From vip at centrum.is Fri Mar 1 00:23:44 2013 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:23:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDDE57@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1003714744.7708239.1362093824572.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> I think this case is completly out of the laws. Law 12A is suitable for use. There is no non-offending side here. TD has to fix this case fast and use his own judgement. Herman got it right here. No looking in the lawbook. Just common sense. (Some say that sense is not so common ) The players will not try to have it some otherway, because they all know they were equally silly here. Vigfus Palsson UNOFFICIAL ? Peter Eidt ? >Funny (?) case: > >Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs > >WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >2D........Pass......2H........X >XX........Pass......Pass......Pass > >(2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) > >After this auction West shouted at >partner: "How can you pass my >redouble!?!" and led one of his >cards. North "duly" put down his 13 >cards and felt as a dummy. > >Up to this point we might know the >answer, but ... > >... South ordered a card from "dummy" >and East followed suit. The other 12 >tricks were played too and the result >(South: 2HXX-1) was entered in the >bridgemate. > >Only after the end of the tournament >(but within the correction period), >West realized at the bar, while >talking about this hand with another >player, that East should have been >the declarer ... > >Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? ? Richard Hills: ? Yes and No. ? Law 54E - Opening Lead by Wrong Side ? If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies. ? Law 24 prologue: ? When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. ? Richard Hills: ? Technically, while the auction has ended, the auction period has not ended. So there are 52 exposed cards on the table. ? Law 24 prologue: ? If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), ? Richard Hills: ? So now the play of the hand legally commences, with East as declarer and North-South with 26 Penalty Cards. ? But... ? This only happens if the Director decides to exercise her discretion to apply Law 82B2, ?require ... the play of a board?. ? Best wishes, ? R.J.B. Hills ? UNOFFICIAL ? ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 1 01:16:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 00:16:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDDF16@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL South African Nationals Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006: >The Law in an Ass > >Revoke is a dirty 6 letter word. So unnecessary, >but happens so frequently. The law is quite >complex but let's start by outlining the >principles. > >1 The offender can never have tricks won prior >to the revoke taken away. > >2 There are two circumstances under which two >tricks are transferred to the non-offenders >(subject to the offenders winning any tricks >after the revoke). If the PLAYER who revoked >won the trick upon which the revoke took place, >or, if the player subsequently won a trick with >a card that could have legally been played when >the revoke took place. > >3 Under other circumstances one trick is >transferred to the non-offending pair. > >4 If the prescribed penalty does not fully >compensate the non-offenders, the TD will award >an adjusted score. > >Now the question is: At what stage is the >revoke established? > >Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end position >was: > >...............96 >...............T >...............--- >...............--- >A............................K42 >K............................--- >Q............................--- >---..........................--- >...............5 >...............--- >...............73 >...............--- > >The lead was in dummy and the Heart 10 was >played. Now I know of several players who, >sitting West, might have claimed the remaining >3 tricks before any card was played. But not >our warrior. East played the Spade 2, South >(Declarer) the spade 5 and our warrior, who >was easily confused, saw so many spades being >played, "won" the trick with the Spade A, and >then claimed. When the dust had settled the TD >was summoned, the situation explained, and the >TD ruled thus. As the offender had not played >to the following trick, the revoke was not >established. The Spade A became a Major >Penalty Card, West had to play the Heart K and >won the rest of the tricks. > >Most people thought that reasonable and the >matter passed. Wrong! Tucked away in the depth >of the Laws [Law 63A3 and Law 63C - RJBH] >mention is made of the consequences of >claiming. It does establish the revoke and the >trick should have been allowed to stand as >played. So dummy's Heart 10 won that trick and >a Spade was, perforce, played to the next >trick. East won that and had to play another >Spade, which was won in dummy. So NS won two of >the last 3 tricks, and, as a result of the >revoke, 1 trick was transferred to NS, so they >won all 3 of those last three. Tough eh! Maybe >the Law *is* an ass. Vigfus Palsson (discussing a similarly odd case): >>I think this case is completely out of the laws. >>Law 12A is suitable for use. There is no non- >>offending side here. TD has to fix this case >>fast and use his own judgement. >> >>Herman got it right here. No looking in the >>lawbook. Just common sense. (Some say that sense >>is not so common). The players will not try to >>have it some other way, because they all know >>they were equally silly here. John (MadDog) Probst, July 2006: Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the law is frequently broken. Most of the time breaking the law won't matter. Driving on the left in Calais doesn't really matter much unless I have an accident, would be a good example. (Being the sort of person I am, I did drive on the left for a fair bit yesterday.) So when it comes to the interpretation of an irregularity of some sort one must go back to the Law even if people think that the law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the law is in force here and today. regards John 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/20130301/ebacae1b/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 1 04:20:10 2013 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:20:10 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <51301E6A.5060709@iinet.net.au> It appears to me that NS and EW have taken turns to become offenders. This is One of the times I would use Law 11. Table result stands! cheers bill On 1/03/2013 1:06 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 28/02/2013 16:07, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Looks correct to me too. > Let's see. North has 13 penalty cards. EW don't make use of their right > to call them. EW make two tricks too little. > > One problem is that dummy wans't exposed, and I don't know whether this > is covered by the laws. > > Another problem is that South has no right to call his partner's cards. > > Whence the deal was IMOBO not played according to the rules of this > game, and therefore shan't be scored as played. No more and no less than > if they had played with a reversed hierarchical order of cards or with a > pinochle deck. > >>> Herman De Wael >>> apparently, NS made 7 tricks? 2H-1 >>> well, since the contract was 2HXX by ew, they went two down. >>> score 1000 to NS. >>> Herman. >>> >>> Peter Eidt schreef: >>>> Funny (?) case: >>>> >>>> Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs >>>> >>>> W N E S >>>> 2D p 2H X >>>> XX p p p >>>> >>>> (2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) >>>> >>>> After this auction West shouted at partner: "How can you pass my >>>> redouble!?!" and led one of his cards. North "duly" put down his 13 >>>> cards and felt as a dummy. >>>> >>>> Up to this point we might know the answer, but ... >>>> >>>> ... South ordered a card from "dummy" and East followed suit. The >>>> other 12 tricks were played too and the result (South: 2HXX-1) was >>>> entered in the bridgemate. >>>> >>>> Only after the end of the tournament (but within the correction >>>> period), West realized at the bar, while talking about this hand with >>>> another player, that East should have been the declarer ... >>>> >>>> Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6135 - Release Date: >>>> 02/26/13 >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130301/c25cc953/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 1 11:09:05 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:09:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <51307E41.2030409@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner schreef: > Le 28/02/2013 16:07, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Looks correct to me too. > > Let's see. North has 13 penalty cards. EW don't make use of their right > to call them. EW make two tricks too little. > exactly. > One problem is that dummy wans't exposed, and I don't know whether this > is covered by the laws. > it is not, but we can compare it to dummy (illegally) suggesting a play and none of the opponents objecting to the card thus being played. This happens in real life too, when dummy just follows suit with one of the little ones without declarer explicitely naming one. That too is accepted. > Another problem is that South has no right to call his partner's cards. > No, and if opponents complain, the director will rule that the call is UI, and North will have to play a card himself, subject to such UI. > Whence the deal was IMOBO not played according to the rules of this > game, and therefore shan't be scored as played. No more and no less than > if they had played with a reversed hierarchical order of cards or with a > pinochle deck. > yes, very differently. If they decide to give the trick to the lowest card, then they may also play 52 cards in some order, with every single trick starting with a lead ouot of turn, but the tricks will afterwards be given to the highest card in the trick, regardless of what they say. Here, they have counted every trick correctly, and so the result (based on 7 tricks to one side and 6 to the other) can be allowed to stand. One can imagine a similar case: let's say that 4 people believe they are playing a spade contract, and lead and ruff accordingly. After 13 tricks, it turns out they were actually playing in hearts. Should we not reconstitute play, awarding some tricks to people who discarded in hearts (lucky bastards!) and consider any lead out of turn as accepted? Herman. >>> Herman De Wael >>> apparently, NS made 7 tricks? 2H-1 >>> well, since the contract was 2HXX by ew, they went two down. >>> score 1000 to NS. >>> Herman. >>> >>> Peter Eidt schreef: >>>> Funny (?) case: >>>> >>>> Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs >>>> >>>> W N E S >>>> 2D p 2H X >>>> XX p p p >>>> >>>> (2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) >>>> >>>> After this auction West shouted at partner: "How can you pass my >>>> redouble!?!" and led one of his cards. North "duly" put down his 13 >>>> cards and felt as a dummy. >>>> >>>> Up to this point we might know the answer, but ... >>>> >>>> ... South ordered a card from "dummy" and East followed suit. The >>>> other 12 tricks were played too and the result (South: 2HXX-1) was >>>> entered in the bridgemate. >>>> >>>> Only after the end of the tournament (but within the correction >>>> period), West realized at the bar, while talking about this hand with >>>> another player, that East should have been the declarer ... >>>> >>>> Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6135 - Release Date: >>>> 02/26/13 >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6139 - Release Date: 02/28/13 > > > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Fri Mar 1 13:14:54 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:14:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <51307E41.2030409@skynet.be> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> <51307E41.2030409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002801ce1676$6248c010$26da4030$@filosofi.uu.se> Everything can be taken care of except the problem is that South has no right to call his partner's cards. Herman writes "No, and if opponents complain, the director will rule that the call is UI, and North will have to play a card himself, subject to such UI." The problem is that we are still in the correction period and EW have still right to complain - see note to 16B3. So assume they do. And now what? From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 1 14:14:31 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:14:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <002801ce1676$6248c010$26da4030$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> <51307E41.2030409@skynet.be> <002801ce1676$6248c010$26da4030$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <5130A9B7.5020302@skynet.be> I don't believe we are still in the correction period. Even if the lead from the "declaring" side has to be regarded as a card shown during the auction, then certainly the second card to the trick must be seen as a lead that starts the play period. And the first card led, as a penalty card, becomes the fourth card of the first trick. After which everything is normal (barring the fact that there are lots of leads out of turn). So all talk of 52 cards shown during the auction is nonsensical. Herman. Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Everything can be taken care of except the problem is that South has no > right to call his partner's cards. > Herman writes "No, and if opponents complain, the director will rule that > the call is UI, and North will have to play a card himself, subject to such > UI." > The problem is that we are still in the correction period and EW have still > right to complain - see note to 16B3. So assume they do. And now what? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6139 - Release Date: 02/28/13 > > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Fri Mar 1 16:11:23 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:11:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <5130A9B7.5020302@skynet.be> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> <51307E41.2030409@skynet.be> <002801ce1676$6248c010$26da4030$@filosofi.uu.se> <5130A9B7.5020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301ce168f$09b98290$1d2c87b0$@filosofi.uu.se> Misunderstanding. I agree with Herman that we are no longer in the auction period, not even in the play period. The play has been finished and the round too. But the correction period is not over (see 81C3 and 79C) . That is what was stated in the OP. And since complains about can potential use of OI can be made until the correction period is over (16 D3 note) so we have to deal with it. I have no problem with Herman's solution but I just want to know how TL should handle complains from EW about the use of OI. Ryszard -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:15 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge I don't believe we are still in the correction period. Even if the lead from the "declaring" side has to be regarded as a card shown during the auction, then certainly the second card to the trick must be seen as a lead that starts the play period. And the first card led, as a penalty card, becomes the fourth card of the first trick. After which everything is normal (barring the fact that there are lots of leads out of turn). So all talk of 52 cards shown during the auction is nonsensical. Herman. Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Everything can be taken care of except the problem is that South has > no right to call his partner's cards. > Herman writes "No, and if opponents complain, the director will rule > that the call is UI, and North will have to play a card himself, > subject to such UI." > The problem is that we are still in the correction period and EW have > still right to complain - see note to 16B3. So assume they do. And now what? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6139 - Release Date: > 02/28/13 > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 1 17:32:57 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:32:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <000301ce168f$09b98290$1d2c87b0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> <51307E41.2030409@skynet.be> <002801ce1676$6248c010$26da4030$@filosofi.uu.se> <5130A9B7.5020302@skynet.be> <000301ce168f$09b98290$1d2c87b0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <5130D839.9070006@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/03/2013 16:11, Ryszard Sliwinski a ?crit : > Misunderstanding. > I agree with Herman that we are no longer in the auction period, not even > in the play period. The play has been finished and the round too. But the > correction period is not over (see 81C3 and 79C) . That is what was stated > in the OP. And since complains about can potential use of OI can be made > until the correction period is over (16 D3 note) so we have to deal with it. > I have no problem with Herman's solution but I just want to know how TL > should handle complains from EW about the use of OI. > Ryszard > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:15 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge > > I don't believe we are still in the correction period. Even if the lead from > the "declaring" side has to be regarded as a card shown during the auction, > then certainly the second card to the trick must be seen as a lead that > starts the play period. And the first card led, as a penalty card, becomes > the fourth card of the first trick. After which everything is normal > (barring the fact that there are lots of leads out of turn). > So all talk of 52 cards shown during the auction is nonsensical. > Herman. > > Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: >> Everything can be taken care of except the problem is that South has >> no right to call his partner's cards. >> Herman writes "No, and if opponents complain, the director will rule >> that the call is UI, and North will have to play a card himself, >> subject to such UI." >> The problem is that we are still in the correction period and EW have >> still right to complain - see note to 16B3. So assume they do. And now > what? There are also all kinds of problems concerning actions by dummy, declarer and defenders (who, by virtue of the definitions, are unchanged ; that is, the exposed hand doesn't become dummy). For example, can we reconstruct whether the defender with the exposed hand has warned partner about a possible irregularity (which dumy may do) ? Reminds me of the problem of determining what is "on" and what is "off" when playing a reverse-sweep. IIRC the matter isn't settled yet. Notice that in Herman's comparative case (everybody has played a contract in the wrong denomination), which is perhaps less unfrequent and less extreme, there will be another problem, because it is said that if a player has mixed his cards before reconstruction happens then any dubious matters wll be decided against him. And everyone has done that. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6139 - Release Date: >> 02/28/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 2 02:02:06 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:02:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: What would have been the likely result if East had been declarer. Down 2? I can't see letting West get away with Ave- if he was heading for a bottom. Bob On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:24:47 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Funny (?) case: > > Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs > > W N E S > 2D p 2H X > XX p p p > > (2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) > > After this auction West shouted at partner: "How > can you pass my redouble!?!" and led one of > his cards. North "duly" put down his 13 cards > and felt as a dummy. > > Up to this point we might know the answer, but ... > > ... South ordered a card from "dummy" and East > followed suit. The other 12 tricks were played too > and the result (South: 2HXX-1) was entered in the > bridgemate. > > Only after the end of the tournament (but within > the correction period), West realized at the bar, > while talking about this hand with another player, > that East should have been the declarer ... > > Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Sat Mar 2 09:44:24 2013 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 09:44:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Terminaal Message-ID: <4612405182134407BF48B28FE439D539@benspc> Henk, Daar ik terminaal ben, verzoek ik jou mij van de verzendlijst te halen. Heel veel dank voor de zorgen die jij aan deze rubriek heb besteed. Hartelijke groeten, Ben Schelen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130302/70a6ca78/attachment-0001.html From victor at veloblitz.ch Sat Mar 2 13:04:13 2013 From: victor at veloblitz.ch (Victor Badran) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:04:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Terminaal In-Reply-To: <4612405182134407BF48B28FE439D539@benspc> References: <4612405182134407BF48B28FE439D539@benspc> Message-ID: Beste Henk, we kennen elkaar niet, maar ik wens jou en aanhang sterkte. Victor >Henk, > >Daar ik terminaal ben, verzoek ik jou mij van de verzendlijst te halen. > >Heel veel dank voor de zorgen die jij aan deze rubriek heb besteed. > >Hartelijke groeten, > >Ben Schelen > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 5 22:39:53 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:39:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDECB2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL The Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludno?ci, the national identification system used in Poland, will fail to operate in the year 2300. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, North, hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......2D(1).....Pass......2S(2) Pass......3S(3).....X.........Pass Pass......? (4) (1) A maximum weak two in diamonds. (2) Non-forcing but game invitational. (3) Accepting the game invitation, and giving South a choice-of-contracts between 3NT and 4S. (4) The unusual double by East causes you, North, to re-examine the auction. In actuality West was the dealer, and slightly obscured by West's bidding box was West's opening bid of a weak 1NT. This means that you, North, have misbid. Over 1NT your 2D was a convention, showing an unspecified major, and South's 2S was pass-or-correct, showing short spades and longer hearts. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130305/3401bfe0/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 6 07:56:02 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 07:56:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDECB2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDECB2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <009f01ce1a37$aae486f0$00ad94d0$@xs4all.nl> First I call the director, and there is no alternative. I start to explain that I should have alerted the 2S call. After that I doubt am going to like this board. Probably the least expensive final contract will be 4D. Just bidding that does not seem best. Perhaps a 4C cue now, and hope pd will cue 4D? But running to 3NT, and after that running to 4D might also work. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: dinsdag 5 maart 2013 22:40 To: Laws Bridge Cc: earl.dudley at bigpond.com Subject: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL The Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludno?ci, the national identification system used in Poland, will fail to operate in the year 2300. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, North, hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......2D(1).....Pass......2S(2) Pass......3S(3).....X.........Pass Pass......? (4) (1) A maximum weak two in diamonds. (2) Non-forcing but game invitational. (3) Accepting the game invitation, and giving South a choice-of-contracts between 3NT and 4S. (4) The unusual double by East causes you, North, to re-examine the auction. In actuality West was the dealer, and slightly obscured by West's bidding box was West's opening bid of a weak 1NT. This means that you, North, have misbid. Over 1NT your 2D was a convention, showing an unspecified major, and South's 2S was pass-or-correct, showing short spades and longer hearts. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130306/b7cffb90/attachment-0001.html From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Wed Mar 6 09:50:47 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:50:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009f01ce1a37$aae486f0$00ad94d0$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDECB2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <009f01ce1a37$aae486f0$00ad94d0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <001501ce1a47$b21e1840$165a48c0$@filosofi.uu.se> A question: did South alert your 2 diamonds? From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:56 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] First I call the director, and there is no alternative. I start to explain that I should have alerted the 2S call. After that I doubt am going to like this board. Probably the least expensive final contract will be 4D. Just bidding that does not seem best. Perhaps a 4C cue now, and hope pd will cue 4D? But running to 3NT, and after that running to 4D might also work. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: dinsdag 5 maart 2013 22:40 To: Laws Bridge Cc: earl.dudley at bigpond.com Subject: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL The Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludno?ci, the national identification system used in Poland, will fail to operate in the year 2300. