diamonds ?and if partner happens to have three or more diamonds we can very well make 3 diamonds. So I gamble and pass. After all, I am not risking so much. Skickat fr?n min Samsung Mobil -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Fr?n: David Grabiner Datum: Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative A call which would be impossible to contemplate should be allowed to stand. For example: S?? N 1H? 3C! 3D?? P 3C is explained as a limit raise in hearts; in fact, North has x KJxx Qxxx xxxx, a constructive raise, and the system bid was 3D.? South's 3D is a game invitation but says nothing about diamonds.?? Without the UI, North's only logical alternative is 4H; if North bids 3H and 4H does not make, you would adjust.? But North accidentally passed; even with the UI, North could not have reasonably wanted to pass 3D.? Therefore, even if 3D happens to make when 3H or 4H would go down, the result in 3D stands. The logic is that the decision to pass 3D could not have been influenced by the UI; it was simply a misbid. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Lamford" To: Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative > [rysiek.sliwinski ] > Read point 3 of the Minutes from Philadelphia? October 8, 2010. > > [paul lamford] > I think we found this: > 3. There was a discussion of the definition of a ?logical alternative?. > It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally > considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the > application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call > that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular > circumstances. > > The last sentence is very vague. How is such a call handled? Is it > automatically a breach of Law 73? > > Fr?n: Paul Lamford > Datum: > Till: blml at rtflb.org > Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative > > > Dburn in 2011 wrote: > I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among > logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if > it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the > provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so > is a violation of Law 73. > > Kxxx > xx > Kxxx > xxx > > Axxxx > Kxxx > xx > Kx > > The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but > South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all > aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an > LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with "illogical > alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130603/258b5c9a/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 3 10:03:19 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:03:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <8D02DF1EDA3E453-20F4-4FB5E@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5BEB2.7060608@btinternet.com> <8D02DF1EDA3E453-20F4-4FB5E@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <51AC4DC7.2060101@skynet.be> I don't understand the problem. You have a hand, and a meaning of partner's bid according to the system you thought you were playing (here - the true system, which partner might have forgotten - weak). You show the hand to players, and they all pass. So anything else is not a LA. You have UI, that partner may be stronger than this, and this suggests bidding 4S. So 4S is not allowed. WTP? Apparently, my English friends are saying that if you poll the players with partner's meaning (UI), they would also all pass, so 4S is an Illogical alternative, and the player should be free to take that? I really don't understand why they should be concerned about this. Herman. Paul Lamford schreef: > Dburn in 2011 wrote: > I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among > logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if > it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the > provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so > is a violation of Law 73. > > Kxxx > xx > Kxxx > xxx > > Axxxx > Kxxx > xx > Kx > > The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but > South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all > aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an > LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with "illogical > alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6377 - Release Date: 06/02/13 > > From gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 3 10:33:02 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <51AC4DC7.2060101@skynet.be> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5BEB2.7060608@btinternet.com> <8D02DF1EDA3E453-20F4-4FB5E@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <51AC4DC7.2060101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D02E4C18A07A25-1CE8-572F6@webmail-d232.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] You have UI, that partner may be stronger than this, and this suggests bidding 4S. [Paul Lamford] For 4S to be disallowed we have to decide that it "could be demonstrably suggested". Partner being stronger than a weak raise is just one, unlikely, possibility. Partner could be too balanced, too weak, have five trumps, etc; all sorts of reasons for the slow tempo. So 4S is not demonstrably suggested. And even if partner had a limit raise, game would be around 30% in simulations, so selecting 4S is not taking any advantage of the UI. Just a lucky result. -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 9:04 Subject: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative I don't understand the problem. You have a hand, and a meaning of partner's bid according to the system you thought you were playing (here - the true system, which partner might have forgotten - weak). You show the hand to players, and they all pass. So anything else is not a LA. You have UI, that partner may be stronger than this, and this suggests bidding 4S. So 4S is not allowed. WTP? Apparently, my English friends are saying that if you poll the players with partner's meaning (UI), they would also all pass, so 4S is an Illogical alternative, and the player should be free to take that? I really don't understand why they should be concerned about this. Herman. Paul Lamford schreef: > Dburn in 2011 wrote: > I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among > logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if > it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the > provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so > is a violation of Law 73. > > Kxxx > xx > Kxxx > xxx > > Axxxx > Kxxx > xx > Kx > > The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but > South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all > aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an > LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with "illogical > alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6377 - Release Date: 06/02/13 > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 3 14:17:37 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:17:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <8D02E4C18A07A25-1CE8-572F6@webmail-d232.sysops.aol.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5BEB2.7060608@btinternet.com> <8D02DF1EDA3E453-20F4-4FB5E@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <51AC4DC7.2060101@skynet.be> <8D02E4C18A07A25-1CE8-572F6@webmail-d232.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <51AC8961.5000900@skynet.be> well Paul, the way I see it, the player thought partner had probably forgotten that it was weak, so game was more likely than if he had not forgotten it. So bidding game is suggested over not bidding it. But that's just plain simple reasoning, and many bridge reasonings are less than simple. Herman. Paul Lamford schreef: > [Herman de Wael] > You have UI, that partner may be stronger than this, and this suggests > bidding 4S. > > [Paul Lamford] > For 4S to be disallowed we have to decide that it "could be > demonstrably suggested". Partner being stronger than a weak raise is > just one, unlikely, possibility. Partner could be too balanced, too > weak, have five trumps, etc; all sorts of reasons for the slow tempo. > So 4S is not demonstrably suggested. And even if partner had a limit > raise, game would be around 30% in simulations, so selecting 4S is not > taking any advantage of the UI. > > Just a lucky result. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 9:04 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative > > > I don't understand the problem. > > You have a hand, and a meaning of partner's bid according to the system > you thought you were playing (here - the true system, which partner > might have forgotten - weak). You show the hand to players, and they > all > pass. So anything else is not a LA. You have UI, that partner may be > stronger than this, and this suggests bidding 4S. So 4S is not allowed. > WTP? > Apparently, my English friends are saying that if you poll the players > with partner's meaning (UI), they would also all pass, so 4S is an > Illogical alternative, and the player should be free to take that? > I really don't understand why they should be concerned about this. > > Herman. > > Paul Lamford schreef: >> Dburn in 2011 wrote: >> I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from > among >> logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if >> it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid > the >> provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do > so >> is a violation of Law 73. >> >> Kxxx >> xx >> Kxxx >> xxx >> >> Axxxx >> Kxxx >> xx >> Kx >> >> The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but >> South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all >> aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an >> LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with > "illogical >> alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6377 - Release Date: > 06/02/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6378 - Release Date: 06/02/13 > > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 3 17:19:56 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: References: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> <8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <51ACB41C.80702@starpower.net> Allow me to suggest two principles that go a long way toward resolving the kinds of problems that come up when we adjudicate UI issues. (1) Any call chosen by the recipient of the UI (other than an unintended call subject to L25A) is presumed to be a logical alternative for that player. I would argue that this is what the law requires. It tells us to compare the call actually made to *its* "logical *alternative action[s]*"; it says nothing about the "logicalness" of the call actually made. And it solves some otherwise difficult problems. (2) The determination of whether one call "could demonstrably have been suggested over" some other call must take into account only the actual bridge considerations. That means we consider only the possible results after the deal has been bid and played, not the prospective outcomes after it has been subsequently adjudicated. To do otherwise is to allow the outcome of the adjudication process to affect its own starting conditions, leading to a potentially infinite loop. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 3 20:56:02 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <51AC8961.5000900@skynet.be> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5BEB2.7060608@btinternet.com> <8D02DF1EDA3E453-20F4-4FB5E@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <51AC4DC7.2060101@skynet.be> <8D02E4C18A07A25-1CE8-572F6@webmail-d232.sysops.aol.com> <51AC8961.5000900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D02EA3212B8BF2-1360-2D0D2@webmail-vm009.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] well Paul, the way I see it, the player thought partner had probably forgotten that it was weak, so game was more likely than if he had not forgotten it. So bidding game is suggested over not bidding it. But that's just plain simple reasoning, and many bridge reasonings are less than simple. [Paul Lamford] I did not write that his partner had probably forgotten it. I said that he was unsure whether his partner had remembered it. I think we can be pretty certain that the LAs are Pass and 4S. When polling 10 people, all of them Pass. We know from the Philadelphia minute that 4S is still an LA because it was the bid chosen (although we might decide not to treat is as an LA as it is impossible to consider the bid, whatever that means. It matters not). For 4S to be an infraction it must be demonstrably suggested over Pass. Normally we consider a bid demonstrably suggested if it is likely to be more successful, and this is not the case here. 4S was an incredibly lucky make, and you are adjusting for the sake of it. -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:18 Subject: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative well Paul, the way I see it, the player thought partner had probably forgotten that it was weak, so game was more likely than if he had not forgotten it. So bidding game is suggested over not bidding it. But that's just plain simple reasoning, and many bridge reasonings are less than simple. Herman. Paul Lamford schreef: > [Herman de Wael] > You have UI, that partner may be stronger than this, and this suggests > bidding 4S. > > [Paul Lamford] > For 4S to be disallowed we have to decide that it "could be > demonstrably suggested". Partner being stronger than a weak raise is > just one, unlikely, possibility. Partner could be too balanced, too > weak, have five trumps, etc; all sorts of reasons for the slow tempo. > So 4S is not demonstrably suggested. And even if partner had a limit > raise, game would be around 30% in simulations, so selecting 4S is not > taking any advantage of the UI. > > Just a lucky result. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 9:04 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative > > > I don't understand the problem. > > You have a hand, and a meaning of partner's bid according to the system > you thought you were playing (here - the true system, which partner > might have forgotten - weak). You show the hand to players, and they > all > pass. So anything else is not a LA. You have UI, that partner may be > stronger than this, and this suggests bidding 4S. So 4S is not allowed. > WTP? > Apparently, my English friends are saying that if you poll the players > with partner's meaning (UI), they would also all pass, so 4S is an > Illogical alternative, and the player should be free to take that? > I really don't understand why they should be concerned about this. > > Herman. > > Paul Lamford schreef: >> Dburn in 2011 wrote: >> I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from > among >> logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if >> it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid > the >> provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do > so >> is a violation of Law 73. >> >> Kxxx >> xx >> Kxxx >> xxx >> >> Axxxx >> Kxxx >> xx >> Kx >> >> The auction goes, uncontested, 1S - 3S (slow) - 4S. 3S is weak, but >> South is unsure whether his partner remembered. Trumps are 2-2 and all >> aces are onside. Nobody polled would bid 4S, therefore it is not an >> LA.. Is it allowed, and is there a WBLFC minute dealing with > "illogical >> alternatives"? No doubt there is a better example in the archives! >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6377 - Release Date: > 06/02/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6378 - Release Date: 06/02/13 > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 3 20:58:36 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <51ACB41C.80702@starpower.net> References: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> <8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> <51ACB41C.80702@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8D02EA37C8912B2-1360-2D186@webmail-vm009.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] (2) The determination of whether one call "could demonstrably have been suggested over" some other call must take into account only the actual bridge considerations. [Paul Lamford] I wholeheartedly agree, and those bridge considerations are whether it was likely to be more successful taking into account the UI, not whether it was more successful. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 3 21:41:53 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com><8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> <51ACB41C.80702@starpower.net> <8D02EA37C8912B2-1360-2D186@webmail-vm009.sysops.aol.com> References: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com><8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> <51ACB41C.80702@starpower.net> <8D02EA37C8912B2-1360-2D186@webmail-vm009.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Paul Lamford" Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 13:58 To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Illogical Alternative > > [Eric Landau] > (2) The determination of whether one call "could demonstrably have been > suggested over" some other call must take into account only the actual > bridge considerations. Which could well be a mutation of the non sequitur found in L12B1. regards roger pewick > [Paul Lamford] > I wholeheartedly agree, and those bridge considerations are whether it > was likely to be more successful taking into account the UI, not > whether it was more successful. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 4 03:33:14 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:33:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Illogical Alternative In-Reply-To: <51ACB41C.80702@starpower.net> References: <5icdpav3ito5odhahbyntik8.1370212315310@email.android.com> <8D02DFBECC414CD-9E8-513A1@webmail-vm010.sysops.aol.com> <51ACB41C.80702@starpower.net> Message-ID: <51AD43DA.4000707@nhcc.net> On 2013-06-03 11:19 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Any call chosen by the recipient of the UI (other than an unintended > call subject to L25A) is presumed to be a logical alternative for that > player. That should work for nearly all real-world cases, but does it cover the one David brought up? In his example, the call chosen was a random accident, unrelated to UI or much of anything else. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 5 02:27:47 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:27:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director Message-ID: The auction was E S W N 2NT 2D/3D P 3H The insufficient bid of 2D was replaced by 3D. The table apparently agreed that this was nonbarring. Now EW are calling the director because North is using UI from the 2D bid. North is guessing that 3D is probably Cappelletti, because 2D over 1NT would be Cappelletti. It's an interesting question how to rule. Or what to do. Note that if 3D is natural, then North is guessing wrong; if 2D was Capelletti and systemically 3D would be natural, then the table ruling was wrong. My point is this. I felt like this was a situation I should not have to deal with. These were experienced players. They should have known to call me. I should try to be fair, whatever that is. But really, they should accept whatever ruling I give them. And that became relevant when E wanted a committee. But there is nothing in the rule book about consequences for not calling the director. Should there be? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jun 5 05:53:01 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 23:53:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The penalty for not calling the director is that both sides get the worst of it. The director must now rule whether 2D was a mispull (which can be corrected without penalty), and if it wasn't a mispull, whether it was conventional. If it was not conventional, the only UI is that South might have a weaker hand because he intended a natural 2D. South is allowed to correct to 3D, North can bid 3H because that is not suggested by UI, and the table result stands. If it was conventional, then we adjust the score treating both sides as offending, which means they both get the worst score that was at all probable had the director been called. For example, if South might reasonably have passed (and 2NT then makes), bid 3H (which makes), or bid 3S (which gets doubled for -500), you rule -140 for E-W based on the 3H bid and -500 for N-S based on the 3S bid. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 8:27 PM Subject: [BLML] not calling the director > The auction was > > E S W N > > 2NT 2D/3D P 3H > > > The insufficient bid of 2D was replaced by 3D. The table apparently agreed > that this was nonbarring. Now EW are calling the director because North is > using UI from the 2D bid. North is guessing that 3D is probably > Cappelletti, because 2D over 1NT would be Cappelletti. > > It's an interesting question how to rule. Or what to do. Note that if 3D > is natural, then North is guessing wrong; if 2D was Capelletti and > systemically 3D would be natural, then the table ruling was wrong. > > My point is this. I felt like this was a situation I should not have to > deal with. These were experienced players. They should have known to call > me. I should try to be fair, whatever that is. But really, they should > accept whatever ruling I give them. > > And that became relevant when E wanted a committee. > > But there is nothing in the rule book about consequences for not calling > the director. Should there be? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jun 5 06:32:22 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:32:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> I think LHO has accepted the change of call under 25B, so carry on. If they want to play without a director who am I to disturb their game. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of David Grabiner > Sent: Wednesday, 5 June 2013 1:53 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] not calling the director > > The penalty for not calling the director is that both sides get the worst of it. > > The director must now rule whether 2D was a mispull (which can be > corrected > without penalty), and if it wasn't a mispull, whether it was conventional. > > If it was not conventional, the only UI is that South might have a weaker > hand > because he intended a natural 2D. South is allowed to correct to 3D, North > can > bid 3H because that is not suggested by UI, and the table result stands. > > If it was conventional, then we adjust the score treating both sides as > offending, which means they both get the worst score that was at all > probable > had the director been called. For example, if South might reasonably have > passed (and 2NT then makes), bid 3H (which makes), or bid 3S (which gets > doubled > for -500), you rule -140 for E-W based on the 3H bid and -500 for N-S based > on > the 3S bid. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 8:27 PM > Subject: [BLML] not calling the director > > > > The auction was > > > > E S W N > > > > 2NT 2D/3D P 3H > > > > > > The insufficient bid of 2D was replaced by 3D. The table apparently agreed > > that this was nonbarring. Now EW are calling the director because North > is > > using UI from the 2D bid. North is guessing that 3D is probably > > Cappelletti, because 2D over 1NT would be Cappelletti. > > > > It's an interesting question how to rule. Or what to do. Note that if 3D > > is natural, then North is guessing wrong; if 2D was Capelletti and > > systemically 3D would be natural, then the table ruling was wrong. > > > > My point is this. I felt like this was a situation I should not have to > > deal with. These were experienced players. They should have known to > call > > me. I should try to be fair, whatever that is. But really, they should > > accept whatever ruling I give them. > > > > And that became relevant when E wanted a committee. > > > > But there is nothing in the rule book about consequences for not calling > > the director. Should there be? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 5 09:48:58 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:48:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> I fully agree with Tony in applying Law 25B1, but in addition we have Law 11A which here effectively suspends the application of Law 25B3. If the Director should take any action at all it should be to impose a procedural penalty, at least to the side (E-W) that subsequently wants some TD action, possibly to both sides. I don't know any law supporting David "that both sides get the worst of it." ??? Sven > Tony Musgrove > I think LHO has accepted the change of call under 25B, so carry on. If they > want to play without a director who am I to disturb their game. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > David Grabiner > > Sent: Wednesday, 5 June 2013 1:53 PM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] not calling the director > > > > The penalty for not calling the director is that both sides get the > worst of it. > > > > The director must now rule whether 2D was a mispull (which can be > > corrected without penalty), and if it wasn't a mispull, whether it was > conventional. > > > > If it was not conventional, the only UI is that South might have a > weaker > > hand > > because he intended a natural 2D. South is allowed to correct to 3D, > North > > can > > bid 3H because that is not suggested by UI, and the table result > stands. > > > > If it was conventional, then we adjust the score treating both sides > as > > offending, which means they both get the worst score that was at all > > probable had the director been called. For example, if South might > > reasonably > have > > passed (and 2NT then makes), bid 3H (which makes), or bid 3S (which > gets > > doubled > > for -500), you rule -140 for E-W based on the 3H bid and -500 for N-S > based > > on > > the 3S bid. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert Frick" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 8:27 PM > > Subject: [BLML] not calling the director > > > > > > > The auction was > > > > > > E S W N > > > > > > 2NT 2D/3D P 3H > > > > > > > > > The insufficient bid of 2D was replaced by 3D. The table apparently > agreed > > > that this was nonbarring. Now EW are calling the director because > North > > is > > > using UI from the 2D bid. North is guessing that 3D is probably > > > Cappelletti, because 2D over 1NT would be Cappelletti. > > > > > > It's an interesting question how to rule. Or what to do. Note that > if 3D > > > is natural, then North is guessing wrong; if 2D was Capelletti and > > > systemically 3D would be natural, then the table ruling was wrong. > > > > > > My point is this. I felt like this was a situation I should not have > to > > > deal with. These were experienced players. They should have known to > > call > > > me. I should try to be fair, whatever that is. But really, they > should > > > accept whatever ruling I give them. > > > > > > And that became relevant when E wanted a committee. > > > > > > But there is nothing in the rule book about consequences for not > calling > > > the director. Should there be? > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 6 02:47:08 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:47:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] not calling the Director [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F953F46@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL 1997 Scope: ..... The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. ..... 1997 Law 9B1(a): The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. Sven Pran: >..... >I don't know any law supporting David [Grabiner] "that both sides get the >worst of it." >??? Richard Hills; Under the 1997 Lawbook David would be correct, since both sides would be seriously infracting "must" offending sides. (For example, if the 1997 TD was required to award an artificial adjusted score as a consequence of that 1997 Law 9B1(a) infraction, both 1997 sides would receive average-minus.) But ... Eric Landau observed on blml about a decade ago that "must" was an overly draconian modal for the purpose of Law 9B1(a). The WBF powers-that-be took cognizance of Eric's point, so the 2007 Law 9B1(a) reads: The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. And the 2007 Introduction reads: ..... "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized) ..... 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/20130606/36710f49/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jun 6 04:50:14 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:50:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> "Sven Pran" writes: > I don't know any law supporting David "that both sides get the worst of it." If the Director is not called when attention is drawn to an irregularity, then both sides have committed an infraction in not calling the Director, and thus any subsequent ruling treats both sides as offending. Thus, for example, if the score is adjusted, it is adjusted to the worst score that is at all probable for both sides, and if an artificial score is necessary, both sides get average-minus. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 6 09:31:20 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:31:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> Message-ID: <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> > David Grabiner > "Sven Pran" writes: > > > I don't know any law supporting David "that both sides get the worst of it." > > If the Director is not called when attention is drawn to an irregularity, then > both sides have committed an infraction in not calling the Director, and thus > any subsequent ruling treats both sides as offending. Thus, for example, if the > score is adjusted, it is adjusted to the worst score that is at all probable for > both sides, and if an artificial score is necessary, both sides get average-minus. [Sven Pran] You should use the current law book and not try to apply laws that are extinct. (Read carefully the comment from Richard) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 6 13:41:15 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:41:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 03:31:20 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> David Grabiner >> "Sven Pran" writes: >> >> > I don't know any law supporting David "that both sides get the worst >> of > it." >> >> If the Director is not called when attention is drawn to an >> irregularity, > then >> both sides have committed an infraction in not calling the Director, and > thus >> any subsequent ruling treats both sides as offending. Thus, for >> example, > if the >> score is adjusted, it is adjusted to the worst score that is at all > probable for >> both sides, and if an artificial score is necessary, both sides get > average-minus. > > [Sven Pran] > You should use the current law book and not try to apply laws that are > extinct. The original question was, is there some set procedure to use when the director is not called. I actually like David's answer. I like Sven's answer and I liked Tony's answer. But they were different. The answer just let them play has the problem that one side might have gained substantially from not calling the director. If that side was the experienced side, that is not an attractive ruling. The answer give them the worst of the plausible outcomes has the potential problem that the subsequent play might have been relevant. In this example, the player is guessing that his partner meant 3 Diamonds as Cappelletti. But he could be wrong. (And they could be calling me at the end of the hand for an irregularity in the middle of the hand. So, it seems, the director is faced with a problem he shouldn't have. He should do something plausible, but that seems to be the only restriction. And I like the attitude in "If the Director should take any action at all it should be to impose a procedural penalty, at least to the side (E-W) that subsequently wants some TD action, possibly to both sides." The players have no right to complain about a plausible ruling. > (Read carefully the comment from Richard) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 6 14:54:07 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:54:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> Message-ID: <51B0866F.40300@skynet.be> There is one thing I don't like about one possibility Robert mentions: Robert Frick schreef: > > And I like the attitude in "If the Director should take any action at all > it should be to impose a > procedural penalty, at least to the side (E-W) that subsequently wants some > TD action, possibly to both sides." The players have no right to complain > about a plausible ruling. > Imposing a procedural penalty for something that the players do very often, but only when the director is later called for something else, is not a good way to go. This discourages the second director call, which might be still valid after all. Saying "you should have called me earlier, now I can't help you any more", OTOH, has the advantage of encouraging such further calls. which is what we want, isn't it ? (well apart from some lazy directors). Herman. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 6 15:38:28 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:38:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <51B0866F.40300@skynet.be> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B0866F.40300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901ce62bb$209eaf80$61dc0e80$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > There is one thing I don't like about one possibility Robert mentions: > > Robert Frick schreef: > > > > And I like the attitude in "If the Director should take any action at > > all it should be to impose a procedural penalty, at least to the side > > (E-W) that subsequently wants some TD action, possibly to both sides." > > The players have no right to complain about a plausible ruling. > > > > Imposing a procedural penalty for something that the players do very often, but > only when the director is later called for something else, is not a good way to > go. This discourages the second director call, which might be still valid after all. > > Saying "you should have called me earlier, now I can't help you any more", > OTOH, has the advantage of encouraging such further calls. which is what we > want, isn't it ? (well apart from some lazy directors). > > Herman. [Sven Pran] I have a strong feeling that you misread my statement: "If the Director should take any action at all it should be to impose a procedural penalty, at least to the side (E-W) that subsequently wants some TD action, possibly to both sides." (Yes, it was originally my statement.) It was not a question of the director being later called for something else, it was about the players first sorting out an irregularity on their own, and then later calling the director (probably) because of some unexpected aspect of the same irregularity. And I didn't suggest a more or less automatic PP in such cases. What I stated was that _IF_ the director should take any action at all in such cases it should be imposing PP(s). I have not changed my opinion on this matter. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 7 06:35:11 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 04:35:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Ike summons the Director [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9543EB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Adam Wildavsky quoted a Truscott anecdote about Dwight ("Ike") Eisenhower: Here's an excerpt from Alan and Dorothy Truscott's just published "New York Times Bridge Book": In 1948 the former commander of the invading armies in Europe had a non- military job for the first time in his life: president of Columbia University. This undemanding assignment in Manhattan suited him well, because he could go to his office in the morning and play bridge at his club in the afternoon. One day he was at the card table and was told by a club servant that he was wanted on the telephone. He was not at all pleased at being disturbed, and grumbled off. He returned looking black, and his young partner, Dan Caulkins, dared to ask what the story was. "Who was that?" "It was the President." (Truman) "What did he want?" "He wants me to go to Paris as head of NATO." "Will you go?" With a shrug, "If the President says go you go." "Who will you take as your number two?" "Well, I ought to take Bedell Smith. But I think I'll take Gruenther because he's a better bridge player." Adam Wildavsky, blml 2002: So where's the relevance to BLML? This is the same Al Gruenther known to bridge historians as the referee for the Culbertson-Lenz match 71 years ago. 