From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 3 13:58:26 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:58:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unauthorized Misinformation Message-ID: Your partner overcalls 1NT, you make a Jacoby Transfer to hearts, he makes a super-accept, and you have some auction. Finally, you have to decide whether to give up and just play 4 hearts or keep exploring. It's a close decision, but you decide to stop in 4 Hearts. Good thing -- there is a bad heart break and you only make 4. Your partner probably would have accepted any slam invitation and you would have been in six down 2. The opponents call the director. You didn't even notice, but your partner forgot announce the transfer. He did have his super-accept, but now you have unauthorized misinformation that your partner might have forgotten the transfer. Could the director rule against you and change the results to down 2? Or, in general, when there is just a failure to alert or announce a bid because of forgetting, can the whole auction be fine-combed to look for ways to adjust the results? From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 4 19:00:29 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:00:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unauthorized Misinformation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524EF42D.8040701@nhcc.net> On 2013-10-03 7:58 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Finally, you have to decide > whether to give up and just play 4 hearts or keep exploring. ... So (based on deleted text) both are logical alternatives, and "keep exploring" results in a 6H contract, both contracts taking 10 tricks. > You didn't even notice, > but your partner forgot [to] announce the transfer. Whether you noticed or not is irrelevant. How the failure to announce demonstrably suggests playing 4H over bidding on is far from obvious. If it does, though, the consequences are clear (L16B1a). A player who understood what was suggested and knew his obligations would have bid on and kept his score had slam been making. I don't understand why this is a problem except that the relevant bridge judgments will often be difficult. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 6 02:21:25 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 20:21:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unauthorized Misinformation In-Reply-To: <524EF42D.8040701@nhcc.net> References: <524EF42D.8040701@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:00:29 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-10-03 7:58 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Finally, you have to decide >> whether to give up and just play 4 hearts or keep exploring. ... > > So (based on deleted text) both are logical alternatives, and "keep > exploring" results in a 6H contract, both contracts taking 10 tricks. > >> You didn't even notice, >> but your partner forgot [to] announce the transfer. > > Whether you noticed or not is irrelevant. > > How the failure to announce demonstrably suggests playing 4H over > bidding on is far from obvious. If partner doesn't understand your suit is hearts, it makes sense to bid hearts, not cue bid or whatever. If partner doesn't have a super-accept, that would easily tilt the balance against bidding the slam. If it does, though, the consequences > are clear (L16B1a). A player who understood what was suggested and knew > his obligations would have bid on and kept his score had slam been > making. Well, in this example, you did not notice that your partner failed to announce the transfer. So you could not intentionally comply. > > I don't understand why this is a problem except that the relevant bridge > judgments will often be difficult. 1. Peter came up with the same answer. 2. I doubt that this is how people play bridge. When, for example, there is a failure to alert new minor forcing, but the player meant it as new minor forcing, do you examine every bid the opponents made to see if there was an L16 violation? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 6 02:33:55 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 20:33:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA07C1D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA07C1D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:21:56 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> If (1) you have a sense of compassion and justice, and >> (2) you make some ridiculous unfair ruling just because >> you think it follows the laws, it is not good for your >> mental health. You will feel some guilt. >> ..... >Richard Hills: >If (1) you have a sense of compassion and justice, and > (2) you make some ridiculous unLawful ruling just > because your greedy club owner will profit by keeping a > customer, it is not good for your mental health. >A regular at the bridge club infracts, so should receive > Average-minus. But to keep her regular table money, > rather than have her squander that money on Bingo!, > the club owner orders a ?feelgood? Average-plus. >But..... >All non-offending sides sitting the same way at other > tables therefore have matchpoints stolen from them. In > one case that is crucial; a non-offender misses out on a > masterpoint which would give her a coveted Life > Master title. And before she gets another chance she > dies of lung cancer. >You ++should++ feel some guilt. Right, but good luck getting the hoi polloi to understand that. A positive split score should be banned. Even for director error -- even if it is convenent when we make an error to give positive split scores to make everyone happy. >> > Law 72A (General Principles, Observance of Laws): >?Duplicate bridge tournaments ++should++ be played > in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to > obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst > complying with the lawful procedures and ethical > standards set out in these laws. >> 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131006/f9638680/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 6 02:42:22 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 20:42:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:36:33 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Calvin: >?Other kids? games are all such a bore!They?ve gotta have rules and they > gotta keep score!Calvinball is better by far!It?s never the same! It?s > always bizarre!You don?t need a team or a referee!You know that it?s > great, ?cause it?s named after me!? >Law 72A (General Principles, Observance of Laws): >?Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in > ++strict++ accordance with the Laws. The chief object is > to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst > complying with the lawful procedures and ethical > standards set out in these laws.? >Calvin: >?The score is still Q to 12!? >Richard Hills: >My sister is the genius in my family. She shares my liking > for strategy board games. But when I visit her with a new > game, but reveal a crucial rule halfway through, she > correctly casts nasturtiums at me, accusing me of playing > ?Calvinball?. Likewise if a Director decides to eschew > umpiring Duplicate Bridge, but instead umpires Calvinball > Bridge (by intentionally breaking rules that this particular > Director does not like), the Director should not do so half- > way through the session ? full and free disclosure of the > Calvinistic Director?s tastes should be provided to ALL of > the contestants in ADVANCE, during prior events. Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling how he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no promise they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than everyone at the club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer calls for the 2 of spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone points out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's card was not a penalty card. I lost that one. Did you want me to go on with more examples? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131006/df50c262/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 6 09:18:55 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:18:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> Robert Frick [...] Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling how he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no promise they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than everyone at the club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer calls for the 2 of spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone points out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's card was not a penalty card. I lost that one. Did you want me to go on with more examples? [SP] Your insult and example is not much informative about how I allegedly rule according to my feelings rather than according to the laws. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play here is actually a lead out of turn). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 6 20:22:39 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 14:22:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 03:18:55 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Robert Frick > [...] > Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling how > he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. > > Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a > response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no promise > they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than everyone at the > club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer calls for the 2 of > spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone points > out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's card was > not a penalty card. I lost that one. > > Did you want me to go on with more examples? > > [SP] > Your insult and example is not much informative about how I allegedly > rule according to my feelings rather than according to the laws. > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in particular > Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play here is actually > a lead out of turn). I suggested guidance (a few clear principles) on how to make rulings concerning claims. You argued against that, apparently preferring your judgment. Do you want to take that back? It seemed like an odd position. Your comments: > The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. >Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? [Sven Pran] Yes, A reasonable confidence in Directors' ability to make proper judgments. ------------------------------------------ [Sven Pran] I shall limit my comment to just this point: > The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment. [Sven Pran] Let me just quote from PREFACE TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." Do you consider your assertion: "The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment." consistent with this quotation? ----------------------- > Director usually love guidance. We love making objective decisions that follow the laws. [Sven Pran] Sure, but the laws should set principles that aid directors in their judgments, not attempting to set detailed rules for every possible aspect of irregularities. Perhaps we are arguing about the word "judgment". In normal English, that is a glorified feeling -- when you say you judge something to be right, you can't explain your reasoning, you just have a feeling that it's right. I mean, you are either following principles logically and consciously, or you doing something