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, North, hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......2D(1).....Pass......2S(2) Pass......3S(3).....X.........Pass Pass......? (4) (1) A maximum weak two in diamonds. (2) Non-forcing but game invitational. (3) Accepting the game invitation, and giving South a choice-of-contracts between 3NT and 4S. (4) The unusual double by East causes you, North, to re-examine the auction. In actuality West was the dealer, and slightly obscured by West's bidding box was West's opening bid of a weak 1NT. This means that you, North, have misbid. Over 1NT your 2D was a convention, showing an unspecified major, and South's 2S was pass-or-correct, showing short spades and longer hearts. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130306/19796bdd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 7 01:43:07 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:43:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDEF9F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ryszard Sliwinski: >A question: did South alert [North's] 2 diamonds? Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South You, North, an inexperienced non-expert hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding actually went: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......2D(1).....Pass......2S(2) Pass......3D(3).....Pass......Pass Pass (1) Correctly alerted and correctly explained by the experienced expert South as an unspecified major. (2) Pass or correct. (3) The inexperienced non-expert North was unaware of her obligations under Law 75A, hence the immediate panic bid of 3D instead of the Lawful bid of 3S. The Director adjusted the score to a PESEL failure of 2300 in 3Sx doubled, as East-West can routinely take 12 tricks defending North-South's three-three fit. The complete deal: ...................J62 ...................K3 ...................AT9532 ...................K2 K7.................................AQT85 Q82................................T96 KQJ6...............................--- QJ93...............................AT864 ...................943 ...................AJ754 ...................874 ...................75 Is the UI to North from South's explanation cancelled by the hypothetical AI to North from East's deemed double in the TD's adjusted score? 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/20130307/a6054f90/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Mar 7 12:37:16 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:37:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDEF9F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDEF9F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <019401ce1b28$20b3a910$621afb30$@xs4all.nl> The double is AI. Seeing the 1NT now is AI. You are allowed to take action based on this information. So I think the adjusted score is wrong. What the correct adjusted score is is doubtful: to start with it might perhaps end up in 3Sx when North continues in failing to see the 1Nt opening. Furthermore perhaps the optimum result is now 4Dx-4, and how to reach it is not easy. So something in the magnitude of 1400 seems more reasonable than 2300. And yes, I know this is not how you calculate it.. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: donderdag 7 maart 2013 1:43 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: earl.dudley at bigpond.com Subject: Re: [BLML] PESEL failure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Ryszard Sliwinski: >A question: did South alert [North's] 2 diamonds? Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South You, North, an inexperienced non-expert hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding actually went: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......2D(1).....Pass......2S(2) Pass......3D(3).....Pass......Pass Pass (1) Correctly alerted and correctly explained by the experienced expert South as an unspecified major. (2) Pass or correct. (3) The inexperienced non-expert North was unaware of her obligations under Law 75A, hence the immediate panic bid of 3D instead of the Lawful bid of 3S. The Director adjusted the score to a PESEL failure of 2300 in 3Sx doubled, as East-West can routinely take 12 tricks defending North-South's three-three fit. The complete deal: ...................J62 ...................K3 ...................AT9532 ...................K2 K7.................................AQT85 Q82................................T96 KQJ6...............................--- QJ93...............................AT864 ...................943 ...................AJ754 ...................874 ...................75 Is the UI to North from South's explanation cancelled by the hypothetical AI to North from East's deemed double in the TD's adjusted score? 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/20130307/26dd527f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 15 05:51:16 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:51:16 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDFE09@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL IMP Pairs Dlr: West Vul: N/S The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Pass......1H........Pass......4C(1) X (2).....4NT.......Pass......5H Pass......6H........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Splinter bid, alerted and explained. (2) Deliberate speed, neither fast nor slow. T732 J Q9642 A73 What opening lead do you make? What opening lead do you consider making? =+= Two outsiders on the Paddy Power list of contenders [for the new Pope] showed the Irish bookmaker's customary eye for a publicity stunt. Dark horses included the British scientist and atheism campaigner Richard Dawkins on 666/1 and fictional Father Dougal McGuire, a hapless priest from the 1990s Irish TV comedy show Father Ted on 1000/1, the same odds as U2 front man Bono. Reuters 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/20130315/a0077fca/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Mar 15 08:03:32 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:03:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDFE09@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDFE09@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <014201ce214b$34dc4e00$9e94ea00$@xs4all.nl> Any agreement on what the double of the splinter means? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: vrijdag 15 maart 2013 5:51 To: Laws Bridge Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL IMP Pairs Dlr: West Vul: N/S The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Pass......1H........Pass......4C(1) X (2).....4NT.......Pass......5H Pass......6H........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Splinter bid, alerted and explained. (2) Deliberate speed, neither fast nor slow. T732 J Q9642 A73 What opening lead do you make? What opening lead do you consider making? =+= Two outsiders on the Paddy Power list of contenders [for the new Pope] showed the Irish bookmaker's customary eye for a publicity stunt. Dark horses included the British scientist and atheism campaigner Richard Dawkins on 666/1 and fictional Father Dougal McGuire, a hapless priest from the 1990s Irish TV comedy show Father Ted on 1000/1, the same odds as U2 front man Bono. Reuters 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/20130315/a3cde77d/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 16 15:42:50 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:42:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDFE09@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDFE09@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:51:16 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > IMP Pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: N/S > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Pass......1H........Pass......4C(1) > X (2).....4NT.......Pass......5H > Pass......6H........Pass......Pass > Pass > > (1) Splinter bid, alerted and explained. > (2) Deliberate speed, neither fast nor slow. > > T732 > J > Q9642 > A73 > > What opening lead do you make? ace of clubs > What opening lead do you consider making? ace of clubs > > =+= > > Two outsiders on the Paddy Power list of > contenders [for the new Pope] showed the Irish > bookmaker's customary eye for a publicity stunt. > > Dark horses included the British scientist and > atheism campaigner Richard Dawkins on 666/1 and > fictional Father Dougal McGuire, a hapless priest > from the 1990s Irish TV comedy show Father Ted on > 1000/1, the same odds as U2 front man Bono. > > Reuters > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Mar 16 22:14:36 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:14:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] defender's concession Message-ID: Hello list, East (defender) concedes the remaining five tricks, everyone except West return their cards to the board. Now West shows his cards and asks East "Don't you have another club?" East has one and wants one more trick. At this point, they call the TD. Is this still in time to apply 68B2 and have everyone retrieve their - possibly already shuffled - cards from the board? If so, it might be argued that there exists a logical alternative to a club continuation for a player who has not thought of it before, so 16D seems to preclude such a play. However, the objection was not really "immediate". OTOH, it seems wrong to treat it as concession to be cancelled, as West has never agreed to it. Regards, Petrus From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 16 23:12:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:12:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] defender's concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01ce2293$5ea2fd80$1be8f880$@online.no> > Petrus Schuster OSB > East (defender) concedes the remaining five tricks, everyone except West > return their cards to the board. Now West shows his cards and asks East > "Don't you have another club?" > East has one and wants one more trick. > At this point, they call the TD. > > Is this still in time to apply 68B2 and have everyone retrieve their - possibly > already shuffled - cards from the board? If so, it might be argued that there > exists a logical alternative to a club continuation for a player who has not > thought of it before, so 16D seems to preclude such a play. However, the > objection was not really "immediate". > > OTOH, it seems wrong to treat it as concession to be cancelled, as West has > never agreed to it. [Sven Pran] Law 68B2 doesn't require that West agrees to his partner's concession for it to apply, it requires that West immediately objects for the concession to not being considered made. So in this case (as it seems described) the question is if Law 71 is applicable. From sater at xs4all.nl Sat Mar 16 23:25:37 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:25:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] defender's concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <022701ce2295$2f07b9b0$8d172d10$@xs4all.nl> Well, West did not object verbally, but given that West was clearly puzzled, and therefore not returning his cards I would apply 68B2. But of course law 16D etc.... Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB Sent: zaterdag 16 maart 2013 22:15 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] defender's concession Hello list, East (defender) concedes the remaining five tricks, everyone except West return their cards to the board. Now West shows his cards and asks East "Don't you have another club?" East has one and wants one more trick. At this point, they call the TD. Is this still in time to apply 68B2 and have everyone retrieve their - possibly already shuffled - cards from the board? If so, it might be argued that there exists a logical alternative to a club continuation for a player who has not thought of it before, so 16D seems to preclude such a play. However, the objection was not really "immediate". OTOH, it seems wrong to treat it as concession to be cancelled, as West has never agreed to it. Regards, Petrus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 17 09:41:49 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:41:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] defender's concession In-Reply-To: <022701ce2295$2f07b9b0$8d172d10$@xs4all.nl> References: <022701ce2295$2f07b9b0$8d172d10$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <000601ce22eb$450aaeb0$cf200c10$@online.no> On second thoughts, as West did not return his cards to the board I think his question must be taken as a conditional objection to the concession. I agree with Hans, TD must consider Law 16D together with 68B2. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Hans van Staveren > Sendt: 16. mars 2013 23:26 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] defender's concession > > Well, West did not object verbally, but given that West was clearly puzzled, > and therefore not returning his cards I would apply 68B2. But of course law > 16D etc.... > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: zaterdag 16 maart 2013 22:15 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] defender's concession > > Hello list, > > East (defender) concedes the remaining five tricks, everyone except West > return their cards to the board. Now West shows his cards and asks East > "Don't you have another club?" > East has one and wants one more trick. > At this point, they call the TD. > > Is this still in time to apply 68B2 and have everyone retrieve their - possibly > already shuffled - cards from the board? If so, it might be argued that there > exists a logical alternative to a club continuation for a player who has not > thought of it before, so 16D seems to preclude such a play. > However, the objection was not really "immediate". > > OTOH, it seems wrong to treat it as concession to be cancelled, as West has > never agreed to it. > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > 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 petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Mar 17 20:51:48 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:51:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] defender's concession In-Reply-To: <022701ce2295$2f07b9b0$8d172d10$@xs4all.nl> References: <022701ce2295$2f07b9b0$8d172d10$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Am 16.03.2013, 23:25 Uhr, schrieb Hans van Staveren : > Well, West did not object verbally, but given that West was clearly > puzzled, > and therefore not returning his cards I would apply 68B2. But of course > law > 16D etc.... > Actually, I did apply 68B2 and ruled out a club continuation. As everyone agreed that in every other case the concession is valid, I did not have to make them continue play. What worries me is that once the cards have been returned to the board, resuming play is both required and impracticable (have everyone fish out the last five or six cards and hope his memory is up to the task ?? - remember the cards are supposed to have been shuffled!) Regards, Petrus From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 17 22:26:20 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:26:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE054D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Hans van Staveren: >Any agreement on what the double of the splinter >means? > >Hans Miami Vice - Appeals at the 1996 Summer NABC CASE TWENTY-SIX Subject: But, He Wrote The Book Event: NABC IMP Pairs, 08 Aug 96, Second Session Board: 28 Dealer: West Vul: N/S ..................Carole Weinstein Gorsey ..................Q ..................AKQ963 ..................T853 ..................K2 George Rosenkranz..............Edith Rosenkranz KJ54...........................T732 85.............................J ---............................Q9642 QJT8654........................A73 ..................Margie Sullivan ..................A986 ..................T742 ..................AKJ7 ..................9 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Pass......1H........Pass......4C(1) Dbl.......4NT.......Pass......5H Pass......6H........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Alerted; splinter The Facts: 6H went down two, plus 200 for E/W. East led a diamond which West ruffed. West then returned a club and got a second diamond ruff. N/S called the Director because they thought that the diamond lead was unusual given that West had not opened 3C, had doubled 4C without the CA or CK, and did not double the final contract for an unusual lead. In addition, South had recently read a book written by West that discussed doubling splinter bids to suggest the lead of the lower unbid suit. N/S thought that there had been a failure to Alert the double of 4C. The Director ruled that the table result of 6H by North down two, plus 200 for E/W, would stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. The Committee determined that South was not at the table when the play on the board was completed, and did not find out the result on the board until N/S had a break a few deals later. When South realized that West had authored the book that discussed the conventional doubles of splinters, she called the Director, who then called E/W back to N/S's table whereupon N/S reiterated the facts they had stated to the Director. They added that they believed that the double did not promise so many clubs, and that when partner doubled for the lead of a suit, that suit would normally be led. They stated that they would not have had any concerns had East led the CA and then shifted to a diamond. In response to the Committee's questions West stated that this partnership did not have a "splinter double" agreement, that he had not opened 3C because of the quality of his spade suit, and that he did not double the final contract because he could not double if N/S chose to bid 6NT. When East was asked why she did not lead the CA to have a look at dummy she replied that she considered it, but decided to lead her best suit. The Committee examined the E/W convention card and found that a conventional double of splinter bids was not listed. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was no indication that E/W had a concealed partnership understanding, and allowed the table result of 6H down two, plus 200 for E/W, to stand. The Committee then had to determine the disposition of the deposit. The screening Director was questioned and told the Committee that appellants are not explicitly advised that their appeal may not have merit, nor do they recommend the Recorder System to appellants when that approach is considered more appropriate. [The latter statement was disputed by the screening Directors - Eds]. The Committee, in what they considered to be a very close decision, returned the deposit. Chairperson: Ralph Cohen Committee Members: Martin Caley, Nancy Sachs, (scribe: Linda Weinstein) Directors' Ruling: 90.9 Committee's Decision: 88.8 Casebook editor Rich Colker: A lot of coincidences happened here: West wrote the book advocating "splinter doubles" to call for the lead of the lowest outside suit; East's hand is quite suitable for a save (if West's double suggests one, which it appears to do if it's not a "splinter double"), but East doesn't comply by saving (or even suggesting one by bidding 5C); East has a "normal" club lead, but doesn't lead it; when N/S get to 6H West knows that he wants the lead of a suit other than clubs but he doesn't double 6H (Lightner?) to try to attract a diamond lead; but East leads a diamond anyhow. Wow! Casebook panellist Bobby Wolff: "The Director and Committee bought the Brooklyn Bridge. I realize that we are dealing with honest people, but the coincidence of the facts (if they are true) is too much to ignore. We shouldn't serve on Committees if we feel too much pressure." 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/20130317/49d2a49c/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Sun Mar 17 23:56:10 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:56:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE054D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE054D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Miami Vice - Appeals at the 1996 Summer NABC CASE TWENTY-SIX Subject: But, He Wrote The Book Event: NABC IMP Pairs, 08 Aug 96, Second Session Board: 28 Dealer: West Vul: N/S ..................Carole Weinstein Gorsey ..................Q ..................AKQ963 ..................T853 ..................K2 George Rosenkranz..............Edith Rosenkranz KJ54...........................T732 85.............................J ---............................Q9642 QJT8654........................A73 ..................Margie Sullivan ..................A986 ..................T742 ..................AKJ7 ..................9 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Pass......1H........Pass......4C(1) Dbl.......4NT.......Pass......5H Pass......6H........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Alerted; splinter The Facts: 6H went down two, plus 200 for E/W. East led a diamond which West ruffed. West then returned a club and got a second diamond ruff. N/S called the Director because they thought that the diamond lead was unusual given that West had not opened 3C, had doubled 4C without the CA or CK, and did not double the final contract for an unusual lead. In addition, South had recently read a book written by West that discussed doubling splinter bids to suggest the lead of the lower unbid suit. N/S thought that there had been a failure to Alert the double of 4C. The Director ruled that the table result of 6H by North down two, plus 200 for E/W, would stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. The Committee determined that South was not at the table when the play on the board was completed, and did not find out the result on the board until N/S had a break a few deals later. When South realized that West had authored the book that discussed the conventional doubles of splinters, she called the Director, who then called E/W back to N/S's table whereupon N/S reiterated the facts they had stated to the Director. They added that they believed that the double did not promise so many clubs, and that when partner doubled for the lead of a suit, that suit would normally be led. They stated that they would not have had any concerns had East led the CA and then shifted to a diamond. In response to the Committee's questions West stated that this partnership did not have a "splinter double" agreement, that he had not opened 3C because of the quality of his spade suit, and that he did not double the final contract because he could not double if N/S chose to bid 6NT. When East was asked why she did not lead the CA to have a look at dummy she replied that she considered it, but decided to lead her best suit. The Committee examined the E/W convention card and found that a conventional double of splinter bids was not listed. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was no indication that E/W had a concealed partnership understanding, and allowed the table result of 6H down two, plus 200 for E/W, to stand. The Committee then had to determine the disposition of the deposit. The screening Director was questioned and told the Committee that appellants are not explicitly advised that their appeal may not have merit, nor do they recommend the Recorder System to appellants when that approach is considered more appropriate. [The latter statement was disputed by the screening Directors - Eds]. The Committee, in what they considered to be a very close decision, returned the deposit. Chairperson: Ralph Cohen Committee Members: Martin Caley, Nancy Sachs, (scribe: Linda Weinstein) Directors' Ruling: 90.9 Committee's Decision: 88.8 Casebook editor Rich Colker: A lot of coincidences happened here: West wrote the book advocating "splinter doubles" to call for the lead of the lowest outside suit; East's hand is quite suitable for a save (if West's double suggests one, which it appears to do if it's not a "splinter double"), but East doesn't comply by saving (or even suggesting one by bidding 5C); East has a "normal" club lead, but doesn't lead it; when N/S get to 6H West knows that he wants the lead of a suit other than clubs but he doesn't double 6H (Lightner?) to try to attract a diamond lead; but East leads a diamond anyhow. Wow! Casebook panellist Bobby Wolff: "The Director and Committee bought the Brooklyn Bridge. I realize that we are dealing with honest people, but the coincidence of the facts (if they are true) is too much to ignore. We shouldn't serve on Committees if we feel too much pressure." [Nigel] Caesar?s wife is above suspicion. Nevertheless, Bobby Wolff has a good argument that you should rule against such a chain of coincidence, on the balance of probability. For example, how should the director rule, in similar circumstances, when a an ordinary pair are known to have recently discussed such an agreement. Dr and Mrs Rosenkranz are pure as the driven snow but, IMO, would themselves agree with an adverse ruling. My opinion has not changed since the case was first discussed here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130317/3dff5626/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 18 00:35:45 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 23:35:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, March 2013: >>>Caesar's wife is above suspicion. Nevertheless, >>>Bobby Wolff has a good argument that you should rule >>>against such a chain of coincidence, on the balance of >>>probability. For example, how should the director rule, >>>in similar circumstances, when a an ordinary pair are >>>known to have recently discussed such an agreement. Richard Hills, March 2013: But that Nigella hypothetical is a chalk and cheese different circumstance, a Law 40A1 implicit understanding versus the original Rosenkranz case of zero understanding. Amusingly, a case could be argued for West (George Rosenkranz) and South having an implicit partnership understanding in a future West-South partnership during an Individual tournament, since South had read George Rosenkranz's book. Nigel Guthrie, March 2013: >>>Dr and Mrs Rosenkranz are pure as the driven snow but, >>>IMO, would themselves agree with an adverse ruling. Richard Hills, March 2013: Yes and No. For example, I graciously accept a "could have known" ruling against me. But this is not such a ruling; an adverse ruling against Edith and George Rosenkranz would be predicated upon them both intentionally lying. Nigel Guthrie, March 2013: >>>My opinion has not changed since the case was first >>>discussed here. Nigel Guthrie, July 2006: >>Declarer had read a book written recently by one >>of the defenders that recommended doubling a >>splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking >>unbid-suit. **The defenders are a married couple.