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/20130607/c03ab4f7/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 7 10:42:34 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:42:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <000901ce62bb$209eaf80$61dc0e80$@online.no> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B0866F.40300@skynet.be> <000901ce62bb$209eaf80$61dc0e80$@online.no> Message-ID: <51B19CFA.5030707@skynet.be> Sven, I was noet reacting to your post, but to the next one, which DID say that the PP should be given. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael >> There is one thing I don't like about one possibility Robert mentions: >> >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> >>> And I like the attitude in "If the Director should take any action at >>> all it should be to impose a procedural penalty, at least to the side >>> (E-W) that subsequently wants some TD action, possibly to both sides." >>> The players have no right to complain about a plausible ruling. >>> >> >> Imposing a procedural penalty for something that the players do very > often, but >> only when the director is later called for something else, is not a good > way to >> go. This discourages the second director call, which might be still valid > after all. >> >> Saying "you should have called me earlier, now I can't help you any more", >> OTOH, has the advantage of encouraging such further calls. which is what > we >> want, isn't it ? (well apart from some lazy directors). >> >> Herman. > > [Sven Pran] > I have a strong feeling that you misread my statement: "If the Director > should take any action at all it should be to impose a procedural penalty, > at least to the side (E-W) that subsequently wants some TD action, possibly > to both sides." (Yes, it was originally my statement.) > > It was not a question of the director being later called for something else, > it was about the players first sorting out an irregularity on their own, and > then later calling the director (probably) because of some unexpected aspect > of the same irregularity. > > And I didn't suggest a more or less automatic PP in such cases. What I > stated was that _IF_ the director should take any action at all in such > cases it should be imposing PP(s). > > I have not changed my opinion on this matter. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3199/6390 - Release Date: 06/06/13 > > From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 7 21:08:36 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:08:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> Message-ID: <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> On 2013-06-06 7:41 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > The original question was, is there some set procedure to use when the > director is not called. I'm afraid not. The procedure depends on what the prior problem was. The one Law that always applies is 9B1a, so you always have the option of going to L12A1 to restore equity. Also see L23. In the case of this thread, the original infraction was handled by the players in accord with L25B1. That's OK -- you would have allowed that if you had been called -- but L16D still applies (per L25B3). The one wrinkle is that you won't (by L12A1) let EW benefit from their failure to have called you earlier. This requires you to judge whether South would have acted differently if he had been warned about UI. South, though, is probably stuck with whatever he did. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 7 22:45:47 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 22:45:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001201ce63bf$fd676c40$f83644c0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2013-06-06 7:41 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > The original question was, is there some set procedure to use when the > > director is not called. > > I'm afraid not. The procedure depends on what the prior problem was. > The one Law that always applies is 9B1a, so you always have the option of > going to L12A1 to restore equity. Also see L23. > > In the case of this thread, the original infraction was handled by the players in > accord with L25B1. That's OK -- you would have allowed that if you had been > called -- but L16D still applies (per L25B3). The one wrinkle is that you won't (by > L12A1) let EW benefit from their failure to have called you earlier. This requires > you to judge whether South would have acted differently if he had been warned > about UI. South, though, is probably stuck with whatever he did. [Sven Pran] I don't think that the director should apply any Law 16D rectification here. Law 11A says: The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. And as North and South have not been informed of possible Law 16D rectifications in this situation the director should obey Law 11A and rule that the right to such rectification has been forfeited as dictated in the second part of this law. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 8 01:48:56 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 19:48:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:08:36 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-06-06 7:41 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> The original question was, is there some set procedure to use when the >> director is not called. > > I'm afraid not. The procedure depends on what the prior problem was. > The one Law that always applies is 9B1a, so you always have the option > of going to L12A1 to restore equity. Also see L23. > > In the case of this thread, the original infraction was handled by the > players in accord with L25B1. That's OK -- you would have allowed that > if you had been called -- but L16D still applies (per L25B3). The one > wrinkle is that you won't (by L12A1) let EW benefit from their failure > to have called you earlier. This requires you to judge whether South > would have acted differently if he had been warned about UI. South, > though, is probably stuck with whatever he did. At the table, I just let them play. Part of the reason was that I was not sure 3H was the right call. In fact, I would not have allowed a 3D nonbarring replacement. 2D was meant as Cappelletti. It is not clear what their system is over an opening 2NT, but it's probably natural. South certainly would not have made a replacement bid of a barring 3D. And of course it is odd for EW to allow a nonbarring 3D and then complain when his partner bids. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 8 23:50:36 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:50:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51B3A72C.5070903@nhcc.net> On 2013-06-07 7:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > And of course it is odd for EW to allow a nonbarring 3D and then complain > when his partner bids. Doesn't seem odd to me. If EW want a normal result on the board -- maybe they are already way in the lead -- accepting the replacement bid under L25B is normal. However, that doesn't mean they have to accept that NS use UI from the withdrawn 2D IB. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 9 09:11:32 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 09:11:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <51B3A72C.5070903@nhcc.net> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> <51B3A72C.5070903@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000701ce64e0$935f95d0$ba1ec170$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2013-06-07 7:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > And of course it is odd for EW to allow a nonbarring 3D and then > > complain when his partner bids. > > Doesn't seem odd to me. If EW want a normal result on the board -- maybe > they are already way in the lead -- accepting the replacement bid under L25B is > normal. However, that doesn't mean they have to accept that NS use UI from > the withdrawn 2D IB. [Sven Pran] Failing to call the director implies that they accept it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 9 22:17:14 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 16:17:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: <000701ce64e0$935f95d0$ba1ec170$@online.no> References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> <51B3A72C.5070903@nhcc.net> <000701ce64e0$935f95d0$ba1ec170$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 03:11:32 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Steve Willner >> On 2013-06-07 7:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > And of course it is odd for EW to allow a nonbarring 3D and then >> > complain when his partner bids. >> >> Doesn't seem odd to me. If EW want a normal result on the board -- >> maybe >> they are already way in the lead -- accepting the replacement bid under > L25B is >> normal. However, that doesn't mean they have to accept that NS use UI > from >> the withdrawn 2D IB. Hi Steve. I think the table was making an L27B1(c) correction. It is called "making the bid sufficient". I see it a lot now, I think it is the hoi polloi synthesis for L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). In this method, a 2D bid is corrected to 3D (sufficient) and partner is barred and it does not matter what the bids mean. I think you might be right, UI cannot be used for L27B1(c) corrections. I am just used to the UI laws not applying to insufficient bids. Right, EW were following a good strategy to allow North to correct to a bid his partner would be forced to understand. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 9 23:33:29 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:33:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] not calling the director In-Reply-To: References: <000001ce61a5$af86d3b0$0e947b10$@optusnet.com.au> <000901ce61c1$23552c90$69ff85b0$@online.no> <9A6A1EE420F04AD59615C987C2E6DD58@erdos> <001d01ce6287$d756f3b0$8604db10$@online.no> <51B22FB4.5040904@nhcc.net> <51B3A72C.5070903@nhcc.net> <000701ce64e0$935f95d0$ba1ec170$@online.no> Message-ID: <001801ce6558$fc1ab820$f4502860$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 03:11:32 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: [Sven Pran] I most certainly did not write any of the text below! Please be more careful with your (alleged) quotations! > > > Steve Willner > >> On 2013-06-07 7:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> > And of course it is odd for EW to allow a nonbarring 3D and then > >> > complain when his partner bids. > >> > >> Doesn't seem odd to me. If EW want a normal result on the board -- > >> maybe they are already way in the lead -- accepting the replacement > >> bid under > > L25B is > >> normal. However, that doesn't mean they have to accept that NS use > >> UI > > from > >> the withdrawn 2D IB. > > Hi Steve. I think the table was making an L27B1(c) correction. It is called > "making the bid sufficient". I see it a lot now, I think it is the hoi polloi synthesis > for L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). In this method, a 2D bid is corrected to 3D > (sufficient) and partner is barred and it does not matter what the bids mean. > > I think you might be right, UI cannot be used for L27B1(c) corrections. I am just > used to the UI laws not applying to insufficient bids. Right, EW were following a > good strategy to allow North to correct to a bid his partner would be forced to > understand. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 17 00:05:41 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:05:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] your opinions? In-Reply-To: <516577A0.5030903@ulb.ac.be> References: <516548F5.2070302@aol.com> <516577A0.5030903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 10/04/2013 13:11, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : >> Following bidding: >> >> 1sp pass 2he dbl* >> and continuation arriving at 4 spades. >> >> *for minors, at least 4-4. >> >> Lead of a trump and at the third trick when the opening leader is again >> on lead his partner says: "I doubled hearts." >> >> Aside from scolding (warning, penalising his partner for the comment) do >> you take any other action regarding the lead to the next trick? > > At this very moment there is nothing to do but take notice of the > remark, which constitutes blatant UI. No one law allows me to force / > disallow a lead (L12 : I may not invent penalties). > > > If opening leader plays a Heart and partner ruffs, or if he plays a > minor and it works, the score will almost surely be adjusted. > If he leads a trump, or if he leads a minor while not having any more > trumps, no penalty, but a PP and a lecture on information are necessary. If the director is called to the table at the time the remark is made, he should inform the remarker's partner that he has unauthorized information and must refrain from basing any subsequent action (not just the lead on this trick) on that information, and that if, after the play, he is judged to have so based a play, the score may be adjusted. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 17 02:34:31 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:34:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Apr 27, 2013, at 6:16 AM, ton wrote: > An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - IOW when both UI and AI tell you something, you still have to treat it as UI. Or are you saying that the legal auction leaves no LA to whatever it is South now bids? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130617/f1279fe5/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 17 03:40:42 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:40:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <55B5B8AA6A15461EBBFC496D7E48A370@erdos> UI must be considered in the context of the AI you already have. If the UI duplicates information you already have from the AI, then the UI adds no restrictions. For example: South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Since the AI alone indicates that South forgot the transfer, the UI cannot suggest anything. Another example: 1S-(3H)-4H-(5H)-..P The slow pass is UI, indicating doubt, but on this auction, the pass is forcing, and a forcing pass also indicates doubt as to whether the right action is double or 5S. The UI does not suggest one call over another, given the AI. In the example you gave here, the UI does not duplicate the AI. If North had explained 2H as natural, 2S could be a game try with a hand like xx KQJx AQx AJxx (or switch the black suits if the game try is made in the long side suit). ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness On Apr 27, 2013, at 6:16 AM, ton wrote: An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - IOW when both UI and AI tell you something, you still have to treat it as UI. Or are you saying that the legal auction leaves no LA to whatever it is South now bids? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20130617/7ae95e36/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 17 03:55:06 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:55:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <55B5B8AA6A15461EBBFC496D7E48A370@erdos> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <55B5B8AA6A15461! EBBFC496D7E48A370@erdos > Message-ID: <001501ce6afd$b0f3c940$12db5bc0$@online.no> Generally: Even if the UI duplicates information available from AI the UI still serves as a reminder or an enhancement and must be considered as such. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av David Grabiner Sendt: 17. juni 2013 03:41 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness UI must be considered in the context of the AI you already have. If the UI duplicates information you already have from the AI, then the UI adds no restrictions. For example: South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Since the AI alone indicates that South forgot the transfer, the UI cannot suggest anything. Another example: 1S-(3H)-4H-(5H)-..P The slow pass is UI, indicating doubt, but on this auction, the pass is forcing, and a forcing pass also indicates doubt as to whether the right action is double or 5S. The UI does not suggest one call over another, given the AI. In the example you gave here, the UI does not duplicate the AI. If North had explained 2H as natural, 2S could be a game try with a hand like xx KQJx AQx AJxx (or switch the black suits if the game try is made in the long side suit). ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness On Apr 27, 2013, at 6:16 AM, ton wrote: An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - IOW when both UI and AI tell you something, you still have to treat it as UI. Or are you saying that the legal auction leaves no LA to whatever it is South now bids? _____ _______________________________________________ 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/20130617/1c7cbffb/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jun 17 08:36:10 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:36:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] IMP scoring Message-ID: <000601ce6b24$f4a8a210$ddf9e630$@optusnet.com.au> Congratulations to the WBF for producing a continuous mapping from IMPs to VPs in teams matches. Now each IMP difference will translate into a different VP result, probably eliminating the embarrassing splitting of tied results. Next, I would like a similar continuous scoring regime in the raw score to IMP conversion. I know it is rather nitpicking, but if I run a Howell with cross IMP scoring, I want the total of scores to be as near zero as possible. I use Herman DeWael's Bastille system in my own programs. This achieves this desideradum quite closely, but I am slightly worried that it might be only quasi-legal. I know that in Australia "Swiss Pairs" competitions are typically scored with IMPs versus a datum which I suspect is Butler obtained, and then rounded to the nearest 10, with 5 rounded up. I hate this, but it is said the punters like it as they can compare their scores against the datum more easily. Does anyone know how they do the IMP scoring on BBO? It seems to be some sort of cross-imped result and averaged by the number of comparisons. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 09:13:52 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:13:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] IMP scoring In-Reply-To: <000601ce6b24$f4a8a210$ddf9e630$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601ce6b24$f4a8a210$ddf9e630$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <51BEB730.10707@gmail.com> On 06/17/2013 02:36 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > Does anyone know how they do the IMP scoring on BBO? It > seems to be some sort of cross-imped result and averaged > by the number of comparisons. > That's my belief too, but if you want the definitive answer, ask Fred Gitelman or Uday Ivatury - they wrote the software! Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 17 17:11:10 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:11:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/06/2013 2:34, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > On Apr 27, 2013, at 6:16 AM, ton > wrote: > >> An example: 1D -- 1NT pass -- 2H 2H is alerted by North and >> explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to >> accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So >> South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his >> bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. > > Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - AG :iI beg to differ. If you explain that partne's bid shows all four aces, partner says 'oops' and RHO says 'it's impossible', you are allowe dto know that partner erred. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130617/92ae89fe/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jun 17 17:52:35 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:52:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no><003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no><000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no><003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no><5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net><000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no><51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3> [ton] An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. [Ed Reppert] Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - [Alain Gottcheiner] I beg to differ. If you explain that partner's bid shows all four aces, partner says 'oops' and RHO says 'it's impossible', you are allowe dto know that partner erred. [Nigel] Most Bridge players interpret the law the same way as ton and Alain; nevertheless, IMO, Ed is right and, even in Alain's extreme example, in spite of the AI from an opponent, you may not take advantage of the UI from partner. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 18 00:33:27 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:33:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] your opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954E06@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ed Reppert: >If the director is called to the table at the time the remark is made, he >should inform the remarker's partner that he has unauthorized >information and must refrain from basing any subsequent action (not >just the lead on this trick) on that information, and that if, after the >play, he is judged to have so based a play, the score may be adjusted. Richard Hills quibble: If the Director(1) is called to the table at the time that the remark is made, she should inform the remarker's partner that the partner has received unauthorized information. The Director should advise the partner that Law 73C requires the partner to carefully avoid taking any advantage from that un- authorized information. The Director should also note that selecting a play that the partner would "always have selected" (hence not based upon the unauthorized information) might nevertheless be unLawful. The Laws require the partner to listen to the unauthorized information, then take the contra- indicated play.(2) Best wishes, Richard Hills (1) Throughout the Lawbook "director" is written as "Director", a capitalisation meant to emphasise that she is the authority in charge. (2) If and only if a contra-indicated play 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." (Law 16B1(b)) 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/20130617/8a71c456/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jun 18 01:20:43 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:20:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3> Message-ID: <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> > [ton] > An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and > explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept > that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not > need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, > the legal action tells him the same. > > [Ed Reppert] > Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > I beg to differ. If you explain that partner's bid shows all four aces, > partner says 'oops' and RHO says 'it's impossible', you are allowe dto know > that partner erred. > > [Nigel] > Most Bridge players interpret the law the same way as ton and Alain; > nevertheless, IMO, Ed is right and, even in Alain's extreme example, in > spite of the AI from an opponent, you may not take advantage of the UI from > partner. And I believe that if the UI gives you no new information, there is no way to take advantage of it. The actions which are demonstrably suggested by UI, and the logical alternatives, are viewed in the context of the other information you already have. In one of Kaplan's "Appeals Committee" articles, West leads a doubleton club, and East hesitates and plays low; this gives UI to West that East probably holds the ace. But if East hesitates and then plays the C9 (standard signals), West already has the AI that East wants the suit led again, and thus West is allowed to lead another club; he has no logical alternative to obeying his partner's signal. Or take my previous example. South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Treating 5D as a cue-bid is not a logical alternative. For that matter, partner's questions are UI. If partner asks what a bid means, you may have UI that partner has interest in the suit. But if partner asks what a bid means, is told it is artificial, and then doubles the bid, you have AI which duplicates the UI; partner's double confirms that he wants you to lead the suit, and you should be allowed to lead the suit despite the UI. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 18 01:59:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:59:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954F6B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner: >..... >Or take my previous example. South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and >South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North >knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Treating 5D as >a cue-bid is not a logical alternative. >..... Richard Hills: No, in my opinion, that is the wrong approach to Law 75A. Rather, in my opinion, North is required by Law 75A to assume that the auction has proceeded as follows: 1) South opens 1NT 2) North bids 4D 3) In a Lawful parallel universe South alerted 4D 4) In a Lawful parallel universe West enquired about 4D 5) In a Lawful parallel universe South explained "transfer to spades with some slam interest" 6) In both universes South bids 5D There are several possible explanations for South's 5D cuebid once the demonstrably-suggested-by-UI amnesia explanation is omitted. Two logical alternative possibilities (amongst many, note that The Master Solvers Club panel are famous for choosing undiscussed calls which they then misunderstand when given the other half of the problem some years later): a) South is choosing a where-I-live cuebid of 5D with a suit of KQJx, b) South is choosing a fake cuebid of 5D with a suit of xxx to deter an opponent's killing lead. What's the problem? The problem is that assuming 5D is necessarily showing an attempted signoff lacks necessary parallel imagination. 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/20130617/d7c03b4a/attachment.html From nnthadani at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 06:32:58 2013 From: nnthadani at gmail.com (Narain Thadani) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:02:58 +0530 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954F6B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954F6B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Please delete me from your mailing list. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > David Grabiner: > > >..... > >Or take my previous example. South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and > >South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North > >knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Treating 5D as > >a cue-bid is not a logical alternative. > >..... > > Richard Hills: > > No, in my opinion, that is the wrong approach to Law 75A. > > Rather, in my opinion, North is required by Law 75A to assume that > the auction has proceeded as follows: > > 1) South opens 1NT > 2) North bids 4D > 3) In a Lawful parallel universe South alerted 4D > 4) In a Lawful parallel universe West enquired about 4D > 5) In a Lawful parallel universe South explained ?transfer to spades > with some slam interest? > 6) In both universes South bids 5D > > There are several possible explanations for South?s 5D cuebid once > the demonstrably-suggested-by-UI amnesia explanation is omitted. > Two logical alternative possibilities (amongst many, note that The > Master Solvers Club panel are famous for choosing undiscussed > calls which they then misunderstand when given the other half of > the problem some years later): > > a) South is choosing a where-I-live cuebid of 5D with a suit of KQJx, > b) South is choosing a fake cuebid of 5D with a suit of xxx to deter > an opponent?s killing lead. > > What?s the problem? The problem is that assuming 5D is *necessarily* > showing an attempted signoff lacks *necessary* parallel imagination. > > 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/20130618/1e80db95/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 18 08:04:32 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:04:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954F6B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:32:58 -0400, Narain Thadani wrote: > Please delete me from your mailing list. > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Richard HILLS > wrote: > >> UNOFFICIAL >> >> David Grabiner: >> >> >..... >> >Or take my previous example. South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and >> >South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North >> >knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Treating 5D as >> >a cue-bid is not a logical alternative. >> >..... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No, in my opinion, that is the wrong approach to Law 75A. >> >> Rather, in my opinion, North is required by Law 75A to assume that >> the auction has proceeded as follows: >> >> 1) South opens 1NT >> 2) North bids 4D >> 3) In a Lawful parallel universe South alerted 4D To ask what is a logical alternative, you of course describe the auction without the UI. I think you are not supposed to add in Mistaken information. Put another way, you would describe the auction as if it occurred behind screens. In this example, you ask what the player would have bid over a 5D response. You do not ask what he would have bid with an alert, correction explanation, and then a 5D response. >> 4) In a Lawful parallel universe West enquired about 4D >> 5) In a Lawful parallel universe South explained ?transfer to spades >> with some slam interest? >> 6) In both universes South bids 5D >> >> There are several possible explanations for South?s 5D cuebid once >> the demonstrably-suggested-by-UI amnesia explanation is omitted. >> Two logical alternative possibilities (amongst many, note that The >> Master Solvers Club panel are famous for choosing undiscussed >> calls which they then misunderstand when given the other half of >> the problem some years later): >> >> a) South is choosing a where-I-live cuebid of 5D with a suit of KQJx, >> b) South is choosing a fake cuebid of 5D with a suit of xxx to deter >> an opponent?s killing lead. >> >> What?s the problem? The problem is that assuming 5D is *necessarily* >> showing an attempted signoff lacks *necessary* parallel imagination. >> >> 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 >> >> -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jun 18 12:42:21 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:42:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105 @ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> An example: 1D - 1NT pass - 2H 2H is alerted by North and explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - ton: I am not aware of that principle, it is not in the laws. So using your metaphor, we play no trump. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130618/5a79bdf9/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 18 15:23:22 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:23:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] IMP scoring In-Reply-To: <000601ce6b24$f4a8a210$ddf9e630$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601ce6b24$f4a8a210$ddf9e630$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <51C05F4A.9010104@nhcc.net> On 2013-06-17 2:36 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Congratulations to the WBF for producing a continuous > mapping from IMPs to VPs in teams matches. Isn't it the Bethe scale, which has been used in a few ACBL events for several years now? Does anyone have the full formula? I think Henry gave it here on BLML some years ago, but when I looked in the archives, I couldn't find it. > Next, I would like a similar continuous scoring regime in > the raw score to IMP conversion. I know it is rather > nitpicking, but if I run a Howell with cross IMP > scoring, I want the total of scores to be as near zero > as possible. ??? If you use cross-IMPs, the scores are zero on each board for both NS and EW separately (and of course in total). Why do you need fractional IMPs? Every score difference is a multiple of 10 points. > I use Herman DeWael's Bastille system > ... but I am slightly worried that it might > be only quasi-legal. My first thought was that L78D allows whatever you want, but it actually says (in part) "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted." So I agree there's some worry about legality. In the ACBL, the practical rule is that clubs can do whatever they want, but I don't know about elsewhere. Bastille is only needed, though, if you are scoring against a datum. It solves the worst problem of datum scoring but not all problems. > Does anyone know how they do the IMP scoring on BBO? It > seems to be some sort of cross-imped result and averaged > by the number of comparisons. I think you are right. If you believe in Neuberg, the divisor should be number of results (i.e., one more than number of comparisons), but for some reason nobody does it that way. Of course if won't matter if all boards are played the same number of times, and it's a small difference regardless, but why not do it right or at least consistently with matchpoints? Dividing by comparisons is equivalent to factoring matchpoints. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 18 16:12:16 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:12:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3> <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> Message-ID: <51C06AC0.60003@ulb.ac.be> L Or take my previous example. South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Treating 5D as a cue-bid is not a logical alternative. For that matter, partner's questions are UI. If partner asks what a bid means, you may have UI that partner has interest in the suit. But if partner asks what a bid means, is told it is artificial, and then doubles the bid, you have AI which duplicates the UI; partner's double confirms that he wants you to lead the suit, and you should be allowed to lead the suit despite the UI. _____________________________________________ One should always be careful not to rationalize in the way which is suggested by UI, into believing that there is AI too. For example, partner opens 2S, a transfer-preempt in clubs. You alert and bid 3C. Now, partner reacts to your alert, then bids 3S. You have UI that he didn't intend 2S as artifiical. Upon seeing the 3S bid, you conclude that there is AI from the "impossible" 3S bid, which matches UI, and therefore you're allowed to understand the problem. This you aren't allowed to do, because partner could well have chosen this sequence to show Kxx - x - x - AQJxxxxx, and you now have UI that this second case is excluded. BTW, this was the hand when this sequence arose a few weeks ago. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 18 16:14:41 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:14:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954F6B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954F6B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51C06B51.1030004@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/06/2013 1:59, Richard HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > David Grabiner: > >..... > >Or take my previous example. South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and > >South fails to alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North > >knows is not a cue-bid because he holds the DA (AI). Treating 5D as > >a cue-bid is not a logical alternative. > >..... > Richard Hills: > No, in my opinion, that is the wrong approach to Law 75A. > Rather, in my opinion, North is required by Law 75A to assume that > the auction has proceeded as follows: > 1) South opens 1NT > 2) North bids 4D > 3) In a Lawful parallel universe South alerted 4D > 4) In a Lawful parallel universe West enquired about 4D > 5) In a Lawful parallel universe South explained "transfer to spades > with some slam interest" > 6) In both universes South bids 5D > There are several possible explanations for South's 5D cuebid once > the demonstrably-suggested-by-UI amnesia explanation is omitted. > Two logical alternative possibilities (amongst many, note that The > Master Solvers Club panel are famous for choosing undiscussed > calls which they then misunderstand when given the other half of > the problem some years later): > a) South is choosing a where-I-live cuebid of 5D with a suit of KQJx, > b) South is choosing a fake cuebid of 5D with a suit of xxx to deter > an opponent's killing lead. > What's the problem? The problem is that assuming 5D is /necessarily/ > showing an attempted signoff lacks /necessary/ parallel imagination. Very similar to my example, I'd say. Alternative explanations are possible, even is far-fetched, and have been eliminated by the UI. However, if 4D denied any slam interest, it could be different. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130618/2cdcf8ad/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 18 16:31:55 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:31:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3> <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> Message-ID: <51C06F5B.2010403@starpower.net> On 6/17/2013 7:20 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> [ton] >> An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and >> explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept >> that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not >> need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, >> the legal action tells him the same. >> >> [Ed Reppert] >> Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - >> >> [Alain Gottcheiner] >> I beg to differ. If you explain that partner's bid shows all four aces, >> partner says 'oops' and RHO says 'it's impossible', you are allowe dto know >> that partner erred. >> >> [Nigel] >> Most Bridge players interpret the law the same way as ton and Alain; >> nevertheless, IMO, Ed is right and, even in Alain's extreme example, in >> spite of the AI from an opponent, you may not take advantage of the UI from >> partner. > > And I believe that if the UI gives you no new information, there is no way to > take advantage of it. The actions which are demonstrably suggested by UI, and > the logical alternatives, are viewed in the context of the other information you > already have. In one of Kaplan's "Appeals Committee" articles, West leads a > doubleton club, and East hesitates and plays low; this gives UI to West that > East probably holds the ace. But if East hesitates and then plays the C9 > (standard signals), West already has the AI that East wants the suit led again, > and thus West is allowed to lead another club; he has no logical alternative to > obeying his partner's signal. > > Or take my previous example. South opens 1NT, North bids 4D, and South fails to > alert the transfer (UI) but then bids 5D, which North knows is not a cue-bid > because he holds the DA (AI). Treating 5D as a cue-bid is not a logical > alternative. > > For that matter, partner's questions are UI. If partner asks what a bid means, > you may have UI that partner has interest in the suit. But if partner asks what > a bid means, is told it is artificial, and then doubles the bid, you have AI > which duplicates the UI; partner's double confirms that he wants you to lead the > suit, and you should be allowed to lead the suit despite the UI. For that matter, partner's required disclosure is sometimes UI. You make a call, the opponents inquire as to its meaning, and partner replies ("makes available to his partner extraneous information... as for example by... a reply to a question" [L16B1]) in a manner that exactly matches the meaning of your call as you intended it. (Note that L16B1 uses the word "unexpected" only in relation to alerts or failures to alert). Does that UI "trump" the AI available from your prior knowledge of your partnership understandings? Are you now obliged to conduct the rest of the auction as though you were uncertain whether partner understood your call? -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Jun 18 16:40:33 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:40:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <\"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN\"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105 @ulb.ac.be> <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Am 18.06.2013, 12:42 Uhr, schrieb ton : > > > > > > An example: 1D - 1NT pass - 2H 2H is alerted by North and > explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to > accept > that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does > not > need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, > the legal action tells him the same. > > > Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - > > > > > > ton: > > I am not aware of that principle, it is not in the laws. So using your > metaphor, we play no trump. > I suppose it is a - possible - interpretation of L16A1a: 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) (* and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source *) ; I understand this to mean that the AI must be a subset of the UI in order not to be affected, but there seem to be others with a different interpretation of this sentence. Regards, Petrus From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 18 17:21:37 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:21:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51C06F5B.2010403@starpower.net> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3> <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> <51C06F5B.2010403@starpower.net> Message-ID: <51C07B01.8070303@nhcc.net> On 2013-06-18 10:31 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > You make a call, the opponents inquire as to its meaning, and partner > replies ("makes available to his partner extraneous information... as > for example by... a reply to a question" [L16B1]) in a manner that > exactly matches the meaning of your call as you intended it. ... > Are you now obliged to conduct the rest of the auction as though you > were uncertain whether partner understood your call? Technically probably yes. In practice, no one plays that way. "Rubens School," anyone? From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jun 18 17:27:42 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:27:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: References: <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <\"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN\"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105 @ulb.ac.be> <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <003b01ce6c38$60ba6600$222f3200$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Am 18.06.2013, 12:42 Uhr, schrieb ton : > > > > > > An example: 1D - 1NT pass - 2H 2H is alerted by North and > explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to > accept > that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does > not > need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a > transfer, the legal action tells him the same. > > > Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - > > > > > > ton: > > I am not aware of that principle, it is not in the laws. So using > your metaphor, we play no trump. > I suppose it is a - possible - interpretation of L16A1a: 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) (* and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source *) ; I understand this to mean that the AI must be a subset of the UI in order not to be affected, but there seem to be others with a different interpretation of this sentence. Regards, Petrus ton: very good Petrus. The reason this didn't cross my mind is that I don't understand what 'we' wrote there. I don't see how such a restriction should be interpreted. I bid 1H and our CC tells this shows a five card but my partner explains it as showing spades. Did we wrote down that I may not use the information that it shows a 5card hearts anymore? Somewhere else in L16 it tells me that I may not use my partner's explanation. We have to clarify this. The problem is that such addition is suggested by somebody and that it sounds so sophisticated that everyone applauses and nobody seems to ask what it really means. Even I didn't, brrrrr From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jun 18 17:33:05 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:33:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <51C06F5B.2010403@starpower.net> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl><51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3><07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> <51C06F5B.2010403@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8B7353DA4B4544E7AB8382ADAA290FEA@G3> [Eric Landau] For that matter, partner's required disclosure is sometimes UI. You make a call, the opponents inquire as to its meaning, and partner replies ("makes available to his partner extraneous information... as for example by... a reply to a question" [L16B1]) in a manner that exactly matches the meaning of your call as you intended it. (Note that L16B1 uses the word "unexpected" only in relation to alerts or failures to alert). Does that UI "trump" the AI available from your prior knowledge of your partnership understandings? Are you now obliged to conduct the rest of the auction as though you were uncertain whether partner understood your call? [Nige1] In practice, Eric is right. I have never known an opponent refuse to take advantage of such information. Very few players could even perform the required mental gymnastics. Sensible, pragmatic commentators, like Jeff Rubens feel that such information should be authorised to all. In theory, however, I think the *current law* stipulates that you remain confused :( From gampas at aol.com Tue Jun 18 22:00:32 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:00:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F954F6B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <8D03A759F88D60C-1418-1E3C9@webmail-m284.sysops.aol.com> [Paul Lamford] Some interesting examples of "impossible" bids from BLML members. As Ton points out there is no Law that UI trumps AI, but there is 73C which says that one must carefully avoid taking *any* advantage of the UI (my emphasis). Therefore if the AI tells us that the *only* possibility is that we have misbid, we are "free agents". An example might be (uncontested): 2NT-3NT-4D. I would now recall, from the auction alone, that I had agreed, as I do with most partners, to play 3NT as Baron, and the UI (of an alert or explanation) does not make any difference at all to this knowledge. The idea that partner might have opened 2NT with x x KQxxxxxx xxx is too fanciful to contemplate. From gampas at aol.com Tue Jun 18 22:04:10 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <001501ce6afd$b0f3c940$12db5bc0$@online.no> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <55B5B8AA6A15461! EBBFC496D7E48A370@erdos > <001501ce6afd$b0f3c940$12db5bc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <8D03A76213A7708-1418-1E41C@webmail-m284.sysops.aol.com> [Pran] Generally: Even if the UI duplicates information available from AI the UI still serves as a reminder or an enhancement and must be considered as such. [Lamford] Where did you get that from? I am sure the Norwegian version of the Laws must be close enough to the English version, and there is no such requirement. If the information from the AI duplicates that from the UI, then using the AI is not taking any advantage of the UI. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 19 00:16:55 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:16:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F95508F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >>Generally: Even if the UI duplicates information available from AI the >>UI still serves as a reminder or an enhancement and must be considered >>as such. Paul Lamford: >Where did you get that from? I am sure the Norwegian version of the >Laws must be close enough to the English version, and there is no such >requirement. If the information from the AI duplicates that from the UI, >then using the AI is not taking any advantage of the UI. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Paul is misunderstanding the point that Sven is trying to make. Let me give two personal examples. (a) If Hashmat Ali deviates from the Ali-Hills methods, the odds are that Hashmat has unintentional amnesia rather than intentional improvisation. If Hashmat unexpectedly alerts or unexpectedly fails to alert, this confirms the odds-on probability of Hashmat's amnesia as a certainty. (b) If I deviate from the Ali-Hills methods, the odds are that I do NOT have unintentional amnesia, but rather have intentionally psyched. Although my psyches are safe, legal and rare, my misbids are even rarer. (For example, last night Hashmat opened 1H - 10-14hcp and 5+ hearts - and I responded a non-forcing 1S with xx xxx T9xxx xxx, with my -150 in 2S a cheap save versus the opponents scoring 420 in 4S.) If I expectedly alert or expectedly fail to alert, this confirms the odds-on probability of my intentional psyche as a certainty. Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games: "And may the odds be ever in your favour." 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/20130618/b80a0d35/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 19 05:52:48 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:52:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F95513E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >For that matter, partner's required disclosure is sometimes UI. You >make a call, the opponents inquire as to its meaning, and partner >replies ("makes available to his partner extraneous information... as >for example by... a reply to a question" [L16B1]) in a manner that >exactly matches the meaning of your call as you intended it. (Note that >L16B1 uses the word "unexpected" only in relation to alerts or failures >to alert). Does that UI "trump" the AI available from your prior >knowledge of your partnership understandings? Are you now obliged to >conduct the rest of the auction as though you were uncertain whether >partner understood your call? Richard Hills: No way Jose (American clich?). Not as such (Monty Python clich?). Law 75A deals with UI from pard which demonstrates that you two are on different wavelengths about your methods. But when both you and pard have perfectly recalled your pre-existing methods, and pard so explains, then that is AI due to Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." because "extraneous information from partner" is defined by an indicative laundry list of examples in Law 16B1(a). Info from pard telling you to "expect the expected" is missing from that Law 16B1(a) laundry list. 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/20130619/ed6af4dc/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 19 21:08:18 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:08:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <8B7353DA4B4544E7AB8382ADAA290FEA@G3> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl><51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3><07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> <51C06F5B.2010403@starpower.net> <8B7353DA4B4544E7AB8382ADAA290FEA@G3> Message-ID: <1EE18E46-D55F-448B-A067-8300F4647BCE@starpower.net> On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > For that matter, partner's required disclosure is sometimes UI. You > make a call, the opponents inquire as to its meaning, and partner > replies ("makes available to his partner extraneous information... as > for example by... a reply to a question" [L16B1]) in a manner that > exactly matches the meaning of your call as you intended it. (Note that > L16B1 uses the word "unexpected" only in relation to alerts or failures > to alert). Does that UI "trump" the AI available from your prior > knowledge of your partnership understandings? Are you now obliged to > conduct the rest of the auction as though you were uncertain whether > partner understood your call? > > [Nige1] > In practice, Eric is right. I have never known an opponent refuse to take > advantage of such information. Very few players could even perform the > required mental gymnastics. Sensible, pragmatic commentators, like Jeff > Rubens feel that such information should be authorised to all. > > In theory, however, I think the *current law* stipulates that you remain > confused :( That misunderstands my hypothetical. I am not confused. I never was. I made my call fully confident that I knew what it meant and that my partner would understand it. And he did. But he has extraneously verified my confident assumption and informed me that I was right not to be in any way confused or uncertain. And that information is unauthorized. So if "UI trumps AI" in the general case, I am no longer allowed my previous confidence, and must now "bend over backwards" to bid as though I had been uncertain from the start. That doesn't seem right. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Jun 19 22:23:02 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3> <07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos> Message-ID: <204DFE98-438F-48EB-B50D-D3123113C57F@mac.com> On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:20 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The actions which are demonstrably suggested by UI, and > the logical alternatives, are viewed in the context of the other information you > already have. In one of Kaplan's "Appeals Committee" articles, West leads a > doubleton club, and East hesitates and plays low; this gives UI to West that > East probably holds the ace. But if East hesitates and then plays the C9 > (standard signals), West already has the AI that East wants the suit led again, > and thus West is allowed to lead another club; he has no logical alternative to > obeying his partner's signal. I would agree that there are situations where a player in receipt of UI has no logical alternative to the call he wants to make, which even if suggested by the UI is thus not a violation of law. However, I would not agree that a player who has received a positive attitude signal from partner suggesting that he lead a particular suit, necessarily has no logical alternative to leading that suit. For one thing, signals are suggestions, not instructions. It may well be that the player *does* have a logical alternative to leading the suit again, and if so, the provisions of Law 16B preclude him from leading that suit. From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Jun 19 22:32:36 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:32:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <3DEFBDEC-F397-4112-A47A-A72498CC4078@mac.com> On Jun 18, 2013, at 6:42 AM, ton wrote: > > > > An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. > > Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - > > > > ton: > > I am not aware of that principle, it is not in the laws. So using your metaphor, we play no trump. > Heh. What the law says, as I'm sure you know better than I, Ton, is that a player in receipt of UI must make every effort not to take advantage of that UI (Law 73C) and must not choose from among logical alternatives an action suggested by the UI (Law 16B1). There is no mention of AI in either of those laws. Of course, AI may give the player no logical alternative to a "suggested" action* but if there *is* a logical alternative not suggested by the UI, the player may not choose the one suggested. *This is bit of sloppy terminology, because if there is no logical alternative to a particular action, Law 16B1, which speaks of *multiple* alternatives, cannot apply. Nor, IMO can Law 73C. How can doing the *only* thing that makes any sense be considered "taking advantage of UI"? IAC, what "UI trumps AI" means to me is just the above: unless the AI leads to "no logical alternative", the UI laws govern. Do you disagree? If so, please explain the law to me. Use words of one syllable, if you don't mind. :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130619/c95fd80e/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Jun 19 23:04:09 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:04:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <003b01ce6c38$60ba6600$222f3200$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <"\"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN\""@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <"op.wyvppvn 8wsudwc"@ppnote.krm> <003b01ce6c38$60ba6600$222f3200$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:27 AM, ton wrote: > very good Petrus. The reason this didn't cross my mind is that I don't > understand what 'we' wrote there. > > I don't see how such a restriction should be interpreted. I bid 1H and our > CC tells this shows a five card but my partner explains it as showing > spades. Did we wrote down that I may not use the information that it shows > a 5card hearts anymore? Somewhere else in L16 it tells me that I may not use > my partner's explanation. > > We have to clarify this. The problem is that such addition is suggested by > somebody and that it sounds so sophisticated that everyone applauses and > nobody seems to ask what it really means. > > Even I didn't, brrrrr I would suggest to you, Ton, and to your fellow lawmakers, the same thing I would suggest to members of the US Congress, or any other legislative body: If you do not understand a proposal, do not vote to enshrine it in law. "But gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law." -- P.J. Painter From g3 at nige1.com Thu Jun 20 00:00:21 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:00:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <1EE18E46-D55F-448B-A067-8300F4647BCE@starpower.net> References: <51754E42.5000003@aol.com><8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com><"51763381.08b40e0a.7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN"@mx.google.com><002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl><51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be><8235FF749DE2439D9710FF6379CE19B9@G3><07385EF7D1AF47A5870CC5DCCB64498F@erdos><51C06F5B.2010403@starpower.net><8B7353DA4B4544E7AB8382ADAA290FEA@G3> <1EE18E46-D55F-448B-A067-8300F4647BCE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0A78F21BE3B94DD78422C58494F7CE8F@G3> [Eric Landau] That misunderstands my hypothetical. I am not confused. I never was. I made my call fully confident that I knew what it meant and that my partner would understand it. And he did. But he has extraneously verified my confident assumption and informed me that I was right not to be in any way confused or uncertain. And that information is unauthorized. So if "UI trumps AI" in the general case, I am no longer allowed my previous confidence, and must now "bend over backwards" to bid as though I had been uncertain from the start. That doesn't seem right. [Nige1] I apologise, I misread what Eric wrote. Sorry Eric. But players have difficulty understanding this law; and directors find it hard to interpret. Hence, in the general case, I agree with ... [Ed Reppert quoting P.J Painter] "But gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law." -- P.J. Painter [Nige2] IMO the solution is not more sophisticated laws, further obfuscated by obscure minutes. It is radically simpler rules. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 20 00:21:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:21:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F95524E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ed Reppert quoted: >..... >"But gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now >three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask >police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide >by it? > >The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not >be enforced as law." -- P.J. Painter Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe, first verse by the Lord Chancellor: The Law is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, And I, my Lords, embody the Law. Richard Hills: The Director embodies the Law, so those few parts of the Lawbook which are gibberish can be locally interpreted by the Director until a uniform global clarification is promulgated in 2017. What's the problem? The problem is that the Repperts and Guthries of blml are purists, wanting universal consistency. However, individual players at individual tables merely want individual consistency from their individual Director. (For example, if their individual Director illegally awards Average- Plus to offending sides, players want such a pseudo-Director to consistently award Average-Plus to offending sides, not for her to apply favouritism.) 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/20130619/9c98c7f3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 20 00:36:04 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:36:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955283@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ed Reppert: >..... >For one thing, signals are suggestions, not instructions. >..... Richard Hills: No, a spectacular instruction by Howard Schenken has become famous. Defending a suit contract, Howard's partner won a trick and had to immediately make a key decision, either: (a) lead a card through dummy's side-suit king to Howard's known ace, or (b) attempt a trump promotion by continuing the current side-suit. Howard instructed (b) by discarding his ace! 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/20130619/19590c37/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 20 23:27:32 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:27:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness In-Reply-To: <3DEFBDEC-F397-4112-A47A-A72498CC4078@mac.com> References: <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <003c01ce31da$5c6445f0$152cd1d0$@online.no> <5264EC09-7151-44DE-91FA-6D1AD8E5CD26@starpower.net> <000001ce3601$7005f970$5011ec50$@online.no> <51658E23.3040301@skynet.be> <51754E42.5000003@aol.com> <8D00DB6CEB19E84-1978-28848@webmail-d206.sysops.aol.com> <\"51763381.08b40e0a. 7dba.ffffa878SMTPIN_AD DED_BROKEN\"@mx.google.com> <002401ce4330$3785f460$a691dd20$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51BF270E.8080105@ulb.ac.be> <003801ce6c10$8357a9c0$8a06fd40$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> <3DEFBDEC-F397-4112-A47A-A72498CC4078@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:32:36 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 6:42 AM, ton wrote: > >> >> >> >> An example: 1D ? 1NT pass ? 2H 2H is alerted by North and >> explained as a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to >> accept that when 2H is meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So >> South does not need an alert to understand that his partner took his >> bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him the same. >> >> Hm. I thought the principle was "UI trumps AI" - >> >> >> >> ton: >> >> I am not aware of that principle, it is not in the laws. So using your >> metaphor, we play no trump. >> > > Heh. What the law says, as I'm sure you know better than I, Ton, is that > a player in receipt of UI must make every effort not to take advantage > of that UI (Law 73C) and must not choose from among logical alternatives > an action suggested by the UI (Law 16B1). There is no mention of AI in > either of those laws. Try "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." In other words, it is okay to use information that is AI. Of course, AI may give the player no logical > alternative to a "suggested" action* but if there *is* a logical > alternative not suggested by the UI, the player may not choose the one > suggested. > > *This is bit of sloppy terminology, because if there is no logical > alternative to a particular action, Law 16B1, which speaks of *multiple* > alternatives, cannot apply. Nor, IMO can Law 73C. How can doing the > *only* thing that makes any sense be considered "taking advantage of UI"? > > IAC, what "UI trumps AI" means to me is just the above: unless the AI > leads to "no logical alternative", the UI laws govern. Do you disagree? > If so, please explain the law to me. Use words of one syllable, if you > don't mind. :-) -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 21 03:16:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:16:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9554D8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Revised EBU White Book, new clause 93.8 New facts at an Appeal hearing It was necessary to distinguish between the situations where some additional facts were presented at an appeal and where a completely new case emerged. In the first case, where additional facts were presented this was unlikely to constitute a 'new case' and would to be dealt with by the Appeal Committee during the normal course of the appeal. However if substantial new information came to light which might have led to different considerations by the TD then the Appeal Committee could opt for one of two solutions: (a) They could ask the TD to go away, reconsider the problem and come back with his ruling. If that ruling was appealed the appeal could continue. (b) The Appeals Committee itself could hear the new facts, making it clear that they were now giving a ruling of first instance, which could then be appealed to a second committee should the need arise. It was acknowledged that this might lead to difficulties should this happen at the end of an event, where one side might have left or where it was difficult/impossible to find additional Appeal Committee members and that the process might have to be delayed. Consideration of such cases would be subject to the normal rules regarding protest time i.e. they might well be ruled to be 'out of time'. (Examples of situations that might fall into the 'completely new case' category: (a) A case might involve an irregularity during the auction, but the committee were curious to know how the contract was made. If it transpired that there had been a revoke (hitherto un-noticed) during the play, then this would be a completely new case altogether. (b) Or if during the appeal one side or the other made reference to an irregularity which had taken place on a completely different board during the match (but for which no ruling had been sought at the time), then this too would be a completely new case.) 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/20130621/cf38d16d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 21 03:43:41 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:43:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9554F7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Revised EBU White Book, new clause 93.8: >..... >(b) The Appeals Committee itself could hear the new facts, making it clear >that they were now giving a ruling of first instance, which could then be >appealed to a second committee should the need arise. >..... WBF Laws Committee, 8th Sep 2009, item 4, concluding two sentences: ..... The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee. 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/20130621/06fcc0aa/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 24 00:55:07 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 22:55:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955875@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Revised EBU White Book, new clause 93.8: >>..... >>(b) The Appeals Committee itself could hear the new facts, making it >>clear that they were now giving a ruling of first instance, which could >>then be appealed to a second committee should the need arise. >>..... WBF Laws Committee, 8th Sep 2009, item 4, concluding two sentences: >..... >The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling >before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific >and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the >appeals committee. Richard Hills: Even more clear-cut than Laws 84 and 85 is the first sentence of Law 92A: "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director." and also Law 93B2: "The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for adjudication." which demonstrate that "a ruling of first instance" must be given by the Director in charge, NOT by the Appeals Committee. So I have some sympathy for Nigel Guthrie in his campaign against obscure Laws and obscure WBF Laws Committee minutes. Even senior Directors of the EBU who revise the White Book do not correctly interpret these obscurities. :) :) 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/20130623/6ed2ee63/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jun 24 15:00:21 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:00:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955875@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955875@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51C842E5.6020109@btinternet.com> It's not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the first time. This clause has been in the White Book for a couple of years and was determined by the Laws & Ethics Committee (not a Senior director revising the White Book). Nowhere does it suggest that a director should bring a ruling directly to the committee without having given a ruling. It deals with what happens when, after a TD has done as required in all of Richards references by giving a ruling that is then appealed, a committee discovers a new infraction in the process of dealing with the original one. Although the White Book allows two different procedures in these circumstances, it does warn of the potential dangers if the TD is not asked to come back with a ruling for the new infraction. Gordon Rainsford On 23/06/2013 23:55, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > Revised EBU White Book, new clause 93.8: > >>..... > >>(b) The Appeals Committee itself could hear the new facts, making it > >>clear that they were now giving a ruling of first instance, which could > >>then be appealed to a second committee should the need arise. > >>..... > WBF Laws Committee, 8th Sep 2009, item 4, concluding two sentences: > >..... > >The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling > >before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific > >and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the > >appeals committee. > Richard Hills: > Even more clear-cut than Laws 84 and 85 is the first sentence of Law 92A: > "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at > his table by the Director." > and also Law 93B2: > "The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee > for adjudication." > which demonstrate that "a ruling of first instance" must be given by the > Director in charge, NOT by the Appeals Committee. > So I have some sympathy for Nigel Guthrie in his campaign against > obscure Laws and obscure WBF Laws Committee minutes. Even senior > Directors of the EBU who revise the White Book do not correctly interpret > these obscurities. J J > 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/20130624/070db16e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 25 00:51:09 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:51:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9559FB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Gordon Rainsford: >It's not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the first time. >..... >a committee discovers a new infraction in the process of dealing with the >original one. Although the White Book allows two different procedures in >these circumstances, it does warn of the potential dangers if the TD is not >asked to come back with a ruling for the new infraction. Richard Hills: To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD to be recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. To echo Sir Humphrey Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second Appeals Committee is a "novel" decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a "courageous" interpretation of the Lawbook. Sir Humphrey Appleby, slight misquote: I must protest in the strongest possible terms my profound opposition to the newly instituted practice which imposes severe and intolerable restrictions upon the power and rulings of senior members of the TD hierarchy and will, in all probability, should the current deplorable innovation be perpetuated, precipitate a constriction of the channels of communication, and culminate in a condition of organisational atrophy and administrative paralysis, which will render effectively impossible the coherent and coordinated discharge of the function of Duplicate Bridge within Her Majesty's English Bridge Union! 