different. From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 6 21:08:56 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:08:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> Message-ID: <003a01cec2c7$81aa38a0$84fea9e0$@online.no> OK, now you talk about claims. But generally I favour a law book that is not too big (physically) to fit in a reasonable pocket. EBL issued in 1992 a "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" (written by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen). This was an A4-sized book approximately 1" thick that contained the laws with comments and examples. It was "The Bible" for tournament directors (and still is for the laws that have not been essentially modified since 1987). But it is definitely not useful for TD day to day needs. I do indeed miss the commentaries to the current laws but absolutely do not want them included in the laws as such. And no TD candidate should ever pass the qualification test here without knowledge beyond what he or she can read out of the laws alone. So we really need two books: The law (defining the game of bridge) and the law reference (suitable for tuition in the law). Does that answer your question? > Robert Frick > On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 03:18:55 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Robert Frick > > [...] > > Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling how > > he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. > > > > Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a > > response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no promise > > they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than everyone at > > the club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer calls for the 2 > > of spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone > > points out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's > > card was not a penalty card. I lost that one. > > > > Did you want me to go on with more examples? > > > > [SP] > > Your insult and example is not much informative about how I allegedly > > rule according to my feelings rather than according to the laws. > > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in particular > > Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play here is > > actually a lead out of turn). > > I suggested guidance (a few clear principles) on how to make rulings concerning > claims. You argued against that, apparently preferring your judgment. Do you > want to take that back? It seemed like an odd position. > > Your comments: > > > > The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. > >Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, A reasonable confidence in Directors' ability to make proper judgments. > > ------------------------------------------ > > [Sven Pran] > I shall limit my comment to just this point: > > The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment. > [Sven Pran] > Let me just quote from PREFACE TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE: > "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and > experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the > increased responsibilities given to them." > > Do you consider your assertion: "The point of every law is to reduce the need > for judgment." consistent with this quotation? > > ----------------------- > > > Director usually love guidance. We love making objective decisions > > that > follow the laws. > [Sven Pran] > Sure, but the laws should set principles that aid directors in their judgments, > not attempting to set detailed rules for every possible aspect of irregularities. > > > > Perhaps we are arguing about the word "judgment". In normal English, that is a > glorified feeling -- when you say you judge something to be right, you can't > explain your reasoning, you just have a feeling that it's right. > I mean, you are either following principles logically and consciously, or you > doing something different. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 6 22:01:42 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:01:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> On 10/5/2013 7:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > For example, declarer calls for the 2 of > spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone points > out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's card was > not a penalty card. I lost that one. Perhaps you should have explained L23 and the likely effect of an adjusted score. A sensible declarer would have requested you to waive the penalty card, which you would have done. If you get a declarer who is not sensible, L23 is there. On 10/6/2013 2:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in > particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play > here is actually a lead out of turn). Seems technically correct, but any declarer "could have known" that designating a nonexistent card from dummy might cause a defender to expose a card. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 6 22:12:17 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:12:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:01:42 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/5/2013 7:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> For example, declarer calls for the 2 of >> spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone points >> out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's card was >> not a penalty card. I lost that one. > > Perhaps you should have explained L23 and the likely effect of an > adjusted score. I tried arguing, without success. This is the blind declarer coup. Note that dummy, if he notices the error, may not play the wrong card, but cannot say anything. That is exactly what declarer needs for the blind declarer coup to work. (If dummy actually plays a small spade, then the coup doesn't work.) > A sensible declarer would have requested you to waive > the penalty card, I would not call that sensible. The penalty card is to declarer's advantage. Anyway, declarer was happy to have a penalty card. > which you would have done. If you get a declarer who > is not sensible, L23 is there. What is the irregularity? That's part of the problem. No rules against calling for nonexistent cards. > > On 10/6/2013 2:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in > > particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play > > here is actually a lead out of turn). > > Seems technically correct, but any declarer "could have known" that > designating a nonexistent card from dummy might cause a defender to > expose a card. The point being, people rule different ways. If someone challenges my call and we go to the ACBL for god-like advice, we still don't know what will be said. I can't find out in advance how I should rule. Sven, I think you need to look at L46B1(c) too. I think calling for a nonexistent card can be interpreted as an "erroneous call". More generally, if you make a fair sensible ruling and the laws don't support you, at least you made a fair sensible ruling. If you try to follow the laws and make an unfair ruling, as here, and it turns out you didn't follow the laws right or The Authorities don't support you, then you have nothing. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 6 22:34:31 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:34:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5251C957.8030301@nhcc.net> On 10/6/2013 3:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> A sensible declarer would have requested you to waive >> > the penalty card, > I would not call that sensible. The penalty card is to declarer's > advantage. Anyway, declarer was happy to have a penalty card. He wouldn't be happy if he understood L23 and in particular that you will resolve any doubt against declarer. > What is the irregularity? There is nothing in the FLB allowing declarer to name cards not in dummy as if calling for them to be played, just as there is nothing allowing a declarer to throw hot coffee on a defender hoping the defender will expose some cards. That last might be an entertaining game for some, but it isn't bridge. > If someone challenges my call > and we go to the ACBL for god-like advice There are many adjectives I might use to describe ACBL advice, but "god-like" is not one of them. If players treat it as god-like, you have a problem that I don't know how to fix. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 6 22:39:45 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:39:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5251C957.8030301@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> <5251C957.8030301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:34:31 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/6/2013 3:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> A sensible declarer would have requested you to waive >>> > the penalty card, > >> I would not call that sensible. The penalty card is to declarer's >> advantage. Anyway, declarer was happy to have a penalty card. > > He wouldn't be happy if he understood L23 and in particular that you > will resolve any doubt against declarer. > >> What is the irregularity? > > There is nothing in the FLB allowing declarer to name cards not in dummy > as if calling for them to be played, just as there is nothing allowing a > declarer to throw hot coffee on a defender hoping the defender will > expose some cards. That last might be an entertaining game for some, > but it isn't bridge. There is probably nothing in the law book specifically saying that declarer can look at the dummy, or try to remember how to run a squeeze. Or use a handkerchief if he is sneezing. There is however specific mention of calling for a nonexistent card and no mention of it being improper. So it is a stretch to call it an irregularity. I think you are making them up to support your ruling. Well, I ruled the same way as you. Since we are on the topic, declarer says "singleton king", meaning that the king offsides was singleton. Is that an irregularity? (LHO thought he was calling for the singleton king from dummy.) > >> If someone challenges my call >> and we go to the ACBL for god-like advice > > There are many adjectives I might use to describe ACBL advice, but > "god-like" is not one of them. If players treat it as god-like, you > have a problem that I don't know how to fix. Well, since they usually support me, check with me first before fixing it. I don't really see the problem with players being able to write to the ACBL to see if my rulings are wrong. My only problem is when I can't predict in advance how they will answer. From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 6 23:58:23 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 23:58:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > > On 10/6/2013 2:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in > > > particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play > > > here is actually a lead out of turn). > > > > Seems technically correct, but any declarer "could have known" that > > designating a nonexistent card from dummy might cause a defender to > > expose a card. > > The point being, people rule different ways. If someone challenges my call > and we go to the ACBL for god-like advice, we still don't know what will > be said. I can't find out in advance how I should rule. > > Sven, I think you need to look at L46B1(c) too. I think calling for a > nonexistent card can be interpreted as an "erroneous call". [Sven Pran] No L46B1{c} is definitely not applicable as it is "more general" than L46B4 which specifically addresses this situation. I suppose the important lesson for RHO is to pay sufficient attention to the play in the future (Law 74B1). > > More generally, if you make a fair sensible ruling and the laws don't > support you, at least you made a fair sensible ruling. If you try to > follow the laws and make an unfair ruling, as here, and it turns out you > didn't follow the laws right or The Authorities don't support you, then > you have nothing. [Sven Pran] Who shall be the judge of what is a fair sensible ruling? If declarer simply made a misnomer naming a non-existing card in the wrong suit is it fair if RHO sees his opportunity and (concealed as following suit) makes a killing lead out of turn in that suit (if he has one)? What is the (legal) difference when RHO inattentively "follows suit" to a card that technically was not played? If TD finds that declarer has deliberately called a non-existing card from dummy then we can find a whole list of laws that has been violated, beginning with Law 45B. In that case we may easily end with both Law 12 and Law 23. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Oct 7 13:00:58 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:00:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> Message-ID: <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> To Robert! Where do you get the idea that Sven rules based on how he feels. I have never seen any evidence of this and it is a gratuitous insult. Have you examples to support your statement? JE Am 06.10.2013 09:18, schrieb Sven Pran: > Robert Frick > [...] > Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling how he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. > > Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no promise they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than everyone at the club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer calls for the 2 of spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone points out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's card was not a penalty card. I lost that one. > > Did you want me to go on with more examples? > > [SP] > Your insult and example is not much informative about how I allegedly rule according to my feelings rather than according to the laws. > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play here is actually a lead out of turn). > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 7 15:54:47 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:54:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:00:58 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > To Robert! > > Where do you get the idea that Sven rules based on how he feels. I have > never seen any evidence of this and it is a gratuitous insult. Have you > examples to support your statement? JE Hi Jeff. This is an important topic. When you make a ruling, you can follow clear rules. If you don't, you can make a judgment. A judgment is probably nothing more than a feeling that something is right. In any case, a judgment is swayed by feelings. There is psychology experiment after psychology experiment (thousands?) showing that people's judgments are influenced by things they are not aware of, things they are aware of but know should be irrelevant, things that they should not be influenced by. I proposed some clear guidelines for judging claim statements. Sven could have argued that they were not good guidelines. He did not do that. He could have pointed out situations where we would not want to follow those guidelines. That would have futhered the discusion. Sven did not. He actually said he doesn't want clear guidelines, he would rather use his judgment. That's a paraphrase, I already reproduced an exchange. Now the important stuff. When you make a judgment, you, Jeff Easterson and every other director, are influenced by factors you are not aware of and you would agree should not have influence. That's just a fact of being human. The only question is how powerful those other factors are. The first step to reducing their power is to be aware that you are influenced by them. > > Am 06.10.2013 09:18, schrieb Sven Pran: >> Robert Frick >> [...] >> Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling how >> he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. >> >> Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a >> response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no promise >> they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than everyone at >> the club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer calls for the 2 >> of spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone >> points out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's >> card was not a penalty card. I lost that one. >> >> Did you want me to go on with more examples? >> >> [SP] >> Your insult and example is not much informative about how I allegedly >> rule according to my feelings rather than according to the laws. >> Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in particular >> Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play here is >> actually a lead out of turn). >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 7 16:08:49 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:08:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:58:23 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> > On 10/6/2013 2:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> > > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in >> > > particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play >> > > here is actually a lead out of turn). >> > >> > Seems technically correct, but any declarer "could have known" that >> > designating a nonexistent card from dummy might cause a defender to >> > expose a card. >> >> The point being, people rule different ways. If someone challenges my >> call >> and we go to the ACBL for god-like advice, we still don't know what will >> be said. I can't find out in advance how I should rule. >> >> Sven, I think you need to look at L46B1(c) too. I think calling for a >> nonexistent card can be interpreted as an "erroneous call". > [Sven Pran] > No L46B1{c} is definitely not applicable as it is "more general" than > L46B4 > which specifically addresses this situation. Sven, I think you are making the straightforward ruling. But on this particular point, you are wrong. The introduction to L46B clearly states that it has precedence over L46B1(c) -- the call of a nonexistent card in dummy is null and void except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible. > > I suppose the important lesson for RHO is to pay sufficient attention to > the > play in the future (Law 74B1). > >> >> More generally, if you make a fair sensible ruling and the laws don't >> support you, at least you made a fair sensible ruling. If you try to >> follow the laws and make an unfair ruling, as here, and it turns out you >> didn't follow the laws right or The Authorities don't support you, then >> you have nothing. > > [Sven Pran] > Who shall be the judge of what is a fair sensible ruling? When a ruling is egregious unfair, most people can tell. > > If declarer simply made a misnomer naming a non-existing card in the > wrong > suit is it fair if RHO sees his opportunity and (concealed as following > suit) makes a killing lead out of turn in that suit (if he has one)? I am not sure what you are saying. The only question is if the defender's exposed card becomes a penalty card. > What is > the (legal) difference when RHO inattentively "follows suit" to a card > that > technically was not played? > > If TD finds that declarer has deliberately called a non-existing card > from > dummy then we can find a whole list of laws that has been violated, > beginning with Law 45B. In that case we may easily end with both Law 12 > and > Law 23. Where in Law 45B does it say that a player cannot call for a nonexistant card from dummy? I can't find it. Because I like your point here, I looked for it. I mean, the blind dummy coup could still work even it was an infraction to call for a nonexistent card from dummy. But I can't find any infraction. No "must not", no "should not", not even a lousy "we would prefer he didn't". From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 7 16:15:27 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:15:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> Message-ID: <5252C1FF.2030004@nhcc.net> On 2013-10-06 5:58 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > If TD finds that declarer has deliberately called a non-existing card from > dummy then we can find a whole list of laws that has been violated, > beginning with Law 45B. In that case we may easily end with both Law 12 and > Law 23. L23 does not require any finding, indeed any hint, that the irregularity was deliberate. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 7 16:22:32 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:22:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> Message-ID: <000d01cec368$a9fb5900$fdf20b00$@online.no> To Jeff: Thanks! To Robert: I never said that I don't want guidelines, I have said that I don't want them IN THE LAWS. Presently the law book is manageable. Include every relevant guideline and the book will grow to a physical size that prohibits it from being carried around by the director. (To your example below, the laws do indeed include (some) guidelines on claims and I take your own contributions here as evidence that these guidelines are insufficient. How big do you want the law book to become?) By all means include the guidelines in tuition, but rely upon qualified directors to know from their education how to apply the laws. (And just accept that unqualified directors will at times continue to make the most curious rulings.) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 7. oktober 2013 15:55 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:00:58 -0400, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > > > To Robert! > > > > Where do you get the idea that Sven rules based on how he feels. I > > have never seen any evidence of this and it is a gratuitous insult. > > Have you examples to support your statement? JE > > Hi Jeff. This is an important topic. > > When you make a ruling, you can follow clear rules. If you don't, you can make a > judgment. > > A judgment is probably nothing more than a feeling that something is right. In > any case, a judgment is swayed by feelings. There is psychology experiment > after psychology experiment (thousands?) showing that people's judgments are > influenced by things they are not aware of, things they are aware of but know > should be irrelevant, things that they should not be influenced by. > > I proposed some clear guidelines for judging claim statements. Sven could have > argued that they were not good guidelines. He did not do that. He could have > pointed out situations where we would not want to follow those guidelines. > That would have futhered the discusion. Sven did not. He actually said he > doesn't want clear guidelines, he would rather use his judgment. That's a > paraphrase, I already reproduced an exchange. > > Now the important stuff. When you make a judgment, you, Jeff Easterson and > every other director, are influenced by factors you are not aware of and you > would agree should not have influence. That's just a fact of being human. The > only question is how powerful those other factors are. The first step to reducing > their power is to be aware that you are influenced by them. > > > > > > > > Am 06.10.2013 09:18, schrieb Sven Pran: > >> Robert Frick > >> [...] > >> Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling > >> how