** Grattan Endicott, July 2006: >+=+ **This qualifies as "partnership experience" in >my book.** > But seriously, when a player bases his action >on an item of knowledge which he shares with his >partner (but which is not incorporated within their >discussed and announced system and is not widely >accepted as general bridge knowledge) and the >partner subsequently acts in conformity with that >action, the mutual awareness must be regarded, in >my view, as an undisclosed partnership understanding >revealed by the synchronized actions of the players. Richard Hills, July 2006: I agree with Grattan's paragraph above that if such a mutual awareness existed, then it would be a concealed implicit partnership agreement ([1997] Law 75A and [1997] Law 40B). Grattan Endicott, July 2006: >In the case cited it seems to me that the partnership >made use of extraneous information - not that the >1987 law book, or today's book, carries a statement >that can be applied beyond peradventure to the facts. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, July 2006: But I disagree with Grattan that the facts of the Miami case actually fit such a mutual awareness. Firstly, the actual West hand held both long clubs and also a void in diamonds. So the facts of West's hand are consistent West "basing his action" of the double of the 4C splinter on long clubs, rather than a void in diamonds. Secondly, there is no evidence that West writing a book meant that East shared West's knowledge. After all, I have written a booklet about my version of Symmetric Relay (copies emailed on request) but knowledge of that booklet is not shared with all of my partners, some of whom prefer to play Acol. Thirdly, the East player is such a bunny that the fact that expert commentator Bart Bramley stated: "East's argument about strong diamonds makes no sense at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a player that would not lead the CA." is totally irrelevant, because East is not an expert, so does not use expertly use logic. The answer that East gave of "decided to lead her best suit" is highly plausible logic for a bunny. Lucky coincidences in bridge happen all the time. In fact, it would be a violation of the laws of probability if lucky coincidences did not occur. But a single lucky coincidence does not and should not be used to rule that an infraction *must* have occurred. (But, as was noted back in 1996, reporting the case to the official Recorder was appropriate, since *multiple* coincidences over several deals within the same partnership are evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding.) 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/20130317/b5da98d9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 18 03:21:30 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:21:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE06CE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, 18th March 2013: >>Dr and Mrs Rosenkranz are pure as the driven >>snow but, IMO, would themselves agree with an >>adverse ruling. Pure-as-the-driven-snow Grattan Endicott, 28th April 2006: [snip] it is true that Geoffrey Fell and Harold Franklin found it hard to stomach the methods that I was playing with various partners during my earliest days. They thought we had something up our sleeves - our weak two was something they picked on and several times enquired about, because of our 0-9 range which they thought impractical. But what they mostly viewed with suspicion were the hands we passed on after opponents opened the bidding; we played a highly protective style and contentedly passed strong hands if we viewed them as defensive in nature. Our style was to overcall on shape rather than on point count - for which reason our overcalls were not lead directing: our opening leads ignored partner's overcalls - we made the leads we would make in an auction with our side silent. Our responses to overcalls were strong unless wholly pre-emptive; with what would normally be considered a simple raise we passed. In a world that had a narrow view of what was "good bridge" they found it hard to come to terms with a revolution. ~ Grattan ~ (enfant terrible of the day). +=+ Richard Hills, 18th March 2013: >Ultimately the basis for an adverse ruling against >the Rosenkranz partnership would be the Director >and/or Appeals Committee holding "a narrow >view of what was 'good bridge'", thus foolishly >deciding that Edith Rosenkranz leading fourth >best from her longest and strongest suit proved >the existence of a CPU. Pure-as-the-driven-snow Grattan Endicott, 28th April 2006: our opening leads ignored partner's overcalls - we made the leads we would make in an auction with our side silent. Richard Hills, 18th March 2013: >In 1996 neither the TD nor AC were fools. And >nowadays the guidance from the 2007 Law 40C1 >and the 2007 Law 85 makes it much easier for all >TDs and ACs to avoid foolishness. 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/20130318/fe5cb1dc/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 18 13:25:28 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:35:45 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > Nigel Guthrie, March 2013: > >>>> Caesar's wife is above suspicion. Nevertheless, >>>> Bobby Wolff has a good argument that you should rule >>>> against such a chain of coincidence, on the balance of >>>> probability. For example, how should the director rule, >>>> in similar circumstances, when a an ordinary pair are >>>> known to have recently discussed such an agreement. > > Richard Hills, March 2013: > > But that Nigella hypothetical is a chalk and cheese > different circumstance, a Law 40A1 implicit understanding > versus the original Rosenkranz case of zero understanding. > > Amusingly, a case could be argued for West (George > Rosenkranz) and South having an implicit partnership > understanding in a future West-South partnership during > an Individual tournament, since South had read George > Rosenkranz's book. > > Nigel Guthrie, March 2013: > >>>> Dr and Mrs Rosenkranz are pure as the driven snow but, >>>> IMO, would themselves agree with an adverse ruling. > > Richard Hills, March 2013: > > Yes and No. > > For example, I graciously accept a "could have known" > ruling against me. > > But this is not such a ruling; an adverse ruling against Edith > and George Rosenkranz would be predicated upon them > both intentionally lying. > > Nigel Guthrie, March 2013: > >>>> My opinion has not changed since the case was first >>>> discussed here. > > Nigel Guthrie, July 2006: > >>> Declarer had read a book written recently by one >>> of the defenders that recommended doubling a >>> splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking >>> unbid-suit. **The defenders are a married couple.** > > Grattan Endicott, July 2006: > >> +=+ **This qualifies as "partnership experience" in >> my book.** >> But seriously, when a player bases his action >> on an item of knowledge which he shares with his >> partner (but which is not incorporated within their >> discussed and announced system and is not widely >> accepted as general bridge knowledge) and the >> partner subsequently acts in conformity with that >> action, the mutual awareness must be regarded, in >> my view, as an undisclosed partnership understanding >> revealed by the synchronized actions of the players. > > Richard Hills, July 2006: > > I agree with Grattan's paragraph above that if such a > mutual awareness existed, then it would be a concealed > implicit partnership agreement ([1997] Law 75A and > [1997] Law 40B). > > Grattan Endicott, July 2006: > >> In the case cited it seems to me that the partnership >> made use of extraneous information - not that the >> 1987 law book, or today's book, carries a statement >> that can be applied beyond peradventure to the facts. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills, July 2006: > > But I disagree with Grattan that the facts of the Miami > case actually fit such a mutual awareness. > > Firstly, the actual West hand held both long clubs and > also a void in diamonds. So the facts of West's hand > are consistent West "basing his action" of the double > of the 4C splinter on long clubs, rather than a void > in diamonds. > > Secondly, there is no evidence that West writing a > book meant that East shared West's knowledge. After > all, I have written a booklet about my version of > Symmetric Relay (copies emailed on request) but > knowledge of that booklet is not shared with all of my > partners, some of whom prefer to play Acol. > > Thirdly, the East player is such a bunny that the fact > that expert commentator Bart Bramley stated: > > "East's argument about strong diamonds makes no > sense at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a > player that would not lead the CA." > > is totally irrelevant, because East is not an expert, > so does not use expertly use logic. The answer that > East gave of "decided to lead her best suit" is highly > plausible logic for a bunny. > > Lucky coincidences in bridge happen all the time. In > fact, it would be a violation of the laws of probability > if lucky coincidences did not occur. But a single lucky > coincidence does not and should not be used to rule that > an infraction *must* have occurred. > > (But, as was noted back in 1996, reporting the case to > the official Recorder was appropriate, since *multiple* > coincidences over several deals within the same > partnership are evidence of an undisclosed partnership > understanding.) You mostly have it right. If we were sure they were lying, we would want to report them for an ethics violation. The standards for that would be as high has you say. This is just a ruling. There are two sides in this dispute. You tell George "Sorry, I can't give you this one" and rule against him. No problem. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Mar 18 16:06:55 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:06:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4C80DDEE1C1543DD96DF2A6DB81D44B6@G3> [Richard hills] Lucky coincidences in bridge happen all the time. In fact, it would be a violation of the laws of probability if lucky coincidences did not occur. But a single lucky coincidence does not and should not be used to rule that an infraction *must* have occurred. [Nige2] Richard's "Must have occurred" goes beyond even "Reasonable doubt" and far beyond TFLB's "Balance of probability" [Richard hills] (But, as was noted back in 1996, reporting the case to the official Recorder was appropriate, since *multiple* coincidences over several deals within the same partnership are evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding. [Nige2] In theory, Richard's recommendation might work If suspicious incidents could be recorded (rigorously, legally, and internationally) and a director could easily consult such records, in real time. In practice, a director is hamstrung unless "one swallow can make a summer". [Robert Frick] You {Richard] mostly have it right. If we were sure they were lying, we would want to report them for an ethics violation. The standards for that would be as high has you say. This is just a ruling. There are two sides in this dispute. You tell George "Sorry, I can't give you this one" and rule against him. No problem. [Nige2] I agree with Robert that, when ruling, the director rarely has the luxury of Richard's certainty. Although I doubt that either Rosenkranz cheated. I suspect, however, that Mrs Rosenkranz was aware of relevant recommendations in her husband's book. I'm happy to accept that she hadn't formally agreed to play them. I agree with Grattan that, in the light of events, a director should regard this mutual awareness as likely grounds for an implicit partnership understanding. From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Mar 18 19:14:25 2013 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:14:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C80DDEE1C1543DD96DF2A6DB81D44B6@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <4C80DDEE1C1543DD96DF2A6DB81D44B6@G3> Message-ID: <51475981.3070603@comcast.net> Let me see if I understand correctly what you folks seem to be saying: one should not play with a partner who has read your books (or your system notes?) , unless you are playing the methods described in those works...as directors are to presume you are playing those methods. Is this correct? --bp On 3/18/13 4:06 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard hills] > Lucky coincidences in bridge happen all the time. In fact, it would be a > violation of the laws of probability if lucky coincidences did not occur. > But a single lucky coincidence does not and should not be used to rule that > an infraction *must* have occurred. > > [Nige2] > Richard's "Must have occurred" goes beyond even "Reasonable doubt" and far > beyond TFLB's "Balance of probability" > > [Richard hills] > (But, as was noted back in 1996, reporting the case to the official Recorder > was appropriate, since *multiple* coincidences over several deals within the > same partnership are evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding. > > [Nige2] > In theory, Richard's recommendation might work If suspicious incidents could > be recorded (rigorously, legally, and internationally) and a director could > easily consult such records, in real time. In practice, a director is > hamstrung unless "one swallow can make a summer". > > [Robert Frick] > You {Richard] mostly have it right. If we were sure they were lying, we > would want to report them for an ethics violation. The standards for that > would be as high has you say. > This is just a ruling. There are two sides in this dispute. You tell George > "Sorry, I can't give you this one" and rule against him. No problem. > > [Nige2] > I agree with Robert that, when ruling, the director rarely has the luxury of > Richard's certainty. Although I doubt that either Rosenkranz cheated. I > suspect, however, that Mrs Rosenkranz was aware of relevant recommendations > in her husband's book. I'm happy to accept that she hadn't formally agreed > to play them. I agree with Grattan that, in the light of events, a director > should regard this mutual awareness as likely grounds for an implicit > partnership understanding. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 18 21:23:34 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:23:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <3BADA61C-43B0-4E38-8C39-0F937052C65D@starpower.net> On Mar 17, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > Richard Hills, July 2006: > > But I disagree with Grattan that the facts of the Miami > case actually fit such a mutual awareness. > > Firstly, the actual West hand held both long clubs and > also a void in diamonds. So the facts of West's hand > are consistent West ?basing his action? of the double > of the 4C splinter on long clubs, rather than a void > in diamonds. > > Secondly, there is no evidence that West writing a > book meant that East shared West?s knowledge. After > all, I have written a booklet about my version of > Symmetric Relay (copies emailed on request) but > knowledge of that booklet is not shared with all of my > partners, some of whom prefer to play Acol. > > Thirdly, the East player is such a bunny that the fact > that expert commentator Bart Bramley stated: > > ?East?s argument about strong diamonds makes no > sense at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a > player that would not lead the CA.? > > is totally irrelevant, because East is not an expert, > so does not use expertly use logic. The answer that > East gave of ?decided to lead her best suit? is highly > plausible logic for a bunny. > > Lucky coincidences in bridge happen all the time. In > fact, it would be a violation of the laws of probability > if lucky coincidences did not occur. But a single lucky > coincidence does not and should not be used to rule that > an infraction *must* have occurred. > > (But, as was noted back in 1996, reporting the case to > the official Recorder was appropriate, since *multiple* > coincidences over several deals within the same > partnership are evidence of an undisclosed partnership > understanding.) Richard's argument is compelling, and I'm often the one to argue that a ruling on a given set of facts should be blind to the "class of player involved". But this one bothers me. Edith Rosenkranz, who was East here, is manifestly not "such a bunny", nor even "not an expert". Not even close. She is (or at least was then) a fixture in international competition, the winner of dozens of ACBL national and regional events, and the top female masterpoint holder in Mexico. That she might, in an NABC championship event, automatically lead fourth from her longest and strongest without giving any thought to the auction or her partner's double is beyond credibility. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130318/0b03883a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 18 22:50:32 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:50:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE1F0C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Robert Park: Let me see if I understand correctly what you folks seem to be saying: one should not play with a partner who has read your books (or your system notes?) , unless you are playing the methods described in those works...as directors are to presume you are playing those methods. Is this correct? --bp Richard Hills: Yes and No. Law 40A1 implicit understandings can be created by "mutual awareness". But, contrary to a unilateral assertion by a prolific blmler, both partners have to be aware. If one partner writes system notes and the other partner does not read them, there is zero mutual understanding of the methods in those notes. Appeals at the 1996 Summer NABC CASE TWENTY-SIX Subject: But, He Wrote The Book ..... Treadwell: "Another attempt to win in Committee what had been lost at the table. As the Committee report said, it was a close call as to whether the deposit should be returned." Rigal: "An interesting position; it seems that the director was bang on, and that the Recorder system covered this position precisely. So, if N/S were not advised of their best course of action, the appeal deposit should be returned. If they were, it should be kept. We can't have such veiled accusations of unethical behavior taking place without the culprits knowing the jeopardy they potentially put themselves in." Passell: "Insulting to E/W to have to go to Committee. The deposit can't possibly be returned in this type of case." Weinstein: "Referring to the subject title, Mr. Bill's (Pollack) question was 'but did she read it?' It's not clear to me whether N/S were aware of E/W's denial of the use of splinter doubles when the protest was made. Without that awareness the appeal had merit; with that awareness it lacked merit, and the proper N/S recourse (if they remained suspicious) was to have the hand recorded." Casebook Editor Rich Colker: Did she, or didn't she? Maybe only her hairdresser knows for sure. But, whether East read West's book or not, there is no reason to impute a partnership agreement to her choice of bathroom literature. In part, that is why many of our panellists feel that there is no basis for adjustment. Where Wolffie is prepared to go all the way and adjust the score (on the basis that the evidence is sufficient that E/W knew something that N/S did not, and that N/S might have stayed out of slam had North known that East would lead a diamond), others would have kept the deposit, tread(welling) much more cautiously. What's wrong with this picture? ..... Richard Hills: What's wrong with this picture is Bobby Wolff assuming that the starting point of an investigation by the Director into Law 85 disputed facts should be "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". 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/20130318/be8e066c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 19 00:41:21 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:41:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE1F6A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, 1st June 2005: +=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The circumstance in which a player departs from his announced agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ George Rosenkranz held: KJ54 85 --- QJT8654 (Q) As dealer he "departs from his announced agreements" by passing, instead of pre-empting 3C??? (A) Perhaps not part of George's announced agreements (nor part of my announced agreements) is a pre-empt with a strong four card major, since such a pre-empt may have prevented the Rosenkranz partnership from reaching a cold 4S. (Q) On the next round George's "announced agreement" is a doubling of the 4C splinter to encourage Edith to lead a futile club versus 6H, but the "undisclosed agreement" is for Edith to lead a killing diamond versus 6H??? (A) From George's point of view North might be about to sign off in 4H, so perhaps the system meaning of the double was to suggest Edith save in 5C (two ways to win, either 5Cx is a cheap save, or North-South take the push to 5H and make only ten tricks). 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/20130318/5d333dee/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Mar 19 01:41:55 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:41:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE1F0C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE1F0C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <6CB771B9FB9841B0B778CB9D91C23DB8@G3> [Richard Hills] What?s wrong with this picture is Bobby Wolff assuming that the starting point of an investigation by the Director into Law 85 disputed facts should be ?Guilty Until Proven Innocent?. [Nigel] As Robert Frick pointed out: a bridge ruling is closer to a *civil court dispute* than a *criminal court prosecution*. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130319/10748b7e/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Mar 19 01:34:19 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:34:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51475981.3070603@comcast.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE0607@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><4C80DDEE1C1543DD96DF2A6DB81D44B6@G3> <51475981.3070603@comcast.net> Message-ID: [Robert Park] Let me see if I understand correctly what you folks seem to be saying: one should not play with a partner who has read your books (or your system notes?) , unless you are playing the methods described in those works...as directors are to presume you are playing those methods. Is this correct? [Nigel] I don't thinks so. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 19 02:14:46 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:14:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2025@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. Richard Hills: >>..... >>What's wrong with this picture is Bobby Wolff assuming that the >>starting point of an investigation by the Director into Law 85 disputed >>facts should be "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". Nigel Guthrie: >As [snip] pointed out: a bridge ruling is closer to a *civil court dispute* >than a *criminal court prosecution*. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Civil court disputes indeed have "balance of probabilities" as a key criterion. My objection was to Bobby Wolf skewing the balance of probabilities by him deeming significant evidence to be non-evidence. Verbal evidence from George and Edith was ignored by Wolff, and the evidence of the Rosencranz partnership's past exemplary behaviour was also ignored by Wolff. Indeed, Wolff said, "I realize that we are dealing with honest people" but he still ruled against George and Edith, possibly due to an erroneous belief that "could have known" appears in Law 85. On the other hand Bobby Wolff is the most prominent exponent of "feel- good" rulings, as he consistently chooses his gut instinct over the Laws. Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE): "Laws are like spider's webs: if some poor weak creature come up against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and get away." 