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/20130624/6e5868d3/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jun 25 08:20:15 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:20:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9559FB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9559FB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51C9369F.2020008@btinternet.com> L93B3 In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director,... Gordon Rainsford On 24/06/2013 23:51, Richard HILLS wrote: > > UNOFFICIAL > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >It's not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the first time. > > >..... > > >a committee discovers a new infraction in the process of dealing with the > > >original one. Although the White Book allows two different procedures in > > >these circumstances, it does warn of the potential dangers if the TD is not > > >asked to come back with a ruling for the new infraction. > > Richard Hills: > > To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the > TD to be > > recalled to give a /new/ ruling for a /new/ infraction. To echo Sir > Humphrey > > Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second > > Appeals Committee is a "novel" decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a > > "courageous" interpretation of the Lawbook. > > Sir Humphrey Appleby, slight misquote: > > I must protest in the strongest possible terms my profound opposition > to the > > newly instituted practice which imposes severe and intolerable > restrictions upon > > the power and rulings of senior members of the TD hierarchy and will, > in all > > probability, should the current deplorable innovation be perpetuated, > > precipitate a constriction of the channels of communication, and > culminate in a > > condition of organisational atrophy and administrative paralysis, > which will > > render effectively impossible the coherent and coordinated discharge > of the > > function of Duplicate Bridge within Her Majesty's English Bridge Union! > > 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/20130625/1854d70d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 26 00:59:19 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:59:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955C80@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD to >>be recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. >>..... Gordon Rainsford: >L93B3 In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers >assigned by these Laws to the Director,... Macquarie Dictionary: appeal, n. Law to apply to a higher tribunal for review of a case or particular issue. Richard Hills: And indeed Laws 83 and 92A specifically include the word "review". Hence the Law 93B3 Appeals Committee ability to "exercise all powers" is merely in the context of the review of a pre-existing Director's ruling, so the EBU L&EC has (once again) perpetrated an unLawful regulation. Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position." 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/20130625/610f882a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 26 02:20:16 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:20:16 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955CA7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL John (MadDog) Probst, November 2008: >A competent TD gives a ruling. He must then advise both >parties of their right to appeal. He may then advise either >or both parties they should appeal. He must, if an appeal >is made, advise the AC of the facts and WHY he made his >judgement. Until then there is no AC at all and I doubt that >its decision has any force in law, since all that an AC can >do is to advise a TD to change his ruling. I buy into >Kojaks's If xxx then this; If yyy then that. He has made >his ruling and asked the AC to determine the facts, not >asked them to make his ruling. John Grattan Endicott, November 2008: +=+ This observation by JP has put in my mind one of the subtler, and perhaps less obvious, changes that we made in the 2007 Laws. Comparison of the wording of Law 83 with the 1997 wording reveals that we have raised the height of the hurdle. The occasions that the laws call on the Director to advise a contestant of the right of appeal are fewer. It was our intention to relax the pressure on the Director to mention the subject. ~ G ~ +=+ 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/20130626/14d8957f/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jun 26 09:44:59 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:44:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955C80@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955C80@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51CA9BFB.9000709@btinternet.com> On 25/06/2013 23:59, Richard HILLS wrote: > > Hence the Law 93B3 Appeals Committee ability to "exercise all powers" is > > merely in the context of the /review/ of a pre-existing Director's > ruling, so the > > EBU L&EC has (once again) perpetrated an unLawful regulation. > I think I should learn from all the other readers of this trolling thread, who have stayed away from it in droves. I'm out. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130626/0b3e09e3/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Wed Jun 26 15:29:33 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:29:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51CA9BFB.9000709@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955C80@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51CA9BFB.9000709@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <8D0408854649FFA-F7C-2FD73@webmail-d295.sysops.aol.com> [Gordon Rainsford] I think I should learn from all the other readers of this trolling thread, who have stayed away from it in droves. I'm out. [Paul Lamford] Sadly BLML does not allow one to block postings from one member, but you can block "subjects" and I expect members have done that after the first rather irrelevant post on this issue. From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Jun 26 21:04:37 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:04:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, it is clear to me. Other than the obvious purpose of filling time and space, Richard is not, ultimately, so much interested in the laws of bridge as he is in the "laws" of debate, logic, and "English". One might characterize it as misuse or abuse of skills. Mmbridge Gordon Rainsford: >It's not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the first time. Richard Hills: To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD to be recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. To echo Sir Humphrey Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second Appeals Committee is a "novel" decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a "courageous" interpretation of the Lawbook. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130626/7cc201ec/attachment.html From fredhausman at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 04:17:30 2013 From: fredhausman at yahoo.com (Frederick Hausman) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> When a word in quotation marks ends a sentence, it is customary to put the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, regardless of the grammatical usage: "English."? ? But perhaps it was just a typogarphical error. ? Fred Hausman ? ________________________________ From: Jim Fox To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Well, it is clear to me.? ? Other than the obvious purpose of filling time and space, Richard is not, ultimately, so much interested in the laws of bridge as he is in the ?laws? of debate, logic, and ?English?. ? One might characterize it as misuse or abuse of skills. ? Mmbridge ? Gordon Rainsford: ? >It?s not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the first time. ? Richard Hills: ? To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD to be recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. To echo Sir Humphrey Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second Appeals Committee is a ?novel? decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a ?courageous? interpretation of the Lawbook. _______________________________________________ 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/20130627/f5fe2932/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 27 05:29:26 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:29:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [of-ftopic] In-Reply-To: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:17:30 -0400, Frederick Hausman wrote: > When a word in quotation marks ends a sentence, it is customary to put > the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, regardless of the > grammatical usage: "English." But perhaps it was just a typogarphical > error. Looking ahead to the 2020 changes in the English language rules, wouldn't it be better if the period went outside the quotes when just a single word was being quoted? I agree to keep inside for the quote of a sentence. > Fred Hausman > > ________________________________ > From: Jim Fox > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:04 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Well, it is clear to me. Other than the obvious purpose of filling time > and space, Richard is not, ultimately, so much interested in the laws of > bridge as he is in the ?laws? of debate, logic, and ?English?. > One might characterize it as misuse or abuse of skills. > Mmbridge > Gordon Rainsford: > >> It?s not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the >> first time. > Richard Hills: > To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD > to be > recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. To echo Sir Humphrey > Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second > Appeals Committee is a ?novel? decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a > ?courageous? interpretation of the Lawbook. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From geller at nifty.com Thu Jun 27 07:37:36 2013 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:37:36 +0900 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [of-ftopic] In-Reply-To: References: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51CBCFA0.5040507@nifty.com> Actually punctuation differs between the UK and US. In the US periods and commas precede the quotation mark whereas in the UK they use the opposite order. Although I'm an American I don't have any strong feelings over whether the WBF should use UK or US usage and spelling, but I do feel strongly that one or the other should be adopted and followed consistently rather than randomly mixing them up. (If the WBF wants to use UK usage and spelling but the ACBL wants to edit it to follow US style that's fine too, I think.) Bob (2013/06/27 12:29), Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:17:30 -0400, Frederick Hausman > wrote: > >> When a word in quotation marks ends a sentence, it is customary to put >> the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, regardless of the >> grammatical usage: "English." But perhaps it was just a typogarphical >> error. > > Looking ahead to the 2020 changes in the English language rules, wouldn't > it be better if the period went outside the quotes when just a single word > was being quoted? I agree to keep inside for the quote of a sentence. > >> Fred Hausman >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jim Fox >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:04 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> Well, it is clear to me. Other than the obvious purpose of filling time >> and space, Richard is not, ultimately, so much interested in the laws of >> bridge as he is in the ?laws? of debate, logic, and ?English?. >> One might characterize it as misuse or abuse of skills. >> Mmbridge >> Gordon Rainsford: >> >>> It?s not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the >>> first time. >> Richard Hills: >> To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD >> to be >> recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. To echo Sir Humphrey >> Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second >> Appeals Committee is a ?novel? decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a >> ?courageous? interpretation of the Lawbook. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jun 27 11:57:56 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:57:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [of-ftopic] In-Reply-To: <51CBCFA0.5040507@nifty.com> References: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <51CBCFA0.5040507@nifty.com> Message-ID: On 27 Jun 2013, at 06:37, Robert Geller wrote: > Actually punctuation differs between the UK and US. In the US periods > and commas precede the quotation mark whereas in the UK they use the > opposite order. > > Although I'm an American I don't have any strong feelings over whether > the WBF should use UK or US usage and spelling, but I do feel strongly > that one or the other should be adopted and followed consistently rather > than randomly mixing them up. (If the WBF wants to use UK usage and > spelling but the ACBL wants to edit it to follow US style that's fine > too, I think.) > Even more important that a hyphen should come after the final letter of the first word being joined. Gordon Rainsford From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Jun 27 15:30:01 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:30:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for your assistance. I am aware of the technicalities of ?English? grammar, but have never thought that rule made any logical sense, so choose to disregard it. When I speak of the ?laws? of ?English? below, I am speaking of the meaning of the words (in a figurative sense), not the grammar. Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hausman Sent: 06/26/2013 10:18 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] When a word in quotation marks ends a sentence, it is customary to put the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, regardless of the grammatical usage: "English." But perhaps it was just a typogarphical error. Fred Hausman *:) happy From: Jim Fox To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Well, it is clear to me. Other than the obvious purpose of filling time and space, Richard is not, ultimately, so much interested in the laws of bridge as he is in the ?laws? of debate, logic, and ?English?. One might characterize it as misuse or abuse of skills. Mmbridge Gordon Rainsford: >It?s not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the first time. Richard Hills: To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD to be recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. To echo Sir Humphrey Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second Appeals Committee is a ?novel? decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a ?courageous? interpretation of the Lawbook. _______________________________________________ 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/20130627/f0fc4c8d/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Thu Jun 27 15:44:01 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:44:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51CC41A1.5020500@aol.com> [Frederick Hausman] When a word in quotation marks ends a sentence, it is customary to put the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, regardless of the grammatical usage: "English." [Paul Lamford] That is an oversimplification, and this is a much more interesting topic than the one Richard started, so I welcome the change of subject. This next is from one of Richard's compatriots, who no doubt shares Richard's desire for precise procedure. Excuse the poor layout. Are full stops placed inside or outside quotation marks? by Tim North, http://www.scribe.com.au Consider the following sentence: One meaning of vis-a-vis is "in relation to". Should the full stop be inside the closing quotation mark or outside it? In US English, the full stop is usually placed inside the closing quotation mark in this sentence. In British English, it is usually placed outside. This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. The placement of punctuation relative to a closing quotation mark is surprisingly complex. What's worse, the rules for US English are quite different to those for British English. Indeed, practices vary, not only between US and UK English but within each group. ---------- US ENGLISH ---------- (Users of British English are advised to skip this section to avoid confusing the issue.) Users of US English place the comma in the following sentence inside the closing quotation marks. "Hello," said John. Incidentally, the comma is used to separate *what* was said from *who* said it. Here's another example: "Hello," he said. "How are you today?" Note that both the comma and the question mark are inside the quotes. Here are some further examples. Once again, note that the punctuation is inside the quotation marks. "Go home," she said to the dog. "Go home!" she said to the dog. Note that in the second example the exclamation mark is used instead of the comma, not in addition to it. If one speech or quotation occurs within another, enclose the inner one in single quotes. For example: "He said 'You should have known.' I was outraged!" Notice that two distinct sentences finish at the word "known": "He said ..." and "You should ...". Even so, there is only a one full stop, not two, and it is (once again) inside the closing quote. Here is another example that illustrates how we avoid double punctuation when two sentences end at the same word: No one heard when he said "I need help." See? Only one full stop. Needless to say, it's inside the closing quote. Question marks, though, can be a little confusing when used with quotation marks. Compare these sentences: He said "What is seven times six?" Is it true that he said "What is seven times six"? In the first one, it's consistent with what we've seen so far that the question mark is inside the closing quote. In the second sentence, though, there are two questions being asked: "Is it true ..." and "What is ...". Even so, we only use a single question mark. Notice, though, that it is placed *outside* the closing quote. (Just when you thought this was going to be easy! Don't worry, though, users of British English have it *much* harder.) In summary, when punctuating quotations, US English places most punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. --------------- BRITISH ENGLISH --------------- (Users of American English are advised to skip this section to avoid confusing the issue.) Users of British English usually place the comma in the following sentence outside the quotation marks. "Hello", said John. Incidentally, the comma is used to separate *what* was said from *who* said it. Here's another example: "Hello", he said. "How are you today?" Note that even though the comma is outside the quotes, the question mark is inside the quotes. Why? The comma is not considered to be part of what was actually said, so it was placed outside the quotes. (It's part of the punctuation of the surrounding sentence, rather than of the quotation.) The question mark, however, is part of the spoken text, so it's placed inside the quotes. There is a certain common sense to this, but it does make punctuating British English harder than punctuating US English. Here's another example: "Go home!", she said to the dog. The exclamation mark is part of what was said (or, rather, *how* it was said), so it is inside the quotation marks. The comma is not part of what was said but is part of the surrounding sentence. It separates *what* was said from *who* said it, so it's outside the quotation marks. Here's another example: The man said "Is it strange?", but no one listened. Notice that the comma is outside the quotes (because it's not part of what was said), but the question mark is inside them. If an entire sentence is in quotation marks, the terminal punctuation is placed inside the quotes. For example: "He's on his own with this one." If one speech or quotation occurs within another, enclose it in single quotes if you normally use double quotes (and vice versa). For example: "He said 'You should have known'. I was outraged!" Notice in this example, that two sentences finish on the word "known", yet there is only a single full stop, not two. Notice also that the full stop after "known" appeared outside the quotes. Similarly, we write: No one heard when he said "I need help". Notice again that even though two sentences finish on the word "help", there is only a single full stop, and it occurs outside the quote. It should come as no surprise then to learn that we write: Is it true that he said "What is seven times six"? not: Is it true that he said "What is seven times six?"