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/20130319/5a863c58/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 19 06:23:01 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 05:23:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE20C4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Michael Flanders and Donald Swann, excerpt from A Song of Patriotic Prejudice: The English are moral, the English are good, And clever and modest and misunderstood! And all the world over, each nation's the same, They've simply no notion of Playing the Game: They argue with umpires; they cheer when they've won; And they practise beforehand, which ruins the fun! Richard Hills: Ron Klinger, many times an Aussie international, nevertheless has simply no notion of Playing the Game. In Klinger's bridge column in today's Sydney Morning Herald he discussed two Chocolate Frog awards for impressive ethics, which were awarded at Australia's largest bridge tournament. Klinger supported the Frog accolade going to a player who merely routinely obeyed Law 75A. Correctly continuing bidding in accordance with one's initial misconstruction of system, and ignoring UI from partner's explanation, should in my opinion be very normal and thus not worthy of a special reward. More worryingly Klinger supported the Frog accolade going to a declarer who routinely infracted both Law 10A and also Law 81C5 (plus Law 72A) by requesting without cause and without the Director that an opponent's Penalty Card be retracted. Best wishes, Richard Hills Social Club Movie Tickets, Level 7 Aqua Building (beside the poster of The Hobbit) 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/20130319/fc4f38af/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Mar 19 08:32:20 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:32:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE20C4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE20C4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51481484.9040606@aol.com> Why is the award called chocolate frog? Sounds ironic or as if tere is a story behind the name. JE Am 19.03.2013 06:23, schrieb Richard HILLS: > > UNOFFICIAL > > Michael Flanders and Donald Swann, > > excerpt from A Song of Patriotic Prejudice: > > The English are moral, the English are good, > And clever and modest and misunderstood! > > And all the world over, each nation?s the same, > They?ve simply no notion of Playing the Game: > They argue with umpires; they cheer when they?ve won; > And they practise beforehand, which ruins the fun! > > Richard Hills: > > Ron Klinger, many times an Aussie international, > > nevertheless has simply no notion of Playing the Game. > > In Klinger?s bridge column in today?s Sydney Morning > > Herald he discussed two Chocolate Frog awards for > > impressive ethics, which were awarded at Australia?s > > largest bridge tournament. > > Klinger supported the Frog accolade going to a player > > who merely routinely obeyed Law 75A. Correctly > > continuing bidding in accordance with one?s initial > > misconstruction of system, and ignoring UI from > > partner?s explanation, should in my opinion be very > > normal and thus not worthy of a special reward. > > More worryingly Klinger supported the Frog accolade > > going to a declarer who routinely infracted both Law 10A > > and also Law 81C5 (plus Law 72A) by requesting without > > cause and without the Director that an opponent?s Penalty > > Card be retracted. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > Social Club Movie Tickets, > > Level 7 Aqua Building (beside the poster of The Hobbit) > > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Tue Mar 19 13:15:24 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:15:24 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2025@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2025@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <04641B3ADFB34C2E95571AC9B8B1D5C1@G3> [Richard Hills] LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: A. Director?s Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. Richard Hills: >>..... >>What?s wrong with this picture is Bobby Wolff assuming that the >>starting point of an investigation by the Director into Law 85 disputed >>facts should be ?Guilty Until Proven Innocent?. Nigel Guthrie: >As [snip] pointed out: a bridge ruling is closer to a *civil court >dispute* >than a *criminal court prosecution*. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Civil court disputes indeed have ?balance of probabilities? as a key criterion. My objection was to Bobby Wolf skewing the balance of probabilities by him deeming significant evidence to be non-evidence. Verbal evidence from George and Edith was ignored by Wolff, and the evidence of the Rosencranz partnership?s past exemplary behaviour was also ignored by Wolff. Indeed, Wolff said, ?I realize that we are dealing with honest people? but he still ruled against George and Edith, possibly due to an erroneous belief that ?could have known? appears in Law 85. On the other hand Bobby Wolff is the most prominent exponent of ?feel- good? rulings, as he consistently chooses his gut instinct over the Laws. Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE): ?Laws are like spider's webs: if some poor weak creature come up against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and get away.? [Nige2] Richard's quotation could be apt in connection with both Wolff and Rosenkranz. Richard is right to consider *facts* but, IMO, *reputation* is subjective and unreliable, often depending on media-relationships and which cliques you frequent. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Mar 19 14:46:32 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:46:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] defender's concession In-Reply-To: References: <022701ce2295$2f07b9b0$8d172d10$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <51486C38.9030907@nhcc.net> On 2013-03-17 3:51 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > What worries me is that once the cards have been returned to the board, > resuming play is both required and impracticable (have everyone fish out > the last five or six cards and hope his memory is up to the task ?? You probably don't have to do that. As others have written, the first thing to decide is whether the defender who didn't concede (West) "immediately objects," given whatever actions he actually took. That's not always clear, as in the case we were given. If you decide there was no timely objection, you are in L71. If the objection was timely, then no concession occurred. If the declaring side (only) put their cards back in the board, that was an irregularity, and you are in L12A1 (by L23 if not directly). If you can reconstruct the hands and continue play, great, but if not, you assign a score. The problem case is if all three other players put their cards back in the board. If so, there is no NOS for L12A1 to apply to. I think I'd automatically rule that there was no immediate objection. If West's objection wasn't clear even to East, it couldn't have been much of an objection. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 19 23:16:15 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:16:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE217C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE): "Laws are like spider's webs: if some poor weak creature come up against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and get away." Nigel Guthrie: >Richard's quotation could be apt in connection with both Wolff and >Rosenkranz. Richard is right to consider *facts* but, IMO, >*reputation* is subjective and unreliable, often depending on media- >relationships and which cliques you frequent. Richard Hills: Pull the other one, it's got bells on! Directors do not rule in accordance with press release. Rather, reputation is an objective fact. Directors consult their own memories (and the memories of their colleagues in multi-Director major tournaments) to recall whether a player has a history of transparent truthfulness or alternatively has a history of terminological inexactitudes. What's the problem? The problem is a paranoid worldview which insists that it is "obvious" that a significant number of Directors distort their rulings in favour of their clique friends. And insists that it is "obvious" that a majority of the 2007 Drafting Committee distorted their Law-making in favour of their Director friends. Doctor Who (c. Big Bang - ): "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." 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/20130319/7ba3e82e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 20 02:04:35 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:04:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE222B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jeff Easterson: >Why is the award called chocolate frog? Sounds ironic or as if there is a >story behind the name. JE Richard Hills: Semi-ironic. In many Aussie primary schools a teacher rewards an exemplary student with a Freddo Frog. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/freddo-frog-creator-dies/2007/01/28/1169919213311.html 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/20130320/08989363/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 20 04:37:23 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 03:37:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau, May 2006: There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even if such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but lacks any means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but 99.999% of bridge players will follow the rules and do what is expected of them, provided they know what that is. Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: >..... >{B] It gives even more power to directors to >decide events on whim. Such decisions are hard to >dispute but generate discontent. Eric Landau, May 2006: In well over 40 years of playing organized duplicate, I've seen exactly one incident in which it is fair to say that a director (I make no comment on ACs) decided an event "on whim" (and that particular director is long deceased). Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: >[C] Another pernicious effect is to punish honest >players but reward deliberate liars and those who >can rationalize untruths. > >You win a championship by 1 imp. But opponents >protest about partner's alleged "Pro question" on >the last board. John Probst asks your partner "Did >you know the answer before you asked?" "Did you >ask for your partner's benefit?" > >For a practised prevaricator the answers are "No" >(a sane human being is sure of nothing); and "No" >(we *both* want to win). Eric Landau, May 2006: A "practiced prevaricator" can get around just about any law in the book; directors and ACs do not use lie detectors or truth serums. Nigel may not believe it, but, luckily, there are very few practiced prevaricators using their talents to win bridge games; they have better use for all that practice. (Why play bridge when you could be putting your talent for prevarication to work doing something lucrative?) What's more, the practiced prevaricators who do ply their prevarication practice at the bridge table very quickly become well known in the area where they live, and do eventually get what's coming to them. Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: >In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory >opinions on this issue. Some have claimed the >right to break bridge rules that they don't like >or don't understand. >..... Eric Landau, May 2006: I don't recall anyone "claim[ing] the right to break bridge rules". BLML gets into debates about what a particular rule means. Laws, of any kind, are subject to interpretation, and different members of this forum have different interpretations of the laws in TFLB. Unfortunately, some of us are too quick to say that others are "break[ing] bridge rules" when what they are doing is enforcing their interpretation of some rule rather than the interpretation of the person accusing them. Such statements have the semantic value of, "I'm right; you're wrong; nyah-nyah." 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/20130320/ab61606d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 20 19:54:26 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:54:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:37:23 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > Eric Landau, May 2006: > > There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even if > such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but lacks any > means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but 99.999% of bridge > players will follow the rules and do what is expected of them, provided > they know what that is. > This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. Why are we digging up postings from 2006? Player claims mispull. He meant to pull 3D (accepting the transfer to diamonds and showing good diamonds) and instead pulled 3C (denying good diamonds, but many people in our club reverse the meanings and play that this shows good diamonds). I think you would be wrong to give this player the claim of mispull. The ACBL asks for good evidence for a mispull -- I am pretty sure that doesn't mean accepting everyone's verbal claim. Ton doesn't take that point of view. Does anyone? If you want any further facts. He noticed the mispull after his partner explained his bid as denying good diamond support. I have never observed this player lying, cheating, or doing anything wrong except not saying please when he asked for more ham on his salad. > Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: > >> ..... >> {B] It gives even more power to directors to >> decide events on whim. Such decisions are hard to >> dispute but generate discontent. > > Eric Landau, May 2006: > > In well over 40 years of playing organized duplicate, I've seen exactly > one incident in which it is fair to say that a director (I make no > comment on ACs) decided an event "on whim" (and that particular > director is long deceased). > > Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: > >> [C] Another pernicious effect is to punish honest >> players but reward deliberate liars and those who >> can rationalize untruths. >> >> You win a championship by 1 imp. But opponents >> protest about partner's alleged "Pro question" on >> the last board. John Probst asks your partner "Did >> you know the answer before you asked?" "Did you >> ask for your partner's benefit?" >> >> For a practised prevaricator the answers are "No" >> (a sane human being is sure of nothing); and "No" >> (we *both* want to win). > > Eric Landau, May 2006: > > A "practiced prevaricator" can get around just about any law in the > book; directors and ACs do not use lie detectors or truth > serums. Nigel may not believe it, but, luckily, there are very few > practiced prevaricators using their talents to win bridge games; they > have better use for all that practice. (Why play bridge when you could > be putting your talent for prevarication to work doing something > lucrative?) What's more, the practiced prevaricators who do ply their > prevarication practice at the bridge table very quickly become well > known in the area where they live, and do eventually get what's coming > to them. > > Nigel Guthrie, May 2006: > >> In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory >> opinions on this issue. Some have claimed the >> right to break bridge rules that they don't like >> or don't understand. >> ..... > > Eric Landau, May 2006: > > I don't recall anyone "claim[ing] the right to break bridge > rules". BLML gets into debates about what a particular rule > means. Laws, of any kind, are subject to interpretation, and different > members of this forum have different interpretations of the laws in > TFLB. Unfortunately, some of us are too quick to say that others are > "break[ing] bridge rules" when what they are doing is enforcing their > interpretation of some rule rather than the interpretation of the > person accusing them. Such statements have the semantic value of, "I'm > right; you're wrong; nyah-nyah." > > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Mar 21 10:12:13 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:12:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000601ce2614$2cf04bb0$86d0e310$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: My name is used in the message below. I don't mind but I prefer the statement to be true in such case. My view as expressed in my commentary is that if a TD can't find any explanation but a mispull he has reason to accept it. In the example below the explanation suggesting it to be an intended call is clearly described. I would be rather reluctant to allow a change of call. ton This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. Why are we digging up postings from 2006? Player claims mispull. He meant to pull 3D (accepting the transfer to diamonds and showing good diamonds) and instead pulled 3C (denying good diamonds, but many people in our club reverse the meanings and play that this shows good diamonds). I think you would be wrong to give this player the claim of mispull. The ACBL asks for good evidence for a mispull -- I am pretty sure that doesn't mean accepting everyone's verbal claim. Ton doesn't take that point of view. Does anyone? If you want any further facts. He noticed the mispull after his partner explained his bid as denying good diamond support. I have never observed this player lying, cheating, or doing anything wrong except not saying please when he asked for more ham on his salad. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 21 14:00:23 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:00:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Eric Landau, May 2006: >> >> There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even if >> such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but lacks any >> means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but 99.999% of bridge >> players will follow the rules and do what is expected of them, provided >> they know what that is. > > This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. I hasten to point out that my optimistic view of human nature doesn't extend to "real life". But bridge isn't "real life"; it's a game we play for fun and enjoyment, with nothing of value on the line. If I could sell my masterpoints on eBay, I expect I'd feel differently. Perhaps I should have written "99.999% of non-professional bridge players". Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 21 23:50:32 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:50:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ce2614$2cf04bb0$86d0e310$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000601ce2614$2cf04bb0$86d0e310$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:12:13 -0400, ton wrote: > ton: > My name is used in the message below. I don't mind but I prefer the > statement to be true in such case. > > My view as expressed in my commentary is that if a TD can't find any > explanation but a mispull he has reason to accept it. In the example > below > the explanation suggesting it to be an intended call is clearly > described. I > would be rather reluctant to allow a change of call. > > ton Hi ton. Sorry, I was attacking the idea that we always believe all bridge players. I meant that neither you nor the ACBL support that idea. But it was carelessly written. > > > This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. > Why are we digging up postings from 2006? > > > > Player claims mispull. He meant to pull 3D (accepting the transfer to > diamonds and showing good diamonds) and instead pulled 3C (denying good > diamonds, but many people in our club reverse the meanings and play that > this shows good diamonds). > > I think you would be wrong to give this player the claim of mispull. The > ACBL asks for good evidence for a mispull -- I am pretty sure that > doesn't > mean accepting everyone's verbal claim. Ton doesn't take that point of > view. > Does anyone? If you want any further facts. He noticed the mispull after > his > partner explained his bid as denying good diamond support. > > I have never observed this player lying, cheating, or doing anything > wrong > except not saying please when he asked for more ham on his salad. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 21 23:57:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:57:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:00:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> Eric Landau, May 2006: >>> >>> There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even if >>> such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but lacks any >>> means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but 99.999% of bridge >>> players will follow the rules and do what is expected of them, provided >>> they know what that is. >> >> This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. > > I hasten to point out that my optimistic view of human nature doesn't > extend to "real life". But bridge isn't "real life"; it's a game we > play for fun and enjoyment, with nothing of value on the line. If I > could sell my masterpoints on eBay, I expect I'd feel differently. > > Perhaps I should have written "99.999% of non-professional bridge > players". Suppose our club regularly published the hands online the day before play but told players not to read them. Do you think any nonprofessionals would read them in advance? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 22 14:03:08 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:03:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:00:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>>> Eric Landau, May 2006: >>>> >>>> There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even if >>>> such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but lacks any >>>> means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but 99.999% of bridge >>>> players will follow the rules and do what is expected of them, provided >>>> they know what that is. >>> >>> This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. >> >> I hasten to point out that my optimistic view of human nature doesn't >> extend to "real life". But bridge isn't "real life"; it's a game we >> play for fun and enjoyment, with nothing of value on the line. If I >> could sell my masterpoints on eBay, I expect I'd feel differently. >> >> Perhaps I should have written "99.999% of non-professional bridge >> players". > > Suppose our club regularly published the hands online the day before play > but told players not to read them. Do you think any nonprofessionals would > read them in advance? Perhaps I'm overly naive, but why would they? If we stipulate that they have nothing of value to gain by winning, and they already know the hands, I don't see how they would have any motivation to show up at the game. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 22 14:52:17 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:52:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002201ce2704$777e2030$667a6090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: unless Robert and Eric just want to be ironic they both are really na?ve. I have met at least 6 persons in my live who prepared a couple of boards they were going to play in a teams event. I am saying that they took a board, went to the bathroom (or something similar) and put it 4 known stacks of thirteen cards. Just because they were stupid it was discovered. Stupid meaning that they couldn't resist the temptation to make it a difficult board in which they had to exercise at least a squeeze but preferably a double one with a throw in. And of course making that known at least one good bridge player recognized the board. Do you ever read a paper? My statement is that at least 80% of bridge players would look into the hands. And being aware of that it might be better to demand from them to look into it. Then we create a equal level again and might have found out an interesting way to play bridge. Isn't there the story of a very strong ACBL team playing a weak team in a promotion match in which the weak team was allowed to examine the hands they were going to play? The strong team still won? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Eric Landau Verzonden: vrijdag 22 maart 2013 14:03 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Playing the Game On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:00:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>>> Eric Landau, May 2006: >>>> >>>> There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even >>>> if such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but >>>> lacks any means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but >>>> 99.999% of bridge players will follow the rules and do what is >>>> expected of them, provided they know what that is. >>> >>> This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. >> >> I hasten to point out that my optimistic view of human nature doesn't >> extend to "real life". But bridge isn't "real life"; it's a game we >> play for fun and enjoyment, with nothing of value on the line. If I >> could sell my masterpoints on eBay, I expect I'd feel differently. >> >> Perhaps I should have written "99.999% of non-professional bridge >> players". > > Suppose our club regularly published the hands online the day before > play but told players not to read them. Do you think any > nonprofessionals would read them in advance? Perhaps I'm overly naive, but why would they? If we stipulate that they have nothing of value to gain by winning, and they already know the hands, I don't see how they would have any motivation to show up at the game. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.2904 / Virusdatabase: 2641/6195 - datum van uitgifte: 03/21/13 From tedying at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 16:41:18 2013 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1363966878.60057.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> As someone who plays and directs frequently in the areas where Eric also plays and directs, I will add some thoughts.? Eric tends to play in much more competitive Flight A events and fields when he plays.? Yes, I agree that the flight A/X field at our local unit game (a large event that is similar to sectional tournaments) and the sectionals and regionals, etc are all much more competitive and they tend to feel much as Eric does. However, if you go to the flight B games or the local club games, you will find a very, very different atmosphere and mentality.? There are many average players who don't win nearly that often that are in it "to win" and often they don't see things black and white, but grey.? They think nothing of walking to get snacks or to the rest room and overhear a snippet of conversation and then later playing based on that.? I have seen people who accidentally saw a hand record and don't call attention to it, but they just "try to do the right thing" especially when doing the right thing benefits them.? Just think about all of the cases of? UI that people get wrong.? And they think they aren't doing anything wrong because "they would always bid XYZ."? Having been an active club, unit and tournament director in this area for 25 years, I've seen a lot of these types of actions and would suggest that the actually percentage of people who always follow the rules is quite a bit lower than Eric thinks. Contrary to what Eric purports in that they have nothing to gain from winning, I contend that many players feel that earning masterpoints and "winning" is a reward for which they will not "follow the rules" in what they consider the grey areas. -Ted Ying. Laurel, MD >________________________________ > From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:03 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing the Game > >On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:00:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>>> Eric Landau, May 2006: >>>>> >>>>> There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even if >>>>> such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but lacks any >>>>> means of enforcing it.? Nigel may not believe it, but 99.999% of bridge >>>>> players will follow the rules and do what is expected of them, provided >>>>> they know what that is. >>>> >>>> This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. >>> >>> I hasten to point out that my optimistic view of human nature doesn't? >>> extend to "real life".? But bridge isn't "real life"; it's a game we? >>> play for fun and enjoyment, with nothing of value on the line.? If I? >>> could sell my masterpoints on eBay, I expect I'd feel differently. >>> >>> Perhaps I should have written "99.999% of non-professional bridge? >>> players". >> >> Suppose our club regularly published the hands online the day before play? >> but told players not to read them. Do you think any nonprofessionals would? >> read them in advance? > >Perhaps I'm overly naive, but why would they?? If we stipulate that they have nothing of value to gain by winning, and they already know the hands, I don't see how they would have any motivation to show up at the game. > > >Eric Landau >Silver Spring MD >New York NY > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130322/31112ec6/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Mar 22 21:28:23 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:28:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: <1363966878.60057.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> <1363966878.60057.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: [Ton] unless Robert and Eric just want to be ironic they both are really na?ve. I have met at least 6 persons in my live who prepared a couple of boards they were going to play in a teams event. I am saying that they took a board, went to the bathroom (or something similar) and put it 4 known stacks of thirteen cards. Just because they were stupid it was discovered. Stupid meaning that they couldn't resist the temptation to make it a difficult board in which they had to exercise at least a squeeze but preferably a double one with a throw in. And of course making that known at least one good bridge player recognized the board. [SNIP] [Ted] As someone who plays and directs frequently in the areas where Eric also plays and directs, I will add some thoughts. Eric tends to play in much more competitive Flight A events and fields when he plays. Yes, I agree that the flight A/X field at our local unit game (a large event that is similar to sectional tournaments) and the sectionals and regionals, etc are all much more competitive and they tend to feel much as Eric does. However, if you go to the flight B games or the local club games, you will find a very, very different atmosphere and mentality. There are many average players who don't win nearly that often that are in it "to win" and often they don't see things black and white, but grey. They think nothing of walking to get snacks or to the rest room and overhear a snippet of conversation and then later playing based on that. I have seen people who accidentally saw a hand record and don't call attention to it, but they just "try to do the right thing" especially when doing the right thing benefits them. Just think about all of the cases of UI that people get wrong. And they think they aren't doing anything wrong because "they would always bid XYZ." Having been an active club, unit and tournament director in this area for 25 years, I've seen a lot of these types of actions and would suggest that the actually percentage of people who always follow the rules is quite a bit lower than Eric thinks. Contrary to what Eric purports in that they have nothing to gain from winning, I contend that many players feel that earning masterpoints and "winning" is a reward for which they will not "follow the rules" in what they consider the grey areas. [Nigel] Agree with Ton and Ted. I know no cheats but many players, who are ignorant of the rules, or extremely ?careless?, or just excellent rationalisers. The lesson of Victor Mollo?s Menagerie books is that Bridge is a microcosm of the outside world, where quite ordinary people exceed speed-limits, break marriage vows, and fiddle taxes/expenses. That is why the rules that penalize only those who follow them are so wrong. The last time I admitted to a ?slip of the mind?, it cost my team a slam and the match. Whenever an opponent has claimed ?mechanical error?, the director has believed him. Even if director ruled ?slip of the mind?, the opponent would be no worse off than had he admitted to a mechanical error, in the first place. It would be easy to scrap "Mechanical error" rules. But there are other rules that present similar problems. For example: You are in receipt of UI. If you get away with taking advantage of it, you get you a top. Failing to take advantage leads to a certain zero. Only in the event that the director *both* rules against you *and* imposes a most unlikely disciplinary sanction, will you do worse. In these and similar circumstances, Bridge rules reward players for breaking the law. Bad enough for ordinary players. The pressure on a professional must be intense From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Mar 22 23:31:09 2013 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:31:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> Message-ID: Perhaps I'm overly naive, but why would they? [KC] Why? Well, winning isn't everything but it still comes way ahead of losing. A local club tournament in Krak?w some two weeks ago. A player who used to play on the Polish national team, gold medalist of the European Championships in Birmingham, bronze medalist of the Bermuda Bowl in New York in 1981, with a ton of national titles (when Shawn Quinn spent several months in Krak?w she played as his partner in many tournaments here until she found out what he was like). After getting a bottom for a misdefended hand, angry as hell, he yells at his partner: - You can't play like that! When you have a singleton, you can't, for fuck's sake, take so much time to play it to the trick! You're misleading your partner! It's a club tournament so why would a guy with a Bermuda Bowl medal do anything non-kosher to win in such a meaningless event, right? Well, he was also one caught peeking into a hand of a board he was about to play when he was alone at the table and thought that no one was looking (in another local tournament). He claimed later that he thought it was one of the boards he had played already (which was nonsense considering that it was Swiss pairs but was enough for him to get away with a reprimand). Yes, Eric, you are very naive. Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Mar 23 00:11:42 2013 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:11:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net><1363966878.60057.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3AD59E0ECAE34C3BB837462F6A2816F8@CiborKomputer> [Nigel] Agree with Ton and Ted. I know no cheats but many players, who are ignorant of the rules, or extremely ?careless?, or just excellent rationalisers. [KC] BINGO! "Excellent rationalisers" is a perfect description. Spot on because very often people assume that there can be only either honest men or outright liars. In reality "excellent rationalizing" is a much, much more frequent case than cold blooded lying. Another scene from a club tournament this time from Denver. My LHO opened 1H, my RHO responded 1NT. This was alerted by LHO and she explained that it showed 5+S. I did't overcall then with long spades and got a bad score. Of course the man on my right didn't have long spades at all (he had a regular, standard 1NT response). After the hand was over the lady on my left kept telling me how they had agreed on inverting the meanings of 1S and 1NT to their 1H opener and I could clearly see that my RHO was totally clueless and had absolutely no idea was she was talking about (it was blindingly obvious that all those 1S/NT considerations were way above his head), he couldn't understand a word from what she was saying and yet when the TD was called he repeated several times that, yes, this is exactly what they had agreed to. The TD obviously believed them (reasoning exactly as Eric "why would anyone lie..." etc.) and ruled "rub of the green". It was a club tournament and I was a guest there so I simply said OK and moved on but I remebered it as textbook case where an "excellent rationaliser" was better off than somebody without this ability. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland From sater at xs4all.nl Sat Mar 23 16:09:04 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:09:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: <002201ce2704$777e2030$667a6090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> <002201ce2704$777e2030$667a6090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <003101ce27d8$5e113bd0$1a33b370$@xs4all.nl> You probably mean the book Bridge Humor by Eddie Kantar Some athletes are allowed to exchange hands before the bidding, and study their partners cards for 10 seconds or so. I have no idea if it really happened or is pure fiction. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: vrijdag 22 maart 2013 14:52 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing the Game ton: unless Robert and Eric just want to be ironic they both are really na?ve. I have met at least 6 persons in my live who prepared a couple of boards they were going to play in a teams event. I am saying that they took a board, went to the bathroom (or something similar) and put it 4 known stacks of thirteen cards. Just because they were stupid it was discovered. Stupid meaning that they couldn't resist the temptation to make it a difficult board in which they had to exercise at least a squeeze but preferably a double one with a throw in. And of course making that known at least one good bridge player recognized the board. Do you ever read a paper? My statement is that at least 80% of bridge players would look into the hands. And being aware of that it might be better to demand from them to look into it. Then we create a equal level again and might have found out an interesting way to play bridge. Isn't there the story of a very strong ACBL team playing a weak team in a promotion match in which the weak team was allowed to examine the hands they were going to play? The strong team still won? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Eric Landau Verzonden: vrijdag 22 maart 2013 14:03 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Playing the Game On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:00:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>>> Eric Landau, May 2006: >>>> >>>> There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even >>>> if such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but >>>> lacks any means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but >>>> 99.999% of bridge players will follow the rules and do what is >>>> expected of them, provided they know what that is. >>> >>> This is the most optimistic view of human nature that I have ever read. >> >> I hasten to point out that my optimistic view of human nature doesn't >> extend to "real life". But bridge isn't "real life"; it's a game we >> play for fun and enjoyment, with nothing of value on the line. If I >> could sell my masterpoints on eBay, I expect I'd feel differently. >> >> Perhaps I should have written "99.999% of non-professional bridge >> players". > > Suppose our club regularly published the hands online the day before > play but told players not to read them. Do you think any > nonprofessionals would read them in advance? Perhaps I'm overly naive, but why would they? If we stipulate that they have nothing of value to gain by winning, and they already know the hands, I don't see how they would have any motivation to show up at the game. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.2904 / Virusdatabase: 2641/6195 - datum van uitgifte: 03/21/13 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bridge at vwalther.de Sat Mar 23 18:35:53 2013 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:35:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 666/1 Rule of Coincidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE217C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE217C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <514DE7F9.9070904@vwalther.de> Am 19.03.2013 23:16, schrieb Richard HILLS: > UNOFFICIAL > > Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE): > > ?Laws are like spider's webs: if some poor weak creature come up > against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and > get away.? Wrong Source: Solon cited his friend Anacharsis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacharsis Greetings, Volker From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Mar 23 23:04:59 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:04:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: <003101ce27d8$5e113bd0$1a33b370$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net> <002201ce2704$777e2030$667a6090$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <003101ce27d8$5e113bd0$1a33b370$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <514E270B.5050702@nhcc.net> On 2013-03-23 11:09 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > You probably mean the book Bridge Humor by Eddie Kantar > > Some athletes are allowed to exchange hands before the bidding, and study > their partners cards for 10 seconds or so. > I have no idea if it really happened or is pure fiction. Don't know about the book, but there was a publicity event as described in the ACBL. If someone can remember or guess the date, I might be able to look up details. For a story of cheating in college "quiz bowl," see http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/22/cheating-scandal-kills-4-harvard-quiz-bowl-championships As far as I can tell, there was no monetary value in cheating, and it took a little effort. The organizers are, of course, culpable for letting this form of cheating be possible. From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Sun Mar 24 15:07:21 2013 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:07:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ben Schelen Message-ID: <514F0899.8040803@gmail.com> Dear All, I just received a mail saying that Ben Schelen has passed away last Thursday at age 82. Ben was a long time contributor to this list, starting in 1996 or thereabout when the list was first set up. Ben was active as a director in the Netherlands, contributed a lot to the organization of the game, and was a teacher at the TD courses here. (And yes, I was one of his students many years ago). He'll be missed. His son Marcel has asked me to ask you all to remove his email address b.schelen at claranet.nl from your records. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 24 22:40:41 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:40:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2780@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >Contrary to what Eric purports in that they have nothing to gain from >winning, I contend that many players feel that earning masterpoints >and "winning" is a reward for which they will not "follow the rules" in >what they consider the grey areas. > >-Ted Ying. >Laurel, MD Half a century ago, before Duplicate Bridge administration was computerised ACBL masterpoints were little slips of paper given to players. Each player had to regularly snail-mail (then, of course, the only form of mail) her accrued masterpoint slips to ACBL headquarters. In one of Eddie Kantar's books he related an anecdote of a bridge player who had her purse stolen. When the police recovered the purse, they regretfully told the player her money was missing. But the player then expostulated, "I don't care about my money! Are my masterpoint slips still there?" Best wishes, Richard Hills Social Club Movie Tickets, Level 7 Aqua Building (beside the poster of The Hobbit) 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/20130324/3beaf429/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 24 23:16:24 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:16:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE27BA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL English proverb: "The pitcher doth not go so often to the well, but it comes home broken at last." Nigel Guthrie: >..... >For example: You are in receipt of UI. If you get away with taking advantage >of it, you get you a top. Failing to take advantage leads to a certain zero. >Only in the event that the director *both* rules against you *and* imposes a >most unlikely disciplinary sanction, will you do worse. Richard Hills: Not only but also. Nigel's argument is flawed due to his hidden assumption that the other players and the Director all suffer from amnesia. Cheats may prosper the first time that they cheat, but eventually those cheats go too often to the well. If you are a bridge addict (or a bridge professional), being suspended from Duplicate Bridge for a year is much worse than a top changed to a bottom. Nigel Guthrie: >In these and similar circumstances, Bridge rules reward players for breaking >the law. >..... Richard Hills: Actually the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge deter potential cheats from cheating in the first place. It is slackness by players and Directors in enforcing those Laws which permits cheating. For example, the cheating by a world- class expert pair would have been nipped in the bud if na?ve opponents had been less na?ve and had insisted that the world-class pair obey Law 43A2(c): "Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand." 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/20130324/3fec6807/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 25 00:49:28 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:49:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE27BA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE27BA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:16:24 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > English proverb: > > "The pitcher doth not go so often to the well, but it comes home broken > at last." > > Nigel Guthrie: > >> ..... >> For example: You are in receipt of UI. If you get away with taking >> advantage >> of it, you get you a top. Failing to take advantage leads to a certain >> zero. >> Only in the event that the director *both* rules against you *and* >> imposes a >> most unlikely disciplinary sanction, will you do worse. > > Richard Hills: > > Not only but also. Nigel's argument is flawed due to his hidden > assumption > that the other players and the Director all suffer from amnesia. Cheats > may > prosper the first time that they cheat, but eventually those cheats go > too often > to the well. If you are a bridge addict (or a bridge professional), > being suspended > from Duplicate Bridge for a year is much worse than a top changed to a > bottom. For this to happen, you have to realize that players might lie or cheat. > > Nigel Guthrie: > >> In these and similar circumstances, Bridge rules reward players for >> breaking >> the law. >> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Actually the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge deter potential cheats from > cheating in the first place. It is slackness by players and Directors in > enforcing > those Laws which permits cheating. For example, the cheating by a world- > class expert pair would have been nipped in the bud if na?ve opponents > had > been less na?ve and had insisted that the world-class pair obey Law > 43A2(c): > > "Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in > either > defender's hand." > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 25 02:24:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:24:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2945@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Konrad Ciborowski: >BINGO! > >"Excellent rationalisers" is a perfect description. >Spot on because very often people assume that >there can be only either honest men or outright liars. >In reality "excellent rationalizing" is a much, much >more frequent case than cold blooded lying. >..... Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: "A Committee should consider the surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the long run, though, it will have to trust to common sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding whom to believe. Thus, it is important to hear all four players, not just one from each side -- sometimes, questions will reveal that one player is not nearly so sure as his partner, that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version (if one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be two-to-one, or three-to-one, for a particular version, the committee members may find themselves more impressed by the one. Then they should rule that way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of probability lies." Richard Hills: In his other capacity as a bidding theorist, Edgar invented the Kaplan Interchange, inverting the meanings of a 1S and 1NT response to a 1H opening. Konrad Ciborowski: >After the hand was over the lady on my left kept telling >me how they had agreed on inverting the meanings of 1S >and 1NT to their 1H opener and I could clearly see that >my RHO was totally clueless and had absolutely no idea >what she was talking about (it was blindingly obvious >that all those 1S / 1NT considerations were way above >his head), he couldn't understand a word from what >she was saying Richard Hills: Prior understanding, therefore Lawful misbid??? No, instead I agree with Konrad that for a partnership understanding to exist it is insufficient for one partner to write system notes and the other partner to read them, the other partner must also comprehend the system notes. Konrad Ciborowski: >and yet when the TD was called he repeated several >times that, yes, this is exactly what they had agreed to. Edgar Kaplan: "...that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version..." Konrad Ciborowski: >The TD obviously believed them >.... Conclusion of Four Yorkshiremen sketch: FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. ALL: They won't! 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/20130325/3d7c735d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 25 04:21:00 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 03:21:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE29B1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ogden Nash (1902-1971): If called by a panther Don't anther. David Burn, 2nd November 2002: >>..... >>I think that ordinary players expect the rules to be (a) simple and >>(b) comprehensible, so that (c) they can be applied to any instance >>of the game anywhere in the world by even the least competent of >>referees. >>..... Sven Pran, 4th November 2002: >..... >When the Norwegian road act received royal consent the minister read >(as is customary) the law and came to ?3: "Everybody shall travel with >caution and be observant and careful so that no damage or danger is >caused and so that other traffic is not unnecessarily hampered or >disturbed. Travellers shall also pay respect to those who live or stay >next to the road." > >The minister continued: "And then we have the next paragraph" to >which the King interrupted: > >"Do we need anything more?" >..... 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/20130325/41953f05/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 25 11:19:32 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:19:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE27BA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE27BA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <515024B4.4070703@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: >For example, the cheating by a world- > class expert pair would have been nipped in the bud if na?ve opponents had > been less na?ve and had insisted that the world-class pair obey Law 43A2(c): > ?Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either > defender?s hand.? Actually, they did - they did not allow him to see, but he bent over even further and looked anyway. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 25 15:49:15 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:49:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2945@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2945@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:24:56 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >> BINGO! >> >> "Excellent rationalisers" is a perfect description. >> Spot on because very often people assume that >> there can be only either honest men or outright liars. >> In reality "excellent rationalizing" is a much, much >> more frequent case than cold blooded lying. >> ..... > > Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, > Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: > > "A Committee should consider the surrounding > circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the > long run, though, it will have to trust to common > sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding > whom to believe. This is, as far as I know, pretty bad advice. Careful study suggests that human beings are not good at making decisions. This includes research specifically showing poor skill at knowing when someone is lying. Richard once posted an exception to this poor decision making: Humans make good decisions when they have experience and accurate feedback about past decisions. Committee members do not get any accurate feedback. So they are buried in the expected-to-make-bad-decisions category. And let's think about the logic of selecting committee members based on their bridge expertise and then expecting them to successfully perform the known-to-be-difficult task of deciding when someone is lying. And it seems to be well-accepted that politicians and salespeople and poker players can lie and get away with it. And that anyone who could reliably detect lies would probably be wealthy. It would be interesting to put together a packet about lie-detecting and make it mandatory reading for all committee members. Like about sociopaths. But the bottom line would probably be, even with practice and experience and knowledge, you should try to use some other method of deciding if you can. Which would mean the worst advice is....to advise uninformed committee members to trust their instincts to decide who is lying. Bob, who has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology and has taught the topic at the university level. > Thus, it is important to hear all > four players, not just one from each side -- > sometimes, questions will reveal that one player is > not nearly so sure as his partner, that he is merely > being loyal in backing up his partner's version (if > one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to > conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no > arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be > two-to-one, or three-to-one, for a particular version, > the committee members may find themselves more > impressed by the one. Then they should rule that > way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of > probability lies." > > Richard Hills: > > In his other capacity as a bidding theorist, Edgar > invented the Kaplan Interchange, inverting the > meanings of a 1S and 1NT response to a 1H opening. > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >> After the hand was over the lady on my left kept telling >> me how they had agreed on inverting the meanings of 1S >> and 1NT to their 1H opener and I could clearly see that >> my RHO was totally clueless and had absolutely no idea >> what she was talking about (it was blindingly obvious >> that all those 1S / 1NT considerations were way above >> his head), he couldn't understand a word from what >> she was saying > > Richard Hills: > > Prior understanding, therefore Lawful misbid??? > > No, instead I agree with Konrad that for a partnership > understanding to exist it is insufficient for one partner > to write system notes and the other partner to read > them, the other partner must also comprehend the > system notes. > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >> and yet when the TD was called he repeated several >> times that, yes, this is exactly what they had agreed to. > > Edgar Kaplan: > > "...that he is merely being loyal in backing up his > partner's version..." > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >> The TD obviously believed them >> .... > > Conclusion of Four Yorkshiremen sketch: > > FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get > up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an > hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of > sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day > down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to > come to work, and when we got home, our > Dad and our mother would kill us and dance > about on our graves singing Hallelujah. > > FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell > the young people of today that ..... they won't > believe you. > > ALL: They won't! > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 25 16:03:18 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:03:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: <3AD59E0ECAE34C3BB837462F6A2816F8@CiborKomputer> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net><1363966878.60057.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <3AD59E0ECAE34C3BB837462F6A2816F8@CiborKomputer> Message-ID: <774CF9E1-D68C-46F1-87DE-52893E3650C5@starpower.net> On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > [Nigel] > Agree with Ton and Ted. I know no cheats but many players, who are ignorant > of the rules, or extremely ?careless?, or just excellent rationalisers. > > [KC] > > BINGO! > > "Excellent rationalisers" is a perfect description. > Spot on because very often people assume that > there can be only either honest men or outright liars. > In reality "excellent rationalizing" is a much, much > more frequent case than cold blooded lying. > > Another scene from a club tournament this time from Denver. > My LHO opened 1H, my RHO responded 1NT. > This was alerted by LHO and she explained that it > showed 5+S. I did't overcall then with long spades > and got a bad score. > > Of course the man on my right didn't have long spades at all > (he had a regular, standard 1NT response). > After the hand was over the lady on my left kept telling me how they > had agreed on inverting the meanings of 1S and 1NT to their > 1H opener and I could clearly see that my RHO was totally > clueless and had absolutely no idea was she was > talking about (it was blindingly obvious that > all those 1S/NT considerations were way above > his head), he couldn't understand a word from what > she was saying and yet when the TD was called he > repeated several times that, yes, this is exactly > what they had agreed to. > > The TD obviously believed them (reasoning > exactly as Eric "why would anyone lie..." etc.) > and ruled "rub of the green". > > It was a club tournament and I was a guest there > so I simply said OK and moved on but I remebered it > as textbook case where an "excellent rationaliser" > was better off than somebody without this > ability. I do not disagree with any of the above. Players do rationalize irregularities that work to their advantage, or, even more insidiously, commit them without consciously noticing that they are doing so. They take advantage of subtle UI, they play their singletons just a bit faster than usual, they definitively cite partnership agreements that they don't really understand, and the like. What they are doing can be charaterized as "cheating" in some broad sense of the term, but they do not recognize it as such. That doesn't mean we don't outlaw it, or enforce the rules against it. But that's a very different kettle of fish from the context of my much-cited naivete. That was about memorizing the deals for a session one was about to play. That isn't something one does unawares, nor something that one can rationalize away after the fact. That is conscious and deliberate cheating, to the point of totally compromising the contest, and anyone who does it is well aware of exactly what they are doing. Barring psychopathy, acknowledging oneself as an indisputable "cheater" and incorporating that into one's self-image must carry some psychic cost, to which I don't understand why someone would subject themselves without some substantive compensating gain. If I do have a blind spot here, it may be a lack of understanding of how a purely amateur bridge player, whose livelihood is in no way connected to the game, would regard the masterpoints that are awarded for winning as having anything like the sort of substantive value that would compensate for just about anything. I still can't sell mine on eBay. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Mar 25 16:12:58 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:12:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: <774CF9E1-D68C-46F1-87DE-52893E3650C5@starpower.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net><1363966878.60057.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <3AD59E0ECAE34C3BB837462F6A2816F8@CiborKomputer> <774CF9E1-D68C-46F1-87DE-52893E3650C5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5150697A.2090808@aol.com> Many years ago "par" contests were held. (Perhaps they still are.) The hands were sent to the participating clubs a few weeks in advance, in a sealed envelope. Someone was entrusted to opening it and arranging the hands in boards. (Naturally he was not supposed to play.) In one club a mediocre player managed 75%-80% on two or three consecutive contests. He was also in the committee running the club, in charge of sport. So he had acess to the hands when they arrived. No further comment. JE Am 25.03.2013 16:03, schrieb Eric Landau: > On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> [Nigel] >> Agree with Ton and Ted. I know no cheats but many players, who are ignorant >> of the rules, or extremely ?careless?, or just excellent rationalisers. >> >> [KC] >> >> BINGO! >> >> "Excellent rationalisers" is a perfect description. >> Spot on because very often people assume that >> there can be only either honest men or outright liars. >> In reality "excellent rationalizing" is a much, much >> more frequent case than cold blooded lying. >> >> Another scene from a club tournament this time from Denver. >> My LHO opened 1H, my RHO responded 1NT. >> This was alerted by LHO and she explained that it >> showed 5+S. I did't overcall then with long spades >> and got a bad score. >> >> Of course the man on my right didn't have long spades at all >> (he had a regular, standard 1NT response). >> After the hand was over the lady on my left kept telling me how they >> had agreed on inverting the meanings of 1S and 1NT to their >> 1H opener and I could clearly see that my RHO was totally >> clueless and had absolutely no idea was she was >> talking about (it was blindingly obvious that >> all those 1S/NT considerations were way above >> his head), he couldn't understand a word from what >> she was saying and yet when the TD was called he >> repeated several times that, yes, this is exactly >> what they had agreed to. >> >> The TD obviously believed them (reasoning >> exactly as Eric "why would anyone lie..." etc.) >> and ruled "rub of the green". >> >> It was a club tournament and I was a guest there >> so I simply said OK and moved on but I remebered it >> as textbook case where an "excellent rationaliser" >> was better off than somebody without this >> ability. > I do not disagree with any of the above. Players do rationalize irregularities that work to their advantage, or, even more insidiously, commit them without consciously noticing that they are doing so. They take advantage of subtle UI, they play their singletons just a bit faster than usual, they definitively cite partnership agreements that they don't really understand, and the like. What they are doing can be charaterized as "cheating" in some broad sense of the term, but they do not recognize it as such. That doesn't mean we don't outlaw it, or enforce the rules against it. > > But that's a very different kettle of fish from the context of my much-cited naivete. That was about memorizing the deals for a session one was about to play. That isn't something one does unawares, nor something that one can rationalize away after the fact. That is conscious and deliberate cheating, to the point of totally compromising the contest, and anyone who does it is well aware of exactly what they are doing. Barring psychopathy, acknowledging oneself as an indisputable "cheater" and incorporating that into one's self-image must carry some psychic cost, to which I don't understand why someone would subject themselves without some substantive compensating gain. > > If I do have a blind spot here, it may be a lack of understanding of how a purely amateur bridge player, whose livelihood is in no way connected to the game, would regard the masterpoints that are awarded for winning as having anything like the sort of substantive value that would compensate for just about anything. I still can't sell mine on eBay. > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 25 16:39:24 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:39:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2945@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <592525CE-A509-4CC3-A90D-E7E42B7CB098@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:49 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >> "A Committee should consider the surrounding >> circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the >> long run, though, it will have to trust to common >> sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding >> whom to believe. > > This is, as far as I know, pretty bad advice. > > Careful study suggests that human beings are not good at making decisions. > This includes research specifically showing poor skill at knowing when > someone is lying. > > Richard once posted an exception to this poor decision making: Humans make > good decisions when they have experience and accurate feedback about past > decisions. Committee members do not get any accurate feedback. So they are > buried in the expected-to-make-bad-decisions category. > > And let's think about the logic of selecting committee members based on > their bridge expertise and then expecting them to successfully perform the > known-to-be-difficult task of deciding when someone is lying. > And it seems to be well-accepted that politicians and salespeople and > poker players can lie and get away with it. And that anyone who could > reliably detect lies would probably be wealthy. Perhaps at least part of the reason that it is "well-accepted that politicians and salespeople and poker players lie and get away with it" it that it is well-understood that politicians and salespeople and poker players have something obvious to gain by doing so. > It would be interesting to put together a packet about lie-detecting and > make it mandatory reading for all committee members. Like about > sociopaths. But the bottom line would probably be, even with practice and > experience and knowledge, you should try to use some other method of > deciding if you can. > > Which would mean the worst advice is....to advise uninformed committee > members to trust their instincts to decide who is lying. I would point out that the entire American system of justice is based on requiring "uninformed" jurors to trust their instincts to decide who is lying, with hugely substantive consequences, and so far that seems to have worked better than any alternative to Bob's "worst advice". > Bob, who has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology and has taught the topic at > the university level. Eric, who has served on several real-life juries as well as ACBL ACs, has dabbled in politics, has been a salesperson, and has played poker. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From tedying at yahoo.com Mon Mar 25 17:44:09 2013 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game In-Reply-To: <774CF9E1-D68C-46F1-87DE-52893E3650C5@starpower.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE22CD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><947A3424-3A9B-43A2-AFE7-3537494D7CDB@starpower.net><1363966878.60057.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <3AD59E0ECAE34C3BB837462F6A2816F8@CiborKomputer> <774CF9E1-D68C-46F1-87DE-52893E3650C5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1364229849.2826.YahooMailNeo@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I still think that the amount of unethical players in the games is still far higher than Eric suggests.? For example, in our local area, in the last several years, we have had purely amateur bridge players, whose livelihood is in no way connected to the game, who have cheated.? We have had a flight A player with numerous regional wins and over 6000 masterpoints, who was suspended for shuffling and dealing hands and putting known cards in specific hands so that he had pre-knowledge of their location.? We have a player with numerous regional wins, and at least one national win, and over 15,000 masterpoints who was suspended for changing the results on scoring tickets after the opponents left the table.? I've had players that deliberately listen to conversation at the table that was passing boards.? We have a now-inactive player who has more than 22,000 masterpoints who used to deliberately make his handwriting sloppier when writing scoring tickets and would only correct errors that hurt his score, but not ones that were erroneously in his favor.? I've had players who have deliberately eavesdropped on discussions at the table passing boards to them.? I've had players who had one round to go who wandered into the section that was done (even when it was out of the way) to either listen in or glance at hand records from that session.? I've had players who go to the table passing boards to them to "get a board" and looked at the dummy on the table, even when it wasn't their hand (for example, North gets up, goes to get a board and looks at the partial South dummy).? I saw a case where an East-West player had left their convention card on the table and the North player picked up the card, opened it and looked at the results on the personal score.? And on and on.? I would say that 95% of the infractions are "grey" and may be someone who do what Eric describes in his first paragraph below, but I have seen many cases, and chided, corrected, penalized and even suspended players for the 5% of truly dangerous infractions.? Many take the warning and early penalties in stride and avoid further egregious infractions, but others don't learn and have had short suspensions to full out C&E committees where official sanction is pursued. -Ted. >________________________________ > From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:03 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing the Game > > >I do not disagree with any of the above.? Players do rationalize irregularities that work to their advantage, or, even more insidiously, commit them without consciously noticing that they are doing so.? They take advantage of subtle UI, they play their singletons just a bit faster than usual, they definitively cite partnership agreements that they don't really understand, and the like.? What they are doing can be charaterized as "cheating" in some broad sense of the term, but they do not recognize it as such.? That doesn't mean we don't outlaw it, or enforce the rules against it. > >But that's a very different kettle of fish from the context of my much-cited naivete.? That was about memorizing the deals for a session one was about to play.? That isn't something one does unawares, nor something that one can rationalize away after the fact.? That is conscious and deliberate cheating, to the point of totally compromising the contest, and anyone who does it is well aware of exactly what they are doing.? Barring psychopathy, acknowledging oneself as an indisputable "cheater" and incorporating that into one's self-image must carry some psychic cost, to which I don't understand why someone would subject themselves without some substantive compensating gain. > >If I do have a blind spot here, it may be a lack of understanding of how a purely amateur bridge player, whose livelihood is in no way connected to the game, would regard the masterpoints that are awarded for winning as having anything like the sort of substantive value that would compensate for just about anything.? I still can't sell mine on eBay. > > >Eric Landau >Silver Spring MD >New York NY > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130325/72264734/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 25 22:51:47 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:51:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2ACC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ..... Eric, who has served on several real-life juries as well as ACBL ACs, has dabbled in politics, has been a salesperson, and has played poker. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/21/weekendmagazine Professor Richard Wiseman: Politicians were unwilling to participate, allegedly because they were terrible liars (none of us believed them). We looked for a prestigious alternative, and invited the television political interviewer Sir Robin Day to be our guinea pig. The design of the experiment was simple. I would interview Sir Robin twice and in each interview ask him to describe his favourite film. In one interview he would say nothing but the truth, and in the other he would produce a pack of lies. ..... So what are the signals that really give away a liar? It is obvious that the more information you give away, the greater the chances of some of it coming back to haunt you. As a result, liars tend to say less and provide fewer details than truth-tellers. Look back at the transcripts of the interviews with Sir Robin. His lie about Gone With The Wind contains about 40 words, whereas the truth about Some Like It Hot is nearly twice as long. Liars often try psychologically to distance themselves from their falsehoods, and so tend to include fewer references to themselves in their stories. Again, Sir Robin's testimony provides a striking illustration of the effect. When he lies, Sir Robin uses the word "I" just twice, whereas when he tells the truth his account contains seven "I"s. In his entire interview about Gone With The Wind, Sir Robin only once mentions how the film makes him feel ("very moving"), compared with the several references to his feelings when he talks about Some Like It Hot ("it gets funnier every time I see it", "all sorts of bits I love", "[Curtis is] so pretty ... so witty"). The simple fact is that the real clues to deceit are in the words that people use, not the body language. So do people become better lie detectors when they listen to a liar, or even just read a transcript of their comments? The interviews with Sir Robin were also broadcast on radio and published in a newspaper, and although the lie-detecting abilities of the television viewers were no better than chance, the newspaper readers were correct 64% of the time, and the radio listeners scored an impressive 73% accuracy rate. 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/20130325/9bf5a7ea/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 25 23:49:32 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:49:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2B25@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ted Ying: >I still think that the amount of unethical players in the games is still far higher than >Eric suggests. For example, in our local area, Richard Hills: I parochially believe that the percentage of potentially unethical players in Canberra is less than the percentage of potentially unethical players in ACBL-land. But my unfounded parochial belief is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Canberra Bridge Club has administrative procedures which make it much harder for a potentially unethical player to become an actual cheat. Ted Ying: >in the last several years, we have had purely amateur bridge players, whose >livelihood is in no way connected to the game, who have cheated. We have had a >flight A player with numerous regional wins and over 6000 masterpoints, who was >suspended for shuffling and dealing hands and putting known cards in specific >hands so that he had pre-knowledge of their location. Richard Hills: Not possible in the Canberra Bridge Club, which uses dealing machines for each and every session. Ted Ying: >We have a player with numerous regional wins, and at least one national win, and >over 15,000 masterpoints who was suspended for changing the results on scoring >tickets after the opponents left the table. [snip] >We have a now-inactive player who has more than 22,000 masterpoints who used >to deliberately make his handwriting sloppier when writing scoring tickets and >would only correct errors that hurt his score, but not ones that were erroneously in >his favor. Richard Hills: Neither of these cheating techniques are possible in the Canberra Bridge Club, which uses table-top scoring machines. Ted Ying: >I've had players who have deliberately eavesdropped on discussions at the table >passing boards to them. Richard Hills: This may be a cultural difference. At the Canberra Bridge Club players do not eavesdrop upon overly noisy post-mortems; instead they ask the stentorian post-mortemer to shut up. Ted Ying: >I've had players who had one round to go who wandered into the section that was >done (even when it was out of the way) to either listen in or glance at hand records >from that session. I've had players who go to the table passing boards to them to >"get a board" and looked at the dummy on the table, even when it wasn't their >hand (for example, North gets up, goes to get a board and looks at the partial South >dummy). I saw a case where an East-West player had left their convention card on >the table and the North player picked up the card, opened it and looked at the >results on the personal score. And on and on. Richard Hills: And off and off in Canberra. There is a management-speak (but biologically incorrect) saying, "The fish rots from the head down." There is nothing rotten in the state of Canberra, with the Director and the leading experts of the Canberra Bridge Club upholding the highest standard of ethics. With such role models, non-expert players in Canberra are less inclined to start cheating. 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/20130325/f79ffc07/attachment-0001.html From tedying at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 03:15:53 2013 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2B25@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2B25@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1364264153.50601.YahooMailNeo@web121901.