? The intention here is to avoid using the same punctuation mark twice in succession. Finally, consider these sentences: He said "What is seven times six?". He said "That's dreadful!". In the first example, there is a question mark to end the question and a full stop to end the surrounding sentence. In the second example, there is an exclamation mark to end the quotation and a full stop to end the surrounding sentence. In summary, when punctuating quotations, British English places some punctuation inside the closing quotation mark and some outside. Knowing which is which is almost rocket science. Now might be a good time to have a cup of tea and a little lie down. :-) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 27 15:53:00 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:53:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] =?windows-1252?q?Punctuation_=28WAS_New_facts=85=29?= In-Reply-To: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:17 PM, Frederick Hausman wrote: > When a word in quotation marks ends a sentence, it is customary to put the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, regardless of the grammatical usage: "English." i was taught that when a word in quotation marks ends a *quotation* (someone else's, or a fictional character's, words, as they wrote or spoke them), it is customary and correct to put the period (or question mark, or comma if the quote is embedded in a continung sentence) inside the quote marks (as well as putting a comma before the quote if it starts in mid-sentence, and starting it with a capital or an ellipsis). This is not, however, customary or correct when the quote marks are used for some other purpose (as to distinguish a word being used in some unusually specific manner). Example: In our previous discussion of "damage", George wrote, "No harm, no foul." Or: George wrote, "No harm, no foul," in our previous discussion of "damage". Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130627/b3e335b5/attachment-0001.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Jun 27 16:46:55 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:46:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1372299450.84247.YahooMailNeo@web120706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <51CC41A1.5020500@aol.com> Message-ID: ...and I say 'will you do apostrophes next please?' L > [Frederick Hausman] > When a word in quotation marks ends a > sentence, it is customary to put > the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, > regardless of the > grammatical usage: "English." > > [Paul Lamford] That is an oversimplification, > and this is a much more > interesting topic than the one Richard > started, so I welcome the change > of subject. This next is from one of Richard's > compatriots, who no doubt > shares Richard's desire for precise procedure. > Excuse the poor layout. > > > Are full stops placed inside or outside > quotation marks? > by Tim North, http://www.scribe.com.au > > > Consider the following sentence: > > One meaning of vis-a-vis is "in relation > to". > > Should the full stop be inside the closing > quotation mark or > outside it? > > In US English, the full stop is usually placed > inside the closing > quotation mark in this sentence. In British > English, it is > usually placed outside. > > This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. > The placement of > punctuation relative to a closing quotation > mark is surprisingly > complex. What's worse, the rules for US > English are quite > different to those for British English. > > Indeed, practices vary, not only between US > and UK English but > within each group. > > ---------- > US ENGLISH > ---------- > > (Users of British English are advised to skip > this section to > avoid confusing the issue.) > > Users of US English place the comma in the > following > sentence inside the closing quotation marks. > > "Hello," said John. > > Incidentally, the comma is used to separate > *what* was said from > *who* said it. Here's another example: > > "Hello," he said. "How are you today?" > > Note that both the comma and the question mark > are inside the > quotes. > > Here are some further examples. Once again, > note that the > punctuation is inside the quotation marks. > > "Go home," she said to the dog. > "Go home!" she said to the dog. > > Note that in the second example the > exclamation mark is used > instead of the comma, not in addition to it. > > If one speech or quotation occurs within > another, enclose the > inner one in single quotes. For example: > > "He said 'You should have known.' I was > outraged!" > > Notice that two distinct sentences finish at > the word "known": > "He said ..." and "You should ...". Even so, > there is only a one > full stop, not two, and it is (once again) > inside the closing > quote. > > Here is another example that illustrates how > we avoid double > punctuation when two sentences end at the same > word: > > No one heard when he said "I need help." > > See? Only one full stop. Needless to say, it's > inside the closing > quote. > > Question marks, though, can be a little > confusing when used with > quotation marks. Compare these sentences: > > He said "What is seven times six?" > Is it true that he said "What is seven times > six"? > > In the first one, it's consistent with what > we've seen so far > that the question mark is inside the closing > quote. > > In the second sentence, though, there are two > questions being > asked: "Is it true ..." and "What is ...". > Even so, we only use a > single question mark. > > Notice, though, that it is placed *outside* > the closing quote. > (Just when you thought this was going to be > easy! Don't worry, > though, users of British English have it > *much* harder.) > > In summary, when punctuating quotations, US > English places most > punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. > > --------------- > BRITISH ENGLISH > --------------- > > (Users of American English are advised to skip > this section to > avoid confusing the issue.) > > Users of British English usually place the > comma in the following > sentence outside the quotation marks. > > "Hello", said John. > > Incidentally, the comma is used to separate > *what* was said from > *who* said it. Here's another example: > > "Hello", he said. "How are you today?" > > Note that even though the comma is outside the > quotes, the > question mark is inside the quotes. Why? > > The comma is not considered to be part of what > was actually said, > so it was placed outside the quotes. (It's > part of the > punctuation of the surrounding sentence, > rather than of the > quotation.) The question mark, however, is > part of the spoken > text, so it's placed inside the quotes. > > There is a certain common sense to this, but > it does make > punctuating British English harder than > punctuating US English. > > Here's another example: > > "Go home!", she said to the dog. > > The exclamation mark is part of what was said > (or, rather, *how* > it was said), so it is inside the quotation > marks. The comma is > not part of what was said but is part of the > surrounding > sentence. It separates *what* was said from > *who* said it, so > it's outside the quotation marks. > > Here's another example: > > The man said "Is it strange?", but no one > listened. > > Notice that the comma is outside the quotes > (because it's not > part of what was said), but the question mark > is inside them. > > If an entire sentence is in quotation marks, > the terminal > punctuation is placed inside the quotes. For > example: > > "He's on his own with this one." > > If one speech or quotation occurs within > another, enclose it in > single quotes if you normally use double > quotes (and vice versa). > For example: > > "He said 'You should have known'. I was > outraged!" > > Notice in this example, that two sentences > finish on the word > "known", yet there is only a single full stop, > not two. Notice > also that the full stop after "known" appeared > outside the > quotes. > > Similarly, we write: > > No one heard when he said "I need help". > > Notice again that even though two sentences > finish on the word > "help", there is only a single full stop, and > it occurs outside > the quote. > > It should come as no surprise then to learn > that we write: > > Is it true that he said "What is seven times > six"? > > not: > > Is it true that he said "What is seven times > six?"? > > The intention here is to avoid using the same > punctuation mark > twice in succession. > > Finally, consider these sentences: > > He said "What is seven times six?". > He said "That's dreadful!". > > In the first example, there is a question mark > to end the > question and a full stop to end the > surrounding sentence. In the > second example, there is an exclamation mark > to end the quotation > and a full stop to end the surrounding > sentence. > > In summary, when punctuating quotations, > British English places > some punctuation inside the closing quotation > mark and some > outside. Knowing which is which is almost > rocket science. > > Now might be a good time to have a cup of tea > and a little lie > down. :-) From fredhausman at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 17:34:44 2013 From: fredhausman at yahoo.com (Frederick Hausman) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1372347284.58967.YahooMailNeo@web120702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I have learned my lesson, and have duly noted the potential dire consequences of attempting levity in this forum.? And none of the responsive verbiosity even mentioned my clever use of "typogarphical."? ? Fred Hausman ________________________________ From: Jim Fox To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Thanks for your assistance.? I am aware of the technicalities of ?English? grammar, but have never thought that rule made any logical sense, so choose to disregard it. ? When I speak of the ?laws? of ?English? below, I am speaking of the meaning of the words (in a figurative sense), not the grammar. ? Mmbridge ? From:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hausman Sent: 06/26/2013 10:18 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ? When a word in quotation marks ends a sentence, it is customary to put the period INSIDE the final quotation mark, regardless of the grammatical usage: "English."? ? But perhaps it was just a typogarphical error. ? Fred Hausman ? ? From:Jim Fox To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ? Well, it is clear to me.? ? Other than the obvious purpose of filling time and space, Richard is not, ultimately, so much interested in the laws of bridge as he is in the ?laws? of debate, logic, and ?English?. ? One might characterize it as misuse or abuse of skills. ? Mmbridge ? Gordon Rainsford: ? >It?s not clear to me what Richard is trying to do here, and not for the first time. ? Richard Hills: ? To clarify my point, I believe that the Laws mandatorily require the TD to be recalled to give a new ruling for a new infraction. To echo Sir Humphrey Appleby, allowing an Appeals Committee ruling to be appealed to a second Appeals Committee is a ?novel? decision by the EBU L&EC, perhaps even a ?courageous? interpretation of the Lawbook. _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130627/8a6794b8/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 28 09:23:23 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:23:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F95608C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Paul Lamford: >..... >This next is from one of Richard's compatriots, who no doubt >shares Richard's desire for precise procedure. >..... Richard Hills: This next is from one of Eric's late compatriots, who no doubt shared Eric's desire for Every Poem An Adventure. (Note Doctor Bishop's correct use of a colon and also a semi-colon.) Morris Bishop, The Naughty Preposition (1947): I lately lost a preposition: It hid, I thought, beneath my chair. And angrily I cried, "Perdition! Up from out of in under there!" Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor; And yet I wonder, "What should he come Up from out of in under for?" 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/20130628/13ad5e42/attachment.html From arbhuston at aol.com Fri Jun 28 16:35:02 2013 From: arbhuston at aol.com (,) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F95608C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F95608C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <8D04223CF291241-111C-43D4E@webmail-d293.sysops.aol.com> This seems a suitable conclusion to the matter. Thank you, Paul. Michael Huston -----Original Message----- From: Richard HILLS To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Fri, Jun 28, 2013 2:27 am Subject: Re: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Paul Lamford: >..... >This next is from one of Richard?s compatriots, who no doubt >shares Richard?s desire for precise procedure. >..... Richard Hills: This next is from one of Eric?s late compatriots, who no doubt shared Eric?s desire for Every Poem An Adventure. (Note Doctor Bishop?s correct use of a colon and also a semi-colon.) Morris Bishop, The Naughty Preposition (1947): I lately lost a preposition: It hid, I thought, beneath my chair. And angrily I cried, ?Perdition! Up from out of in under there!? Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor; And yet I wonder, ?What should he come Up from out of in under for?? 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/20130628/d630bc3b/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Jun 30 17:06:01 2013 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:06:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955875@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F955875@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51D04959.5040508@vwalther.de> (Warning: the following text may contain low doses of irony.) Hello Richard, thank you for the very interesting problem. I think there is a great lack of precision in law 92A, and LAW 92A is irrelevant in this case anyway. Lack of precision: It should be clarified what "his table" means. Is it only the lawful owner of the tables in the club who has a right to appeal? Does the table belong to any player, who is sitting there, for the purposes of L92A? If a player moves to a wrong table, does the wrong table become "his table"? What is happening at team tournaments: Probably the table belongs to the four players, who are sitting there, and to the captains, no matter where they are. If we have a full agreement, who is allowed to call a specific table "his table", we may come to the important things: Irrelevance: Law 92A allows a player to "appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director.? This does not allow to appeal any decision that the director makes afar from this table. (For example: The TD writes down the facts and leaves the table to reconsider the case with another TD. They make their decision and return to the Table to tell it.) Furthermore LAW 92A does not allow to appeal any decision made at the Appeals Committee's table. Suppose, the Appeals Committee discovers new facts and gives the new case to the TD. Usually this happens after the tournament. So the player does not have a table any more and L92A may not be applied to the new decision of the TD. Greetings, Volker Am 24.06.2013 00:55, schrieb Richard HILLS: > UNOFFICIAL > > Revised EBU White Book, new clause 93.8: > >>>..... >>>(b) The Appeals Committee itself could hear the new facts, making it >>>clear that they were now giving a ruling of first instance, which could >>>then be appealed to a second committee should the need arise. >>>..... > > WBF Laws Committee, 8th Sep 2009, item 4, concluding two sentences: > >>..... >>The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling >>before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific >>and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the >>appeals committee. > > Richard Hills: > > Even more clear-cut than Laws 84 and 85 is the first sentence of Law 92A: > > ?A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at > his table by the Director.? > > and also Law 93B2: > > ?The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee > for adjudication.? > > which demonstrate that ?a ruling of first instance? must be given by the > Director in charge, NOT by the Appeals Committee. > > So I have some sympathy for Nigel Guthrie in his campaign against > obscure Laws and obscure WBF Laws Committee minutes. Even senior > Directors of the EBU who revise the White Book do not correctly interpret > these obscurities. J J > > 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 >