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> >________________________________ > From: Richard HILLS >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:49 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >UNOFFICIAL >Ted Ying: >? >>I still think that the amount of unethical players in the games is still far higher than >>Eric suggests. For example, in our local area, >? >Richard Hills: >? >I parochially believe that the percentage of potentially unethical players in Canberra >is less than the percentage of potentially unethical players in ACBL-land. But my >unfounded parochial belief is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Canberra >Bridge Club has administrative procedures which make it much harder for a >potentially unethical player to become an actual cheat. >? >Ted Ying: >? >>in the last several years, we have had purely amateur bridge players, whose >>livelihood is in no way connected to the game, who have cheated. We have had a >>flight A player with numerous regional wins and over 6000 masterpoints, who was >>suspended for shuffling and dealing hands and putting known cards in specific >>hands so that he had pre-knowledge of their location. >? >Richard Hills: >? >Not possible in the Canberra Bridge Club, which uses dealing machines for each and >every session. >?Even in Swiss teams? ?This was a roughly 25 team Swiss event and each match was shuffled and dealt. ?We do use predealt hands for all pair and BAM games. Ted Ying: >? >>We have a player with numerous regional wins, and at least one national win, and >>over 15,000 masterpoints who was suspended for changing the results on scoring >>tickets after the opponents left the table. >[snip] >>We have a now-inactive player who has more than 22,000 masterpoints who used >>to deliberately make his handwriting sloppier when writing scoring tickets and >>would only correct errors that hurt his score, but not ones that were erroneously in >>his favor. >? >Richard Hills: >? >Neither of these cheating techniques are possible in the Canberra Bridge Club, >which uses table-top scoring machines. >?While we have had table-top score pads for the last several years (roughly 4), these events happened about 6 and 8 years ago, before the score pads were in use for every session. Ted Ying: >? >>I?ve had players who have deliberately eavesdropped on discussions at the table >>passing boards to them. >? >Richard Hills: >? >This may be a cultural difference. At the Canberra Bridge Club players do not >eavesdrop upon overly noisy post-mortems; instead they ask the stentorian >post-mortemer to shut up. >?While the vast majority of the players do this, there is the occasional instance where this doesn't happen. ?After many years and many sessions, this has happened several times. Ted Ying: >? >>I?ve had players who had one round to go who wandered into the section that was >>done (even when it was out of the way) to either listen in or glance at hand records >>from that session. I?ve had players who go to the table passing boards to them to >>?get a board? and looked at the dummy on the table, even when it wasn?t their >>hand (for example, North gets up, goes to get a board and looks at the partial South >>dummy). I saw a case where an East-West player had left their convention card on >>the table and the North player picked up the card, opened it and looked at the >>results on the personal score. And on and on. >? >Richard Hills: >? >And off and off in Canberra. There is a management-speak (but biologically incorrect) >saying, ?The fish rots from the head down.? There is nothing rotten in the state of >Canberra, with the Director and the leading experts of the Canberra Bridge Club >upholding the highest standard of ethics. With such role models, non-expert players >in Canberra are less inclined to start cheating. >? >Best wishes, >? >Richard Hills >How wonderful for you that you play in such a unanimously virtuous and ethical bridge environment. ?Judging from? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130326/9b9289d6/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 26 03:49:28 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:49:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2C82@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ted Ying: >>>in the last several years, we have had purely amateur bridge players, whose >>>livelihood is in no way connected to the game, who have cheated. We have had a >>>flight A player with numerous regional wins and over 6000 masterpoints, who was >>>suspended for shuffling and dealing hands and putting known cards in specific >>>hands so that he had pre-knowledge of their location. Richard Hills: >>Not possible in the Canberra Bridge Club, which uses dealing machines for each and >>every session. Ted Ying: >Even in Swiss teams? This was a roughly 25 team Swiss event and each match was >shuffled and dealt. We do use predealt hands for all pair and BAM games. Richard Hills: Particularly for Swiss Teams. I have been told that "the expert game" in Washington DC is preferentially a seeded matchpoint pairs session. In Canberra "the expert game" on our expert evenings (Tuesdays and Thursdays) is preferentially imped pairs and imped teams, hence computer dealing with computer-generated hand records are invariably used. Note: Consequently in Canberra BAM is a once-in-a-blue-moon event. Ted Ying: >How wonderful for you that you play in such a unanimously virtuous and ethical >bridge environment. Richard Hills: Yes and No. A now-deceased sponsor of an Australian international team, Frank Theeman, earned his money through property development. But he unethically ordered the murder of a community activist who was obstructing one of his projects. The ABF could not expel Theeman for bringing the game into disrepute, because significant evidence did not emerge until after Theeman's death. See: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1046350.htm 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/20130326/8cb769cf/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 27 01:59:09 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:59:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2DBB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Popular version of Law 9B1: (a) The Director may be summoned when attention is drawn by the non- offending side to an irregularity. (b) Any non-offending player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. (c) If and when the non-offending side summons the Director, the offending side must be punished by the Director. (d) An offending player should not draw attention to an irregularity committed by his own side. Sean Barron, Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships, page 128: It was a long time later as I fought my way out of autism that it began to dawn on me that few rules are absolute and should be enforced exactly the same way in every situation. Some situations do require strict adherence and honestly should always be practiced. It's never all right, for instance, for people who work with money (banktellers, Brinks armored car drivers and so on) to steal any amount for any reason. Rationales like "The company can afford to miss a few bucks," never justify theft. Likewise, people who break the law should always do the honest thing and turn themselves in and face the consequences. In those situations, honesty is always the best route and it will likely get you out of trouble faster. Actual version of Law 9B1: (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. (b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. (c) Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. (d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents. Richard Hills: Ergo, if either Sean Barron or Aristides the Just was an offending player, he would use the actual Law 9B1 to summon the Director against his own partnership. Plutarch's Lives: Everyone taking an ostrakon, a shard, that is, or piece of earthenware, wrote upon it the citizen's name he would have banished, and carried it to a certain part of the market-place surrounded with wooden rails. First, the magistrates numbered all the shards in gross (for if there were less than six thousand, the ostracism was imperfect); then, laying every name by itself, they pronounced him whose name was written by the larger number, banished for ten years, with the enjoyment of his estate. As, therefore, they were writing the names on the shards, it is reported that an illiterate clownish fellow, giving Aristides his shard, supposing him a common citizen, begged him to write Aristides upon it; and he being surprised and asking if Aristides had ever done him any injury, "None at all," said he, "neither know I the man; but I am tired of hearing him everywhere called the Just." Aristides, hearing this, is said to have made no reply, but returned the shard with his own name inscribed. 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/20130327/677ad1d4/attachment.html From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Wed Mar 27 13:24:55 2013 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:24:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Passes by Message-ID: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> N Dealer W ? ? ? ? ? ?N ? ? ? ? ? ? E ? ? ? ? ? ? S ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? P ? ? ? ? ? ? P ? ? ? ? ? ? 1NT P ? ? ? ? ? ? ?P ? ? ? ? ? ?2D P ? ? ? ? ? ? ?P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?P 2H ? ?? At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) How should this be sorted out. Alan H -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130327/085a66e2/attachment.html From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Mar 27 13:41:20 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:41:20 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, as I see it we had 2 BOOT that were both accepted so I see nothing to sort out. By Passing North accepted West's pass out of turn. By bidding 2H West accepted South's pass out of turn. Looks like a quid pro quo to me. You accepted ours, we accepted yours! Jack From: Alan Hill Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:24 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Passes by N Dealer W N E S P P 1NT P P 2D P P P 2H At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) How should this be sorted out. Alan H _______________________________________________ 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/20130327/8973919c/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 27 13:48:55 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:48:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401ce2ae9$72f4b770$58de2650$@online.no> Law 29A says: Following a call out of rotation offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. In this case we have two separate (and unrelated) calls out of rotation after both of which the respective offender?s LHO has called so the auction simply continues without any rectification and with North in turn to call. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Alan Hill Sendt: 27. mars 2013 13:25 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Passes by N Dealer W N E S P P 1NT P P 2D P P P 2H At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) How should this be sorted out. Alan H -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130327/4e952ef3/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 27 13:58:56 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:58:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01ad01ce2aea$d78cb600$86a62200$@xs4all.nl> Well, interesting. If the final 2H call would not have been there it is straightforward 17E2. Bidding goes back to South, all passes canceled. Now we have to decide. Simplest undoubtedly is to assume we just continue bidding, Or we can assume we first do 17E2 and then handle the 2H as a bid out of turn. We might actually use law 39 on the 2H call, but that does not seem right. My vote would be for the first possibility, just continue, but I could be persuaded to another truth. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alan Hill Sent: woensdag 27 maart 2013 13:25 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Passes by N Dealer W N E S P P 1NT P P 2D P P P 2H At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) How should this be sorted out. Alan H -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130327/51dd4200/attachment-0001.html From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Mar 27 14:10:24 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:10:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Passes_by?= In-Reply-To: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1UKq7U-01W2j20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Von: Alan Hill > N Dealer > W N E S > P P 1NT > P P 2D > P P P > 2H > At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) > How should this be sorted out. > Alan H Funny :) Law 34 --> Law 17 E2 (the last 3 pass are cancelled, the 2H bid goes on a parking place) --> Law 16 D2 (West's last pass is UI for the other 3 player, North's last pass is UI for the other 3 player, South's pass is UI for the other 3 player). No Law 39. The auction goes back to South and we have a BOOT (2H from the parking place) by West --> Law 31. Finally we have to apply lead restrictions (Law 26 B) when either West or South choose a call different to pass when the auction starts after 2D again. From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Wed Mar 27 15:15:51 2013 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:15:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1364393751.10968.YahooMailNeo@web172405.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Law 17 E 2? Alan H >________________________________ > From: Jack Rhind >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 12:41 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Passes by > > >Well, as I see it we had 2 BOOT that were both accepted so I see nothing to sort out. >By Passing North accepted West's pass out of turn. By bidding 2H West accepted South's pass out of turn. >Looks like a quid pro quo to me. You accepted ours, we accepted yours! > > >Jack > >From: Alan Hill >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:24 AM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: [BLML] Passes by > > > > > > > >N Dealer > > >W ? ? ? ? ? ?N ? ? ? ? ? ? E ? ? ? ? ? ? S >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? P ? ? ? ? ? ? P ? ? ? ? ? ? 1NT >P ? ? ? ? ? ? ?P ? ? ? ? ? ?2D >P ? ? ? ? ? ? ?P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?P >2H ? ?? > > >At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) >How should this be sorted out. > > >Alan H_______________________________________________ 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/20130327/05a72c17/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Mar 27 16:23:36 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:23:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1UKq7U-01W2j20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1UKq7U-01W2j20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <004001ce2aff$0cfce350$26f6a9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: goodness, another afternoon of discussions in the laws committee. I do not know the outcome yet, but one thing in the given solution is wrong. North last pass is not UI for his partner. North did not infringe the laws, being allowed to accept a COOT. This example shows that we need to keep '..any player who has passed OOT being an offender' in L17E2. Personally I would like to use L39 for the 2H bid But I do understand that the question may arise whether there was a final pass. It seems not. ton Von: Alan Hill > N Dealer > W N E S > P P 1NT > P P 2D > P P P > 2H > At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) How > should this be sorted out. > Alan H Funny :) Law 34 --> Law 17 E2 (the last 3 pass are cancelled, the 2H bid goes on a parking place) --> Law 16 D2 (West's last pass is UI for the other 3 player, North's last pass is UI for the other 3 player, South's pass is UI for the other 3 player). No Law 39. The auction goes back to South and we have a BOOT (2H from the parking place) by West --> Law 31. Finally we have to apply lead restrictions (Law 26 B) when either West or South choose a call different to pass when the auction starts after 2D again. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.2904 / Virusdatabase: 2641/6204 - datum van uitgifte: 03/25/13 From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 27 17:26:27 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:26:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51531DB3.1020905@skynet.be> I don't believe this case as it is written. I think South meant to call in the previous round. However, if everything is as it was, and people were accepting when they saw passes out of turn, there is one thing wrong: After three passes in succession (W, N and S) the bidding reverts to the player that was passed by. So it is East's turn to bid. And West has called at his partner's turn. Sorry West, but if you decide to act without calling the director, you may face very strange consequences. Herman. Alan Hill schreef: > > > N Dealer > > W N E S > P P 1NT > P P 2D > P P P > 2H > > At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) > How should this be sorted out. > > Alan H > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13 > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 27 17:30:03 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:30:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1UKq7U-01W2j20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1UKq7U-01W2j20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <51531E8B.8030504@skynet.be> Peter and I found the same solution, with one difference: the bidding reverts to East or South? L17E speaks of THE player who missed his turn, which must mean the fourth besides the three passes. So I believe I was right. Herman. Peter Eidt schreef: > Von: Alan Hill >> N Dealer >> W N E S >> P P 1NT >> P P 2D >> P P P >> 2H >> At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) >> How should this be sorted out. >> Alan H > > Funny :) > > Law 34 --> Law 17 E2 (the last 3 pass are cancelled, > the 2H bid goes on a parking place) --> Law 16 D2 > (West's last pass is UI for the other 3 player, North's > last pass is UI for the other 3 player, South's pass > is UI for the other 3 player). No Law 39. > The auction goes back to South and we have a BOOT > (2H from the parking place) by West --> Law 31. > > Finally we have to apply lead restrictions (Law 26 B) > when either West or South choose a call different > to pass when the auction starts after 2D again. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13 > > From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Mar 27 17:48:13 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:48:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Passes_by?= In-Reply-To: <51531E8B.8030504@skynet.be> References: <51531E8B.8030504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1UKtWH-0RmlP60@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Von: Herman De Wael > Peter and I found the same solution, with one difference: > the bidding reverts to East or South? > L17E speaks of THE player who missed his turn, which must mean the > fourth besides the three passes. > So I believe I was right. Though your opinion is quite common ;-) I can prove you can't be right: Suppose you were right and the TD only cancels the pass by South and lets restart the bidding with East again. Now East passes - so what? Once again 3 consecutive passes and this time South was left out --> TD cancels all 3 passes and the auction reverts to South. q.e.d. Although the laws are quiet most of the time when there are multiple infractions, it is common/ best practice to start with the first irregularity - as you did yourself when when putting 2H in the garage. Peter > Herman. > > Peter Eidt schreef: > > Von: Alan Hill > >> N Dealer > >> W N E S > >> P P 1NT > >> P P 2D > >> P P P > >> 2H > >> At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) > >> How should this be sorted out. > >> Alan H > > > > Funny :) > > > > Law 34 --> Law 17 E2 (the last 3 pass are cancelled, > > the 2H bid goes on a parking place) --> Law 16 D2 > > (West's last pass is UI for the other 3 player, North's > > last pass is UI for the other 3 player, South's pass > > is UI for the other 3 player). No Law 39. > > The auction goes back to South and we have a BOOT > > (2H from the parking place) by West --> Law 31. > > > > Finally we have to apply lead restrictions (Law 26 B) > > when either West or South choose a call different > > to pass when the auction starts after 2D again. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: > > 03/23/13 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Wed Mar 27 18:19:07 2013 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:19:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <51531DB3.1020905@skynet.be> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51531DB3.1020905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1364404747.23894.YahooMailNeo@web172404.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Exactly as written. On discussion with the players it appears likely that West's Pass out of turn was meant to be the alert card.? Alan H >________________________________ > From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:26 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Passes by > >I don't believe this case as it is written. I think South meant to call >in the previous round. However, if everything is as it was, and people >were accepting when they saw passes out of turn, there is one thing wrong: > >After three passes in succession (W, N and S) the bidding reverts to the >player that was passed by. So it is East's turn to bid. And West has >called at his partner's turn. >Sorry West, but if you decide to act without calling the director, you >may face very strange consequences. > >Herman. > >Alan Hill schreef: >> >> >> N Dealer >> >> W? ? ? ? ? ? N? ? ? ? ? ? E? ? ? ? ? ? S >>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? P? ? ? ? ? ? P? ? ? ? ? ? 1NT >> P? ? ? ? ? ? ? P? ? ? ? ? ? 2D >> P? ? ? ? ? ? ? P? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? P >> 2H >> >> At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) >> How should this be sorted out. >> >> Alan H >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13 >> >_______________________________________________ >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/20130327/72718475/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 27 18:34:07 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:34:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1UKtWH-0RmlP60@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> References: <51531E8B.8030504@skynet.be> <1UKtWH-0RmlP60@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <51532D8F.507@skynet.be> Peter Eidt schreef: > Von: Herman De Wael >> Peter and I found the same solution, with one difference: >> the bidding reverts to East or South? >> L17E speaks of THE player who missed his turn, which must mean the >> fourth besides the three passes. >> So I believe I was right. > > Though your opinion is quite common ;-) > I can prove you can't be right: > > Suppose you were right and the TD only cancels > the pass by South and lets restart the bidding > with East again. > Now East passes - so what? Once again > 3 consecutive passes and this time South > was left out --> TD cancels all 3 passes and > the auction reverts to South. q.e.d. > yes, but what if East does not pass? it is first East's decision to make! > Although the laws are quiet most of the time > when there are multiple infractions, it is common/ > best practice to start with the first irregularity - as > you did yourself when when putting 2H in the > garage. > it is common practice to start with the first INFRACTION. The pass OOT by West has been accepted, so it is no longer an infraction. Or do we have to go back now to the revoke on board one of this session (or of the revoke on board the ss Finland in 1929?). Herman. > Peter > >> Herman. >> >> Peter Eidt schreef: >>> Von: Alan Hill >>>> N Dealer >>>> W N E S >>>> P P 1NT >>>> P P 2D >>>> P P P >>>> 2H >>>> At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) >>>> How should this be sorted out. >>>> Alan H >>> >>> Funny :) >>> >>> Law 34 --> Law 17 E2 (the last 3 pass are cancelled, >>> the 2H bid goes on a parking place) --> Law 16 D2 >>> (West's last pass is UI for the other 3 player, North's >>> last pass is UI for the other 3 player, South's pass >>> is UI for the other 3 player). No Law 39. >>> The auction goes back to South and we have a BOOT >>> (2H from the parking place) by West --> Law 31. >>> >>> Finally we have to apply lead restrictions (Law 26 B) >>> when either West or South choose a call different >>> to pass when the auction starts after 2D again. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: >>> 03/23/13 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13 > > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 27 18:39:05 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:39:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1364404747.23894.YahooMailNeo@web172404.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51531DB3.1020905@skynet.be> <1364404747.23894.YahooMailNeo@web172404.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51532EB9.1080009@skynet.be> and did they notice? and did west not wish to change his "pass"? and did north accept without calling the TD? and most importantly: did South notice all this and decide on his own that he now wanted to call out of turn also? It seems as if South and West think they're still in the previous round, and there is only one pass out of turn: North's. If that is the case, I will simply call South's pass in turn, West's pass never happening (intended as an alert), and North's never happened (based on an unintended call). This story is far more likely than that of three people bidding out of turn. Unless they are joking of course - with disastrous results for West. Herman. Alan Hill schreef: > Exactly as written. On discussion with the players it appears likely > that West's Pass out of turn was meant to be the alert card. > Alan H > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Herman De Wael > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:26 > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Passes by > > I don't believe this case as it is written. I think South meant to call > in the previous round. However, if everything is as it was, and people > were accepting when they saw passes out of turn, there is one thing > wrong: > > After three passes in succession (W, N and S) the bidding reverts to > the > player that was passed by. So it is East's turn to bid. And West has > called at his partner's turn. > Sorry West, but if you decide to act without calling the director, you > may face very strange consequences. > > Herman. > > Alan Hill schreef: > > > > > > N Dealer > > > > W N E S > > P P 1NT > > P P 2D > > P P P > > 2H > > > > At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) > > How should this be sorted out. > > > > Alan H > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: > 03/23/13 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13 > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Wed Mar 27 19:03:19 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:03:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <1364404747.23894.YahooMailNeo@web172404.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1364387095.5374.YahooMailNeo@web172401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51531DB3.1020905@skynet.be> <1364404747.23894.YahooMailNeo@web172404.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008301ce2b15$5d436ad0$17ca4070$@filosofi.uu.se> Two points. 1. There should be a difference between Case 1. North East South West 1spade pass pass Pass and case 2. North East South West 1spade pass pass Pass In the second case North maybe unhappy for example that he didn't get a chance to bid say 2 hearts with 6-5 in the majors. Say South has 5 points with singleton spade and five hearts. If we use the same approach as in case 1 bidding goes back to South who passes and the contract is 1 spade. North protests and says he wanted to accept West 's POOT in order to bid 2 hearts which would lead to easy 4 hearts for NS. So East gained by POOT but if we read 17E2 the way Peter wants us to do our options are small. 2. How can a bid which is in rotation be judged BOOT afterwards? I have more sympathy for 39 but I understands that this probably will not do as third pass when one of the passes is out of turn shouldn't be call final unless we define final in somewhat artificial way. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alan Hill Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:19 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Passes by Exactly as written. On discussion with the players it appears likely that West's Pass out of turn was meant to be the alert card. Alan H _____ From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:26 Subject: Re: [BLML] Passes by I don't believe this case as it is written. I think South meant to call in the previous round. However, if everything is as it was, and people were accepting when they saw passes out of turn, there is one thing wrong: After three passes in succession (W, N and S) the bidding reverts to the player that was passed by. So it is East's turn to bid. And West has called at his partner's turn. Sorry West, but if you decide to act without calling the director, you may face very strange consequences. Herman. Alan Hill schreef: > > > N Dealer > > W N E S > P P 1NT > P P 2D > P P P > 2H > > At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) > How should this be sorted out. > > Alan H > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13 > _______________________________________________ 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/20130327/fb19948a/attachment-0001.html From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Mar 27 22:01:03 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:01:03 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Passes by In-Reply-To: <001401ce2ae9$72f4b770$58de2650$@online.no> Message-ID: I apologize for my early submission. I missed the fact that there were three consecutive passes. I would cancel the 2H bid apply Law 17E2 and revert the bidding back to S. Jack From: Sven Pran Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:48 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Passes by Law 29A says: Following a call out of rotation offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. In this case we have two separate (and unrelated) calls out of rotation after both of which the respective offender?s LHO has called so the auction simply continues without any rectification and with North in turn to call. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Alan Hill Sendt: 27. mars 2013 13:25 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Passes by N Dealer W N E S P P 1NT P P 2D P P P 2H At this point the TD was called. (Yes both S & E did not bid) How should this be sorted out. Alan H _______________________________________________ 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/20130327/9a3a5796/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 27 23:07:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:07:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Passes by [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2F0C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Alan Hill: >Exactly as written. On discussion with the players it appears >likely that West's Pass out of turn was meant to be the alert card. North dealer WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......Pass......1NT Pass......Pass......2D........--- Pass(1)...Pass......---.......Pass 2H (2) (1) Intended to Alert. Pass cards and Alert cards are in the same section of the bidding box. (2) Director summoned. Law 25A1: Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law. Richard Hills: West's partner, East, has not yet made a call after West's un- intended second Pass, so the Director could roll the auction back to East's 2D with West now substituting the originally intended Alert. But this has a technical problem; the Alert was the originally intended action, not the originally intended call. So I suggest that in 2017 Law 25A1 be extended to cover originally intended Alert or Stop! cards from the bidding box. 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/20130327/45789b3c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 28 00:39:36 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:39:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Passes by [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2F54@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Definitions: Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention. Law 29A: Following a call out of rotation offender's LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. Herman De Wael asserted: >..... >The pass OOT by West has been accepted, so it is no longer an infraction. >..... Richard Hills tergiversates: Yes and No. Forfeiting the right to rectification of an infraction does not mean that the infraction has by TARDIS time-travel ceased to be an infraction. It is entirely Lawful for the Director to impose a procedural penalty or a disciplinary penalty upon the infracting player, despite a score-affecting rectification for the non-offending side no longer being possible. 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/20130327/2c5ac869/attachment-0001.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 28 00:58:47 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:58:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Passes by [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2F0C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2F0C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard HILLS" Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 17:07 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Passes by [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > UNOFFICIAL > > Alan Hill: > >>Exactly as written. On discussion with the players it appears >>likely that West's Pass out of turn was meant to be the alert card. > > North dealer > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......Pass......Pass......1NT > Pass......Pass......2D........--- > Pass(1)...Pass......---.......Pass > 2H (2) > > (1) Intended to Alert. Pass cards and Alert cards are in the same > section of the bidding box. > (2) Director summoned. > > Law 25A1: > > Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended > call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to > do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands > and is subject to the appropriate Law. > > Richard Hills: > > West's partner, East, has not yet made a call after West's un- > intended second Pass, so the Director could roll the auction back to > East's 2D with West now substituting the originally intended Alert. > > But this has a technical problem; the Alert was the originally > intended action, not the originally intended call. > > So I suggest that in 2017 Law 25A1 be extended to cover originally > intended Alert or Stop! cards from the bidding box. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > UNOFFICIAL I do not know if some tangent has captured the discourse but there are some observations to make at this point. It has been suggested that W had wanted to play the Alert Card. To which I wonder. For instance, just why would a player want to do something that is outrageously illegal? To wit- L80 prohibits alerts [in face to face] since they conflict with L73B2. Now, I would anticipate that someone will assert that an alert is not a system of communication with partner- because others before you have done so; but such assertion is not true in the least. The regulation's purpose is to communicate to everyone at the table which includes partner- and that is precisely what L16B1a indeed states. Second, if the player had not have been doing that thing that ought not have been in his vocabulary in the first place, then there would not have been the kerfuffle everyone is taking an interest in. Third, it has been suggested that the Law incorporate the SBW and alert as a play- or to put it more accurately, a call; and treat it as such where things that involve provisions of law such as L25 are concerned. Is an ocean deeper than we already have needed to deep-six such a notion? regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 28 01:29:21 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:29:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Passes by [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2FDC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Roger Pewick: >...... >For instance, just why would a player want to do something that is >outrageously illegal? To wit- L80 prohibits alerts [in face to face] since >they conflict with L73B2. 2007 Introduction: "...do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." Richard Hills: The 2007 Drafting Committee could have satisfied Roger's qualms by inserting zillions of over-riding cross-references. But that would have rendered the Lawbook unreadable. Instead at its 2009 meeting the WBF Laws Committee confirmed the long-standing interpretation principle that a specific Law over-rides a more general Law. For alerts, Law 40B2(a) is the specific Law. Roger Pewick: >Now, I would anticipate that someone will assert that an alert is not a >system of communication with partner- because others before you have >done so; but such assertion is not true in the least. The regulation's >purpose is to communicate to everyone at the table which includes >partner- and that is precisely what L16B1a indeed states. >..... Richard Hills: Yes and No. Law 16B1(a) and Law 73 define "an unexpected alert or failure to alert" as communicating extraneous information. But... While an expected alert (or expected non-alert) does "communicate" that pard is on the same wavelength as you, such expected "communication" is specifically permitted by Law 16A1(c): "A player may use information in the auction or play if it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following)" 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/20130328/0a8bf71c/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Thu Mar 28 04:44:06 2013 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:44:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Toronto (Summer 2011) Cases Posted Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Toronto2011.php The cases have likely been up for a while, but I only just noticed that they were present. Sorry for the delay. The ACBL was short on staff for a while, and I could have turned the cases around faster on my end. We are working on the Fall 2011 cases now and I hope will start to catch up to the present. 2011 was the last year that I was NABC Appeals Chair, so I will be off the hook for 2012 and 2013 except as a commentator. As usual, if you'd like to discuss a particular case please start a new thread > with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130328/0cef17e5/attachment.html From jeff.ford at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 17:53:56 2013 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:53:56 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Toronto NABC+ Appeal 2 - What about the pre-alert? Message-ID: Full text is here: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Toronto2011/02-NABC+.pdf If E/W were in fact playing Suction over the opponent's NT, then they were required to pre-alert the opponents at the beginning of the round. The fact that no mention was made of this could be taken to mean that they weren't actually playing it, although the general lack of compliance with this particular alerting rule makes the inference thin. (For those outside the ACBL, defenses to 1NT which use bids other than X and 2C to be multi-meaning with no anchor suit are only allowed in mid-chart and higher events, and all conventions that are not on the general chart must be pre-alerted at the beginning of each round.) Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130328/99ff68ed/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 29 23:47:36 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:47:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid Message-ID: From today: 1S 2H 1C The player didn't see the 2H bid, meant to bid 1NT (6-9 HCP), then pulled the wrong bidding card. I would allow him to change to 1NT and then apply the laws for insufficient bids. But, suppose he doesn't want to? Anyway, I probably have to tell him what happens if he doesn't change his bid. So then what is the meaning of 1C? From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 30 00:15:50 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:15:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> > Robert Frick > From today: > > 1S 2H 1C > > The player didn't see the 2H bid, meant to bid 1NT (6-9 HCP), then pulled the > wrong bidding card. [Sven Pran] Law 25A: Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law. So he may change his 1C to 1NT without any rectification had 1NT been sufficient. But as 1NT (also) is insufficient this bid is subject to the appropriate law which is law 27. > > I would allow him to change to 1NT and then apply the laws for insufficient > bids. But, suppose he doesn't want to? Anyway, I probably have to tell him > what happens if he doesn't change his bid. [Sven Pran] If the player doesn't want to change his 1C bid to 1NT (under Law 25A) then law 27 applies to the 1C bid. > So then what is the meaning of 1C? [Sven Pran] This question is only relevant if the player refrains from changing his 1C bid to 1NT before law 27 is applied. It seems to me that the only reason for that could be to be allowed to change his insufficient bid 1C to 3C under Law 27B1. However, TD will have to seriously consider Law 27D in this situation. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 30 13:42:51 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:42:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:15:50 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> From today: >> >> 1S 2H 1C >> >> The player didn't see the 2H bid, meant to bid 1NT (6-9 HCP), then >> pulled > the >> wrong bidding card. > [Sven Pran] > Law 25A: > Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call > for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, > without > pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to > the > appropriate Law. > > So he may change his 1C to 1NT without any rectification had 1NT been > sufficient. > But as 1NT (also) is insufficient this bid is subject to the appropriate > law > which is law 27. >> >> I would allow him to change to 1NT and then apply the laws for > insufficient >> bids. But, suppose he doesn't want to? Anyway, I probably have to tell >> him >> what happens if he doesn't change his bid. > [Sven Pran] > If the player doesn't want to change his 1C bid to 1NT (under Law 25A) > then > law 27 applies to the 1C bid. > >> So then what is the meaning of 1C? > [Sven Pran] > This question is only relevant if the player refrains from changing his > 1C > bid to 1NT before law 27 is applied. It seems to me that the only reason > for > that could be to be allowed to change his insufficient bid 1C to 3C under > Law 27B1. However, TD will have to seriously consider Law 27D in this > situation. So, you would allow a nonbarring change to 3C. Is that consistent with your method of determining the meaning of an insufficient bid? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 30 14:30:39 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Playing the Game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2ACC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EE2ACC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:51:47 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > ..... > > Eric, who has served on several real-life juries as well as ACBL ACs, > has dabbled in politics, has been a salesperson, and has played poker. > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/21/weekendmagazine > > Professor Richard Wiseman: > > Politicians were unwilling to participate, allegedly because they were > terrible liars (none of us believed them). We looked for a prestigious > alternative, and invited the television political interviewer Sir Robin > Day to be our guinea pig. > > The design of the experiment was simple. I would interview Sir Robin > twice and in each interview ask him to describe his favourite film. In > one interview he would say nothing but the truth, and in the other he > would produce a pack of lies. > > ..... > > So what are the signals that really give away a liar? It is obvious that > the more information you give away, the greater the chances of some of > it coming back to haunt you. As a result, liars tend to say less and > provide fewer details than truth-tellers. Look back at the transcripts > of the interviews with Sir Robin. His lie about Gone With The Wind > contains about 40 words, whereas the truth about Some Like It Hot is > nearly twice as long. > > Liars often try psychologically to distance themselves from their > falsehoods, and so tend to include fewer references to themselves in > their stories. Again, Sir Robin's testimony provides a striking > illustration of the effect. When he lies, Sir Robin uses the word "I" > just twice, whereas when he tells the truth his account contains seven > "I"s. In his entire interview about Gone With The Wind, Sir Robin only > once mentions how the film makes him feel ("very moving"), compared with > the several references to his feelings when he talks about Some Like It > Hot ("it gets funnier every time I see it", "all sorts of bits I love", > "[Curtis is] so pretty ... so witty"). > > The simple fact is that the real clues to deceit are in the words that > people use, not the body language. So do people become better lie > detectors when they listen to a liar, or even just read a transcript of > their comments? The interviews with Sir Robin were also broadcast on > radio and published in a newspaper, and although the lie-detecting > abilities of the television viewers were no better than chance, the > newspaper readers were correct 64% of the time, and the radio listeners > scored an impressive 73% accuracy rate. This would be easy to fake, right? My bridge partner once said that you make up details to give a story versimilitude. In other words, you add lies to a true story to make the story seem true. 73% is impressive? And we need assurance that the person doing the reading did not know which was correct. The poker books say there are nonverbal cues. And of course a lie detector test relies on nonverbal cues. But I think there is a good point to be made here. Committees might do better if they did not actually talk to the players or even know their names. They would not be influenced by male vs female, crying, passion, or whether or not one of the sides was likely to be a committee member judging the player at the next tournament. From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 30 15:27:00 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:27:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> Message-ID: <000801ce2d52$a550fec0$eff2fc40$@online.no> > Robert Frick > >> Robert Frick > >> From today: > >> > >> 1S 2H 1C > >> > >> The player didn't see the 2H bid, meant to bid 1NT (6-9 HCP), then > >> pulled > > the > >> wrong bidding card. > > [Sven Pran] > > Law 25A: > > Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended > > call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do > > so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and > > is subject to the appropriate Law. > > > > So he may change his 1C to 1NT without any rectification had 1NT been > > sufficient. > > But as 1NT (also) is insufficient this bid is subject to the > > appropriate law which is law 27. > >> > >> I would allow him to change to 1NT and then apply the laws for > > insufficient > >> bids. But, suppose he doesn't want to? Anyway, I probably have to > >> tell him what happens if he doesn't change his bid. > > [Sven Pran] > > If the player doesn't want to change his 1C bid to 1NT (under Law 25A) > > then law 27 applies to the 1C bid. > > > >> So then what is the meaning of 1C? > > [Sven Pran] > > This question is only relevant if the player refrains from changing > > his 1C bid to 1NT before law 27 is applied. It seems to me that the > > only reason for that could be to be allowed to change his insufficient > > bid 1C to 3C under Law 27B1. However, TD will have to seriously > > consider Law 27D in this situation. > > So, you would allow a nonbarring change to 3C. Is that consistent with your > method of determining the meaning of an insufficient bid? [Sven Pran] If a 1c opening bid according to the partnership understanding is incontrovertibly not conventional and a bid of 3c in the situation is also incontrovertibly not conventional then yes, I shall initially allow a Law27B1 rectification subject to a possible reconsideration under Law 27D, in particular if the player's hand is inconsistent with a non-conventional (opening) bid of 1c. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 30 20:31:39 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:31:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000801ce2d52$a550fec0$eff2fc40$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <000801ce2d52$a550fec0$eff2fc40$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:27:00 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> >> Robert Frick >> >> From today: >> >> >> >> 1S 2H 1C >> >> >> >> The player didn't see the 2H bid, meant to bid 1NT (6-9 HCP), then >> >> pulled >> > the >> >> wrong bidding card. >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Law 25A: >> > Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended >> > call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do >> > so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and >> > is subject to the appropriate Law. >> > >> > So he may change his 1C to 1NT without any rectification had 1NT been >> > sufficient. >> > But as 1NT (also) is insufficient this bid is subject to the >> > appropriate law which is law 27. >> >> >> >> I would allow him to change to 1NT and then apply the laws for >> > insufficient >> >> bids. But, suppose he doesn't want to? Anyway, I probably have to >> >> tell him what happens if he doesn't change his bid. >> > [Sven Pran] >> > If the player doesn't want to change his 1C bid to 1NT (under Law 25A) >> > then law 27 applies to the 1C bid. >> > >> >> So then what is the meaning of 1C? >> > [Sven Pran] >> > This question is only relevant if the player refrains from changing >> > his 1C bid to 1NT before law 27 is applied. It seems to me that the >> > only reason for that could be to be allowed to change his insufficient >> > bid 1C to 3C under Law 27B1. However, TD will have to seriously >> > consider Law 27D in this situation. >> >> So, you would allow a nonbarring change to 3C. Is that consistent with > your >> method of determining the meaning of an insufficient bid? > [Sven Pran] > If a 1c opening bid according to the partnership understanding is > incontrovertibly not conventional and a bid of 3c in the situation is > also > incontrovertibly not conventional then yes, I shall initially allow a > Law27B1 rectification subject to a possible reconsideration under Law > 27D, > in particular if the player's hand is inconsistent with a > non-conventional > (opening) bid of 1c. He had 6 HCP and only 2 clubs, and 6 hearts. So we can be pretty sure he did not intend to open 1 club. But, since it matters to you -- the partnership was playing the 1 club opening as natural and there is no chance he knows anything else. And he saw his partner's one spade bid.