he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. > >> > >> Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a > >> response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no > >> promise they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than > >> everyone at the club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer > >> calls for the 2 of spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and > >> then someone points out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that > >> the defender's card was not a penalty card. I lost that one. > >> > >> Did you want me to go on with more examples? > >> > >> [SP] > >> Your insult and example is not much informative about how I allegedly > >> rule according to my feelings rather than according to the laws. > >> Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in > >> particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play > >> here is actually a lead out of turn). > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > -- > Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 7 16:28:40 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:28:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L74B1 (was something else long) In-Reply-To: <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:58:23 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> > On 10/6/2013 2:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> > > Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in >> > > particular Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play >> > > here is actually a lead out of turn). >> > >> > Seems technically correct, but any declarer "could have known" that >> > designating a nonexistent card from dummy might cause a defender to >> > expose a card. >> >> The point being, people rule different ways. If someone challenges my >> call >> and we go to the ACBL for god-like advice, we still don't know what will >> be said. I can't find out in advance how I should rule. >> >> Sven, I think you need to look at L46B1(c) too. I think calling for a >> nonexistent card can be interpreted as an "erroneous call". > [Sven Pran] > No L46B1{c} is definitely not applicable as it is "more general" than > L46B4 > which specifically addresses this situation. > > I suppose the important lesson for RHO is to pay sufficient attention to > the > play in the future (Law 74B1). I would judge that that is not how L74B1 was intended. In general, the lawmakers try not to punish people for not noticing an irregularity. Here, I am not sure what the inattention was. When declarer calls for the two of spades, it is a reasonable inference that he intends to play a small spade. Defender should look for the one time in 10,000 when there is no two of spades? That is probably not a good use of one's cognitive resources. In practice, defender got very angry about the idea he was not paying sufficient attention. Of course, when the laws are unduly punitive to someone who has not noticed a regularity, it is emotionally convenient to apply L74B1. As I have explained elsewhere. I am pretty sure the ACBL replyer did the same thing (though perhaps to a different example). I am just saying that this probably does not follow the intent of L74B1. > >> >> More generally, if you make a fair sensible ruling and the laws don't >> support you, at least you made a fair sensible ruling. If you try to >> follow the laws and make an unfair ruling, as here, and it turns out you >> didn't follow the laws right or The Authorities don't support you, then >> you have nothing. > > [Sven Pran] > Who shall be the judge of what is a fair sensible ruling? > > If declarer simply made a misnomer naming a non-existing card in the > wrong > suit is it fair if RHO sees his opportunity and (concealed as following > suit) makes a killing lead out of turn in that suit (if he has one)? > What is > the (legal) difference when RHO inattentively "follows suit" to a card > that > technically was not played? > > If TD finds that declarer has deliberately called a non-existing card > from > dummy then we can find a whole list of laws that has been violated, > beginning with Law 45B. In that case we may easily end with both Law 12 > and > Law 23. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Oct 8 13:28:45 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:28:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> Message-ID: <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> See below: Am 07.10.2013 15:54, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:00:58 -0400, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > >> To Robert! >> >> Where do you get the idea that Sven rules based on how he feels. I have >> never seen any evidence of this and it is a gratuitous insult. Have you >> examples to support your statement? JE > Hi Jeff. This is an important topic. What topic are you talking about? > > When you make a ruling, you can follow clear rules. If you don't, you can > make a judgment. Oversimplified. > > A judgment is probably nothing more than a feeling that something is > right. I disagree, again oversimplified. > In any case, a judgment is swayed by feelings. Not always, or perhaps only for you. > There is psychology > experiment after psychology experiment (thousands?) showing that people's > judgments are influenced by things they are not aware of, things they are > aware of but know should be irrelevant, things that they should not be > influenced by. Relevance? > > I proposed some clear guidelines for judging claim statements. Sven could > have argued that they were not good guidelines. He did not do that. He > could have pointed out situations where we would not want to follow those > guidelines. That would have futhered the discusion. Sven did not. He > actually said he doesn't want clear guidelines, he would rather use his > judgment. That's a paraphrase, I already reproduced an exchange. I gather you are determining the guidelines. > > Now the important stuff. When you make a judgment, you, Jeff Easterson and > every other director, are influenced by factors you are not aware of and > you would agree should not have influence. Relevance? > That's just a fact of being > human. The only question is how powerful those other factors are. The > first step to reducing their power is to be aware that you are influenced > by them. And? > > > > >> Am 06.10.2013 09:18, schrieb Sven Pran: >>> Robert Frick >>> [...] >>> Right. Nigel and I do not like Sven coming to the table and ruling how >>> he feels. We would rather he have clear principles and follow them. >>> >>> Sometimes it is impossible to get clear guidance how to rule. Here, a >>> response from the ACBL is considered God-like. But there is no promise >>> they will be consistent. Usually I can guess better than everyone at >>> the club. But sometimes I miss. For example, declarer calls for the 2 >>> of spades, a defender follows with a small spade, and then someone >>> points out that there is no 2 of spades. I ruled that the defender's >>> card was not a penalty card. I lost that one. >>> >>> Did you want me to go on with more examples? >>> >>> [SP] >>> Your insult and example is not much informative about how I allegedly >>> rule according to my feelings rather than according to the laws. >>> Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the laws (and in particular >>> Laws 46B4 and 49) before acting as TD? (Defender's play here is >>> actually a lead out of turn). >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Wed Oct 9 01:44:53 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:44:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:28:45 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > See below: > > Am 07.10.2013 15:54, schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:00:58 -0400, Jeff Easterson >> wrote: >> >>> To Robert! >>> >>> Where do you get the idea that Sven rules based on how he feels. I have >>> never seen any evidence of this and it is a gratuitous insult. Have >>> you >>> examples to support your statement? JE >> Hi Jeff. This is an important topic. > What topic are you talking about? >> >> When you make a ruling, you can follow clear rules. If you don't, you >> can >> make a judgment. > Oversimplified. You say oversimplified, I say simplified. I think most blmlers want simple. There is a part of your brain that produces perceptions. They just appear in your brain. You aren't aware of the process of producing them. That same part of the brain almost certainly produces insights in creative problem-solving. And if you observe your own thinking, the same can be said for "feelings" and "judgments" -- a thought just appears in your brain. Here, most people think they can be aware of the process of producing the feelings or judgments. But that is naive. You can guess, of course, and do some careful exploration, if you know how to work at it and are aware of the problem. Again, numerous experiments suggesting that people are not aware of all of the factors that go into their perceptions, insights, judgments. In contrast, you can reason consciously. Then you will know what principles you are following and how you are following and how you got to your conclusion. In the case of the laws, that means clear principles to follow. So, when you go to the table and apply clear principles, you can, for example, be sure you are not influenced by the gender of the people at the table, whether they are your friends, your mood that day, your previous ruling, or any other similar thing. You never know that with judgments. They probably are influenced by things like that. If you want to fight that influence, the first think you have to do is be aware that they are there. Um, then it gets harder. >> >> A judgment is probably nothing more than a feeling that something is >> right. > I disagree, again oversimplified. >> In any case, a judgment is swayed by feelings. > Not always, or perhaps only for you. Always, the only question is the size of the effect. That part of the brain soaks up everything, puts it together, and makes a conclusion. Only the conclusion becomes conscious. You can try to override this, but again you must be aware that those factors could be influencing you. Which, to answer your first question, is one reason this is an important topic. >> There is psychology >> experiment after psychology experiment (thousands?) showing that >> people's >> judgments are influenced by things they are not aware of, things they >> are >> aware of but know should be irrelevant, things that they should not be >> influenced by. > Relevance? >> >> I proposed some clear guidelines for judging claim statements. Sven >> could >> have argued that they were not good guidelines. He did not do that. He >> could have pointed out situations where we would not want to follow >> those >> guidelines. That would have futhered the discusion. Sven did not. He >> actually said he doesn't want clear guidelines, he would rather use his >> judgment. That's a paraphrase, I already reproduced an exchange. > I gather you are determining the guidelines. >> >> Now the important stuff. When you make a judgment, you, Jeff Easterson >> and >> every other director, are influenced by factors you are not aware of and >> you would agree should not have influence. > Relevance? >> That's just a fact of being >> human. The only question is how powerful those other factors are. The >> first step to reducing their power is to be aware that you are >> influenced >> by them. > And? And the rest gets harder. The human brain was not built to know the truth. (simplified or oversimplified, it's a really long explanation.) It is much easier to have as many clear principles as you can. Sven apparently does not mind clear principles, he does not want any more of them in the lawbook. A player claims with AKQJx of trump in hand. Unfortunately, he has to get to hand. He has shown no awareness that there is a trump out. This is a very simple ruling for me to make, because the ACBL has provided clear guidelines. I like that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 9 01:53:57 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:53:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:00:58 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > To Robert! > > Where do you get the idea that Sven rules based on how he feels. I have > never seen any evidence of this and it is a gratuitous insult. Have you > examples to support your statement? JE Ah, I think I was miscommunicating. Suppose a director goes to the table and makes the ruling that he feels is fair and right. Is that an insult? I will do that if I have to. But I would rather not. I would prefer follow clear principles which lead to a ruling that feels fair. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 9 08:31:39 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:31:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> Message-ID: <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > A player claims with AKQJx of trump in hand. Unfortunately, he has to get > to hand. He has shown no awareness that there is a trump out. This is a > very simple ruling for me to make, because the ACBL has provided clear > guidelines. I like that. You may like that, but it's not what the laws say. A guideline is useful, up to the point where an exception occurs. I don't need a guideline to tell me that the man above may well ruff small. And I'll rule accordingly. But the laws tell me that I don't need to follow a line which may be irrational. So I'll listen to the player and decide whether it would be irrational to ruff small. Consider the following scenario. "My hand is high" says claimer. Which is true. "But you're at the table" say the opponents. Which is also true. Now I'm not going to rule that this declarer does not know that there are still trumps out (if in the ACBL, let's assume he's also stated that he draws trumps). And I'm (probably) not going to rule that he does not know how many trumps are still out. If that number is far smaller than 4 (in the case of AKQJx) then I'm not going to rle that he ruffs low. And neither should you, despite what the ACBL guideline says. You'll say "Why did he not mention that he comes to hand with a ruff with the ace?". Good question, but if I find a satisfactory answer - like in this case "because he thought he was already in hand" - then I'm satisfied, and so should you be. The problem with guidelines is that they are just that, guidelines. There are always exceptions and if you're going to treat guidelines like law text, then you're simply wrong. Herman. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 9 09:51:26 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:51:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301cec4c4$5c9bc6b0$15d35410$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 9 October 2013 5:32 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Robert Frick schreef: > > > > A player claims with AKQJx of trump in hand. Unfortunately, he has to get > > to hand. He has shown no awareness that there is a trump out. This is a > > very simple ruling for me to make, because the ACBL has provided clear > > guidelines. I like that. > > You may like that, but it's not what the laws say. > A guideline is useful, up to the point where an exception occurs. > I don't need a guideline to tell me that the man above may well ruff > small. And I'll rule accordingly. But the laws tell me that I don't need > to follow a line which may be irrational. So I'll listen to the player > and decide whether it would be irrational to ruff small. > > Consider the following scenario. > > "My hand is high" says claimer. Which is true. > "But you're at the table" say the opponents. Which is also true. > Now I'm not going to rule that this declarer does not know that there > are still trumps out (if in the ACBL, let's assume he's also stated that > he draws trumps). And I'm (probably) not going to rule that he does > not know how many trumps are still out. If that number is far smaller > than 4 (in the case of AKQJx) then I'm not going to rle that he ruffs > low. And neither should you, despite what the ACBL guideline says. > You'll say "Why did he not mention that he comes to hand with a ruff > with the ace?". Good question, but if I find a satisfactory answer - > like in this case "because he thought he was already in hand" - then I'm > satisfied, and so should you be. > > The problem with guidelines is that they are just that, guidelines. > There are always exceptions and if you're going to treat guidelines like > law text, then you're simply wrong. > > Herman. [tony] Herman is correct. (There I've said it). Good to see his happy smiling face on the youtube clip. Just saying: how can americans who cannot run their own country, hope to run a bridge tournament which requires much more fine tuned judgement. Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 9 14:05:47 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:05:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> Message-ID: <001601cec4e7$e4287830$ac796890$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > To Robert! > > > > Where do you get the idea that Sven rules based on how he feels. I > > have never seen any evidence of this and it is a gratuitous insult. > > Have you examples to support your statement? JE > > > Ah, I think I was miscommunicating. Suppose a director goes to the table and > makes the ruling that he feels is fair and right. Is that an insult? [Sven Pran] It is indeed when it implies (without supporting facts) that his ruling is based on how he feels contrary to being in agreement with the laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 10 03:51:19 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:51:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hi Herman. As noted, the ACBL provides clear guidelines for how to rule in this situation, and you are saying I must consider other factors even if they lead to a different ruling. In other words, I should not follow the clear guidelines of my regulating authority. This situation is a little quirkish, because the ACBL is entitled by law to govern the order of play of cards from suits. May I shift examples? One of the classic ambiguities in the laws is when a player makes, or starts to make, a call from dummy and then changes his mind. Obviously the laws say that "seven of diamonds" cannot be changed (except of course if it is inadvertant). But what about "seven"? And the tricky "seven of"? Suppose a regulating authority says that the declarer cannot change anything. For example, if the declarer starts with "s", he can complete it with "six" or "seven", but not "five". This is a simple, elegant solution to the problem. The WBFLC could do no better than to include it in the 2017 laws, IMO. But I would not rate it as particularly following the current laws: I don't see how the laws say that, and I seem to have a lot of company; to the extent I could get guidance from the ACBL, it did not follow that. So, you are saying that if I am under a regulating authority that has specified this, I should ignore it and follow the laws instead? I would not do that, but I am trying to be clear about your opinion. Bob On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 02:31:39 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> A player claims with AKQJx of trump in hand. Unfortunately, he has to >> get >> to hand. He has shown no awareness that there is a trump out. This is a >> very simple ruling for me to make, because the ACBL has provided clear >> guidelines. I like that. > > You may like that, but it's not what the laws say. > A guideline is useful, up to the point where an exception occurs. > I don't need a guideline to tell me that the man above may well ruff > small. And I'll rule accordingly. But the laws tell me that I don't need > to follow a line which may be irrational. So I'll listen to the player > and decide whether it would be irrational to ruff small. > > Consider the following scenario. > > "My hand is high" says claimer. Which is true. > "But you're at the table" say the opponents. Which is also true. > Now I'm not going to rule that this declarer does not know that there > are still trumps out (if in the ACBL, let's assume he's also stated that > he draws trumps). And I'm (probably) not going to rule that he does > not know how many trumps are still out. If that number is far smaller > than 4 (in the case of AKQJx) then I'm not going to rle that he ruffs > low. And neither should you, despite what the ACBL guideline says. > You'll say "Why did he not mention that he comes to hand with a ruff > with the ace?". Good question, but if I find a satisfactory answer - > like in this case "because he thought he was already in hand" - then I'm > satisfied, and so should you be. > > The problem with guidelines is that they are just that, guidelines. > There are always exceptions and if you're going to treat guidelines like > law text, then you're simply wrong. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 10 07:57:59 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:57:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > Hi Herman. As noted, the ACBL provides clear guidelines for how to rule in > this situation, and you are saying I must consider other factors even if > they lead to a different ruling. In other words, I should not follow the > clear guidelines of my regulating authority. > Well, if the ACBL wishes to give guidelines that go contrary to the Law as declared by the WBF, you should decide which one you think is the higher authority. But rather, I believe that even the guideline has some words (or should have) like "unless that order is irrational". My point was aimed not at the ACBL, but at directors who believe that guidelines have the same value as the law. They haven't, and any authority that tells you that its guidelines supersede the law is delusional. But more even than at the ACBL, my point is aimed at directors, outside the ACBL, who believe in guidelines that have not even been written down by any authority, but that they "know" to be true. Which of course they are not, or only up until the point where they contradict the Law. > This situation is a little quirkish, because the ACBL is entitled by law > to govern the order of play of cards from suits. May I shift examples? > > One of the classic ambiguities in the laws is when a player makes, or > starts to make, a call from dummy and then changes his mind. Obviously the > laws say that "seven of diamonds" cannot be changed (except of course if > it is inadvertant). But what about "seven"? And the tricky "seven of"? > > Suppose a regulating authority says that the declarer cannot change > anything. For example, if the declarer starts with "s", he can complete it > with "six" or "seven", but not "five". This is a simple, elegant solution > to the problem. The WBFLC could do no better than to include it in the > 2017 laws, IMO. But I would not rate it as particularly following the > current laws: I don't see how the laws say that, and I seem to have a lot > of company; to the extent I could get guidance from the ACBL, it did not > follow that. > > So, you are saying that if I am under a regulating authority that has > specified this, I should ignore it and follow the laws instead? I would > not do that, but I am trying to be clear about your opinion. > > Bob > I am talking about claims law, which is notoriously incomplete. Your example would draw this discussion too far off-course. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 13 14:24:25 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 08:24:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> Message-ID: The ACBL in print says that the laws say one thing, and some guy in Belgium is saying on the internet that the laws say something different. You argue for following the higher authority. I think we can wrap up this discussion. What number is far fewer than 4? Or does it depend on other factors? On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:57:59 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> Hi Herman. As noted, the ACBL provides clear guidelines for how to rule >> in >> this situation, and you are saying I must consider other factors even if >> they lead to a different ruling. In other words, I should not follow the >> clear guidelines of my regulating authority. >> > > Well, if the ACBL wishes to give guidelines that go contrary to the Law > as declared by the WBF, you should decide which one you think is the > higher authority. > But rather, I believe that even the guideline has some words (or should > have) like "unless that order is irrational". > > My point was aimed not at the ACBL, but at directors who believe that > guidelines have the same value as the law. They haven't, and any > authority that tells you that its guidelines supersede the law is > delusional. > > But more even than at the ACBL, my point is aimed at directors, outside > the ACBL, who believe in guidelines that have not even been written down > by any authority, but that they "know" to be true. Which of course they > are not, or only up until the point where they contradict the Law. > >> This situation is a little quirkish, because the ACBL is entitled by law >> to govern the order of play of cards from suits. May I shift examples? >> >> One of the classic ambiguities in the laws is when a player makes, or >> starts to make, a call from dummy and then changes his mind. Obviously >> the >> laws say that "seven of diamonds" cannot be changed (except of course if >> it is inadvertant). But what about "seven"? And the tricky "seven of"? >> >> Suppose a regulating authority says that the declarer cannot change >> anything. For example, if the declarer starts with "s", he can complete >> it >> with "six" or "seven", but not "five". This is a simple, elegant >> solution >> to the problem. The WBFLC could do no better than to include it in the >> 2017 laws, IMO. But I would not rate it as particularly following the >> current laws: I don't see how the laws say that, and I seem to have a >> lot >> of company; to the extent I could get guidance from the ACBL, it did not >> follow that. >> >> So, you are saying that if I am under a regulating authority that has >> specified this, I should ignore it and follow the laws instead? I would >> not do that, but I am trying to be clear about your opinion. >> >> Bob >> > > I am talking about claims law, which is notoriously incomplete. > Your example would draw this discussion too far off-course. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 13 18:00:05 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:00:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> Well, it is not just some guy in Belgium who says this, it is the laws themselves that say something different. Read them some time, it may be helpful. But of course, Americans are prone to believe that they are better than the rest of the world, so why should they follow the WBF? Herman, aka some guy in Belgium. Robert Frick schreef: > The ACBL in print says that the laws say one thing, and some guy in > Belgium is saying on the internet that the laws say something different. > You argue for following the higher authority. I think we can wrap up this > discussion. > > What number is far fewer than 4? Or does it depend on other factors? > > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:57:59 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> Hi Herman. As noted, the ACBL provides clear guidelines for how to rule >>> in >>> this situation, and you are saying I must consider other factors even if >>> they lead to a different ruling. In other words, I should not follow the >>> clear guidelines of my regulating authority. >>> >> >> Well, if the ACBL wishes to give guidelines that go contrary to the Law >> as declared by the WBF, you should decide which one you think is the >> higher authority. >> But rather, I believe that even the guideline has some words (or should >> have) like "unless that order is irrational". >> >> My point was aimed not at the ACBL, but at directors who believe that >> guidelines have the same value as the law. They haven't, and any >> authority that tells you that its guidelines supersede the law is >> delusional. >> >> But more even than at the ACBL, my point is aimed at directors, outside >> the ACBL, who believe in guidelines that have not even been written down >> by any authority, but that they "know" to be true. Which of course they >> are not, or only up until the point where they contradict the Law. >> >>> This situation is a little quirkish, because the ACBL is entitled by law >>> to govern the order of play of cards from suits. May I shift examples? >>> >>> One of the classic ambiguities in the laws is when a player makes, or >>> starts to make, a call from dummy and then changes his mind. Obviously >>> the >>> laws say that "seven of diamonds" cannot be changed (except of course if >>> it is inadvertant). But what about "seven"? And the tricky "seven of"? >>> >>> Suppose a regulating authority says that the declarer cannot change >>> anything. For example, if the declarer starts with "s", he can complete >>> it >>> with "six" or "seven", but not "five". This is a simple, elegant >>> solution >>> to the problem. The WBFLC could do no better than to include it in the >>> 2017 laws, IMO. But I would not rate it as particularly following the >>> current laws: I don't see how the laws say that, and I seem to have a >>> lot >>> of company; to the extent I could get guidance from the ACBL, it did not >>> follow that. >>> >>> So, you are saying that if I am under a regulating authority that has >>> specified this, I should ignore it and follow the laws instead? I would >>> not do that, but I am trying to be clear about your opinion. >>> >>> Bob >>> >> >> I am talking about claims law, which is notoriously incomplete. >> Your example would draw this discussion too far off-course. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 13 20:00:09 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:00:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:00:05 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, it is not just some guy in Belgium who says this, it is the laws > themselves that say something different. Read them some time, it may be > helpful. I miss how you transition from "Herman think the laws say that" to "the laws say that" It needs a major premise, like "Herman is always right." I will probably dispute your major premise. And, believe it or not, people differ in their interpretations of what the laws say. We know that people two people can think the laws obviously say different things, and the two people can't both be right. If you want me to judge who is right, trumping high is always a thoughtful play. To go beyond the logical extreme, the player who trumps high with AKQJ1098 has thought about it. To return to the original topic, I do not prefer not to go into the mess of deciding what number is far fewer than 4 (your words) and what number is far greater than 6. Also, note that you have a difficult ruling for the numbers between 3 and 7. But that is a question of what the laws and regulations should be. Bob > But of course, Americans are prone to believe that they are better than > the rest of the world, so why should they follow the WBF? > > Herman, aka some guy in Belgium. > > Robert Frick schreef: >> The ACBL in print says that the laws say one thing, and some guy in >> Belgium is saying on the internet that the laws say something different. >> You argue for following the higher authority. I think we can wrap up >> this >> discussion. >> >> What number is far fewer than 4? Or does it depend on other factors? >> >> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:57:59 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>>> Hi Herman. As noted, the ACBL provides clear guidelines for how to >>>> rule >>>> in >>>> this situation, and you are saying I must consider other factors even >>>> if >>>> they lead to a different ruling. In other words, I should not follow >>>> the >>>> clear guidelines of my regulating authority. >>>> >>> >>> Well, if the ACBL wishes to give guidelines that go contrary to the Law >>> as declared by the WBF, you should decide which one you think is the >>> higher authority. >>> But rather, I believe that even the guideline has some words (or should >>> have) like "unless that order is irrational". >>> >>> My point was aimed not at the ACBL, but at directors who believe that >>> guidelines have the same value as the law. They haven't, and any >>> authority that tells you that its guidelines supersede the law is >>> delusional. >>> >>> But more even than at the ACBL, my point is aimed at directors, outside >>> the ACBL, who believe in guidelines that have not even been written >>> down >>> by any authority, but that they "know" to be true. Which of course they >>> are not, or only up until the point where they contradict the Law. >>> >>>> This situation is a little quirkish, because the ACBL is entitled by >>>> law >>>> to govern the order of play of cards from suits. May I shift examples? >>>> >>>> One of the classic ambiguities in the laws is when a player makes, or >>>> starts to make, a call from dummy and then changes his mind. Obviously >>>> the >>>> laws say that "seven of diamonds" cannot be changed (except of course >>>> if >>>> it is inadvertant). But what about "seven"? And the tricky "seven of"? >>>> >>>> Suppose a regulating authority says that the declarer cannot change >>>> anything. For example, if the declarer starts with "s", he can >>>> complete >>>> it >>>> with "six" or "seven", but not "five". This is a simple, elegant >>>> solution >>>> to the problem. The WBFLC could do no better than to include it in the >>>> 2017 laws, IMO. But I would not rate it as particularly following the >>>> current laws: I don't see how the laws say that, and I seem to have a >>>> lot >>>> of company; to the extent I could get guidance from the ACBL, it did >>>> not >>>> follow that. >>>> >>>> So, you are saying that if I am under a regulating authority that has >>>> specified this, I should ignore it and follow the laws instead? I >>>> would >>>> not do that, but I am trying to be clear about your opinion. >>>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>> >>> I am talking about claims law, which is notoriously incomplete. >>> Your example would draw this discussion too far off-course. >>> >>> Herman. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 14 02:10:57 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 00:10:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA1E61E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): "What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them." >>Ah, I think I was miscommunicating. Suppose a director goes to the >>table and makes the ruling that he feels is fair and right. Is that an >>insult? Sven Pran: >It is indeed when it implies (without supporting facts) that his ruling >is based on how he feels contrary to being in agreement with the laws. Richard Hills: I do not surrender to an Orwellian use of "fair and right" as justification for an umpire intentionally fracturing the rules. If a player of any type of game whatsoever obeys that game's rules, then that is "fair". (Indeed, the Australian Football League's annual Best and Fairest award cannot be given to a player who was disciplined for rule-breaking that season.) If an umpire of any type of game whatsoever upholds that game's rules, then that is "right". In the case of the game of Duplicate Bridge the Director Sven Pran rightly upholds Laws 84A, 84B and 84C. And if the Director Sven Pran is permitted by the Laws to exercise his judgement, that does NOT mean Sven randomly rules in accordance with his personal preference. No, Sven rightly assesses his judgements in accordance with the criteria of Law 84D: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12)." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131014/fb542845/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 14 09:35:47 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:35:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:00:05 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Well, it is not just some guy in Belgium who says this, it is the laws >> themselves that say something different. Read them some time, it may be >> helpful. > > I miss how you transition from "Herman think the laws say that" to "the > laws say that" It needs a major premise, like "Herman is always right." I > will probably dispute your major premise. > Well, then you missed my point. I did not say what the laws are saying, I think the laws do that for themselves. You are defending the right of the ACBL to issue guidelines, and indeed they do have this right. What the ACBL do not have though, is to re-interpret the Laws. Now I don't believe that the ACBL are doing that. What I do see however, is that some directors, possibly including you, Bob, believe that what the ACBL says supersedes the laws. And that is what I am argueing against. Let's return to the example. If a claimer needs to ruff with AKQJx, the ACBL says that he shall ruff low. That is not what the laws say, however - the laws say that he shall ruff low, unless this is irrational. IMO, it is up to the TD to determine whether ruffing low is rational or not, and a TD who rules against this claimer simply because the ACBL is telling him to do so, is not a good TD. > And, believe it or not, people differ in their interpretations of what the > laws say. We know that people two people can think the laws obviously say > different things, and the two people can't both be right. > But I'm not interpreting the laws, I'm just reading them. And the phrase "unless ... irrational" is clearly in there. > If you want me to judge who is right, trumping high is always a thoughtful > play. To go beyond the logical extreme, the player who trumps high with > AKQJ1098 has thought about it. > > To return to the original topic, I do not prefer not to go into the mess > of deciding what number is far fewer than 4 (your words) and what number > is far greater than 6. Also, note that you have a difficult ruling for the > numbers between 3 and 7. But that is a question of what the laws and > regulations should be. > No, that is a decision the TD needs to make, and no guideline can help him. > Bob > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 14 19:10:16 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:10:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 03:35:47 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:00:05 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Well, it is not just some guy in Belgium who says this, it is the laws >>> themselves that say something different. Read them some time, it may be >>> helpful. >> >> I miss how you transition from "Herman think the laws say that" to "the >> laws say that" It needs a major premise, like "Herman is always right." >> I >> will probably dispute your major premise. >> > > Well, then you missed my point. I did not say what the laws are saying, > I think the laws do that for themselves. You are defending the right of > the ACBL to issue guidelines, and indeed they do have this right. What > the ACBL do not have though, is to re-interpret the Laws. > > Now I don't believe that the ACBL are doing that. What I do see however, > is that some directors, possibly including you, Bob, believe that what > the ACBL says supersedes the laws. And that is what I am argueing > against. > > Let's return to the example. If a claimer needs to ruff with AKQJx, the > ACBL says that he shall ruff low. That is not what the laws say, however > - the laws say that he shall ruff low, unless this is irrational. If you think about the best card to lead to dummy, and you decide whether to ruff high or low, then it becomes irrational to do anything else. For example, if you say, leading a club to dummy and my best play is to ruff high, every director will give you a high ruff. But if you *don't* think about what suit to lead to get to dummy, then it is not irrational to lead either suit; if you don't think about whether to ruff high or low, it is natural to ruff low. The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do without further thought. We are not trying to determine how he would play the hand if he played thoughtfully. If we wanted that, we could let declarer play carefully once the claim is challenged. This is what the laws tell us. For example, with A of trump and A of ciiamonds left in hand, the play of the A of trump has to be best. Any expert could figure this out without much thought. If the claim is challenged and director is allowed to play on, the expert will play the ace of trump. But the laws tell us to make him play the ace of diamonds. With thought, this is an irrational play; without thought, this is not irrational. And if someone claims saying he is drawing trump and the dummy is good, and if he is in hand, and if he has a trump in hand, we will grant that claim. Because it takes no thought to play the trump. That's what the laws are trying to tell us wth the words "irrational". > IMO, > it is up to the TD to determine whether ruffing low is rational or not, > and a TD who rules against this claimer simply because the ACBL is > telling him to do so, is not a good TD. > >> And, believe it or not, people differ in their interpretations of what >> the >> laws say. We know that people two people can think the laws obviously >> say >> different things, and the two people can't both be right. >> > > But I'm not interpreting the laws, I'm just reading them. And the phrase > "unless ... irrational" is clearly in there. > >> If you want me to judge who is right, trumping high is always a >> thoughtful >> play. To go beyond the logical extreme, the player who trumps high with >> AKQJ1098 has thought about it. >> >> To return to the original topic, I do not prefer not to go into the mess >> of deciding what number is far fewer than 4 (your words) and what number >> is far greater than 6. Also, note that you have a difficult ruling for >> the >> numbers between 3 and 7. But that is a question of what the laws and >> regulations should be. >> > > No, that is a decision the TD needs to make, and no guideline can help > him. > >> Bob >> > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 14 19:22:00 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:22:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 03:35:47 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:00:05 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Well, it is not just some guy in Belgium who says this, it is the laws >>> themselves that say something different. Read them some time, it may be >>> helpful. >> >> I miss how you transition from "Herman think the laws say that" to "the >> laws say that" It needs a major premise, like "Herman is always right." >> I >> will probably dispute your major premise. >> > > Well, then you missed my point. I did not say what the laws are saying, > I think the laws do that for themselves. You are defending the right of > the ACBL to issue guidelines, and indeed they do have this right. What > the ACBL do not have though, is to re-interpret the Laws. > > Now I don't believe that the ACBL are doing that. What I do see however, > is that some directors, possibly including you, Bob, believe that what > the ACBL says supersedes the laws. And that is what I am argueing > against. > > Let's return to the example. If a claimer needs to ruff with AKQJx, the > ACBL says that he shall ruff low. That is not what the laws say, however > - the laws say that he shall ruff low, unless this is irrational. IMO, > it is up to the TD to determine whether ruffing low is rational or not, > and a TD who rules against this claimer simply because the ACBL is > telling him to do so, is not a good TD. > >> And, believe it or not, people differ in their interpretations of what >> the >> laws say. We know that people two people can think the laws obviously >> say >> different things, and the two people can't both be right. >> > > But I'm not interpreting the laws, I'm just reading them. And the phrase > "unless ... irrational" is clearly in there. > >> If you want me to judge who is right, trumping high is always a >> thoughtful >> play. To go beyond the logical extreme, the player who trumps high with >> AKQJ1098 has thought about it. >> >> To return to the original topic, I do not prefer not to go into the mess >> of deciding what number is far fewer than 4 (your words) and what number >> is far greater than 6. Also, note that you have a difficult ruling for >> the >> numbers between 3 and 7. But that is a question of what the laws and >> regulations should be. >> > > No, that is a decision the TD needs to make, and no guideline can help > him. To me, Ton's commentary is a valuable resource. I have the problem people here do not seem to care about the WBFLC -- I was arguing a point of law with one National Tournament Director, I tried to support my point with a commentary by the WBFLC, and he shut me off as soon as I mentioned the WBF. But it is still valuable. I can rule as he describes, and point to his page. For the ABCL regulations and support, it is even better -- I make a ruling; the club manager says I am wrong; I point to where the ACBL says my ruling is correct. To me, this is the way it is supposed to be. Follow the rules, if people question the ruling, show them the rules. The ACBL regulations are, for that same reason, a valuable resource. There is one ruling I make that is apparently different from most directors here. I just say "The ACBL says I am supposed to rule that way." And I can find the page where they say very clearly say it. Or suppose a player claims, saying trump are out. There is still a trump left. Is it rational to lead a small card? That's a tough ruling to make using the laws. But apparently the ACBL has said that you lead a suit from the top. So it's a simple ruling that no one argues with. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 14 20:57:32 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:57:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be><525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be><525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Frick" Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 12:10 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 03:35:47 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:00:05 -0400, Herman De Wael >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, it is not just some guy in Belgium who says this, it is the laws >>>> themselves that say something different. Read them some time, it may be >>>> helpful. >>> >>> I miss how you transition from "Herman think the laws say that" to "the >>> laws say that" It needs a major premise, like "Herman is always right." >>> I >>> will probably dispute your major premise. >>> >> >> Well, then you missed my point. I did not say what the laws are saying, >> I think the laws do that for themselves. You are defending the right of >> the ACBL to issue guidelines, and indeed they do have this right. What >> the ACBL do not have though, is to re-interpret the Laws. >> >> Now I don't believe that the ACBL are doing that. What I do see however, >> is that some directors, possibly including you, Bob, believe that what >> the ACBL says supersedes the laws. And that is what I am argueing >> against. >> >> Let's return to the example. If a claimer needs to ruff with AKQJx, the >> ACBL says that he shall ruff low. That is not what the laws say, however >> - the laws say that he shall ruff low, unless this is irrational. > > If you think about the best card to lead to dummy, and you decide whether > to ruff high or low, then it becomes irrational to do anything else. For > example, if you say, leading a club to dummy and my best play is to ruff > high, every director will give you a high ruff. > > But if you *don't* think about what suit to lead to get to dummy, then it > is not irrational to lead either suit; if you don't think about whether to > ruff high or low, it is natural to ruff low. > The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do without > further thought. A dubious assertion. regards roger pewick > We are not trying to determine how he would play the hand > if he played thoughtfully. If we wanted that, we could let declarer play > carefully once the claim is challenged. > > This is what the laws tell us. For example, with A of trump and A of > ciiamonds left in hand, the play of the A of trump has to be best. Any > expert could figure this out without much thought. If the claim is > challenged and director is allowed to play on, the expert will play the > ace of trump. But the laws tell us to make him play the ace of diamonds. > With thought, this is an irrational play; without thought, this is not > irrational. > > And if someone claims saying he is drawing trump and the dummy is good, > and if he is in hand, and if he has a trump in hand, we will grant that > claim. Because it takes no thought to play the trump. That's what the laws > are trying to tell us wth the words "irrational". > > > > >> IMO, >> it is up to the TD to determine whether ruffing low is rational or not, >> and a TD who rules against this claimer simply because the ACBL is >> telling him to do so, is not a good TD. sssssssss >> No, that is a decision the TD needs to make, and no guideline can help >> him. >> >>> Bob >>> >> >> Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 15 01:47:23 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:47:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA202FA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>There is psychology experiment after psychology experiment (thousands?) >>showing that people's judgments are influenced by things they are not aware >>of, things they are aware of but know should be irrelevant, things that they >>should not be influenced by. Jeff Easterson: >Relevance? Richard Hills: Indeed not relevant to a judicial decision by a conscientious and competent Director or judge. Judge Richard A. Posner comprehensively demolished the thesis of Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" in a review, the first two paragraphs of which are quoted below. Judge Richard A. Posner, 24th January 2005: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/blinkered There are two types of thinking, to oversimplify grossly. We may call them intuitive and articulate. The first is the domain of hunches, snap judgments, emotional reactions, and first impressions - in short, instant responses to sensations. Obviously there is a cognitive process involved in such mental processes; one is responding to information. But there is no conscious thought, because there is no time for it. The second type of thinking is the domain of logic, deliberation, reasoned discussion, and scientific method. Here thinking is conscious: it occurs in words or sentences or symbols or concepts or formulas, and so it takes time. Articulate thinking is the model of rationality, while intuitive thinking is often seen as primitive, "emotional" in a derogatory sense, the only type of thinking of which animals are capable; and so it is articulate thinking that distinguishes human beings from the "lower" animals. When, many years ago, a judge confessed that his decisions were based largely on hunch, this caused a bit of a scandal; but there is increasing recognition that while judicial opinions, in which the judge explains his decision, are models of articulate thinking, the decision itself - the outcome, the winner - will often come to the judge in a flash. But finally the contrast between intuitive and articulate thinking is overdrawn: it ignores the fact that deliberative procedures can become unconscious simply by becoming habitual, without thereby being intuitive in the sense of pre-verbal or emotional; and that might be the case with judicial decisions, too. 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/20131014/0fcc6a7a/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 15 05:38:42 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:57:32 -0400, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Robert Frick" > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 12:10 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 03:35:47 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:00:05 -0400, Herman De Wael >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, it is not just some guy in Belgium who says this, it is the >>>>> laws >>>>> themselves that say something different. Read them some time, it may >>>>> be >>>>> helpful. >>>> >>>> I miss how you transition from "Herman think the laws say that" to >>>> "the >>>> laws say that" It needs a major premise, like "Herman is always >>>> right." >>>> I >>>> will probably dispute your major premise. >>>> >>> >>> Well, then you missed my point. I did not say what the laws are saying, >>> I think the laws do that for themselves. You are defending the right of >>> the ACBL to issue guidelines, and indeed they do have this right. What >>> the ACBL do not have though, is to re-interpret the Laws. >>> >>> Now I don't believe that the ACBL are doing that. What I do see >>> however, >>> is that some directors, possibly including you, Bob, believe that what >>> the ACBL says supersedes the laws. And that is what I am argueing >>> against. >>> >>> Let's return to the example. If a claimer needs to ruff with AKQJx, the >>> ACBL says that he shall ruff low. That is not what the laws say, >>> however >>> - the laws say that he shall ruff low, unless this is irrational. >> >> If you think about the best card to lead to dummy, and you decide >> whether >> to ruff high or low, then it becomes irrational to do anything else. For >> example, if you say, leading a club to dummy and my best play is to ruff >> high, every director will give you a high ruff. >> >> But if you *don't* think about what suit to lead to get to dummy, then >> it >> is not irrational to lead either suit; if you don't think about whether >> to >> ruff high or low, it is natural to ruff low. > >> The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do without >> further thought. > > A dubious assertion. The laws do say to pick the worst of the alternatives that include careless. If we wanted to find out what the player would do if he thought about it, why not ask him or let him play out the claim? A lot simpler and more accurate. > > regards > roger pewick > >> We are not trying to determine how he would play the hand >> if he played thoughtfully. If we wanted that, we could let declarer play >> carefully once the claim is challenged. >> >> This is what the laws tell us. For example, with A of trump and A of >> ciiamonds left in hand, the play of the A of trump has to be best. Any >> expert could figure this out without much thought. If the claim is >> challenged and director is allowed to play on, the expert will play the >> ace of trump. But the laws tell us to make him play the ace of diamonds. >> With thought, this is an irrational play; without thought, this is not >> irrational. >> >> And if someone claims saying he is drawing trump and the dummy is good, >> and if he is in hand, and if he has a trump in hand, we will grant that >> claim. Because it takes no thought to play the trump. That's what the >> laws >> are trying to tell us wth the words "irrational". >> >> >> >> >>> IMO, >>> it is up to the TD to determine whether ruffing low is rational or not, >>> and a TD who rules against this claimer simply because the ACBL is >>> telling him to do so, is not a good TD. > > sssssssss > >>> No, that is a decision the TD needs to make, and no guideline can help >>> him. >>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>> >>> Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 15 07:20:58 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 05:20:58 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA215A3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Tony Musgrove, aka some guy in Sydney :) :) >>>[tony] Herman is correct. (There I've said it). Good to see >>>his happy smiling face on the YouTube clip. >>> >>>Just saying: How can Americans who cannot run their own >>>country, hope to run a bridge tournament which requires >>>much more fine-tuned judgement. >>> >>>Tony (Sydney) >>And, believe it or not, people differ in their interpretations >>of what the laws say. We know that people two people can >>think the laws obviously say different things, and the two >>people can't both be right. Herman De Wael, aka some guy in Belgium :) :) >But I'm not interpreting the laws, I'm just reading them. And >the phrase "unless ... irrational" is clearly in there. Richard Hills, aka some guy in Canberra :) :) Herman is correct. (There I've said it too.) When I am just reading Law 70E, Unstated Line of Play, I see these words: 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or ++unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational++. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but ++always subject to any other requirement++ of this Law). * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. 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/20131015/b1be3583/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 15 09:24:11 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:24:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <525CED9B.1040706@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:57:32 -0400, Roger Pewick > wrote: > >> >>> The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do without >>> further thought. >> >> A dubious assertion. > > The laws do say to pick the worst of the alternatives that include > careless. > I side with Roger on this one - Bob's assertion is dubious. Rather: "The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do." If, during the hypothetical play of a claimed hand, it turns out that the claimer cannot fail to notice something, even something not mentioned in his claim, then it is irrational for him not to spend some further thought about it. And that should be allowed. An example: Claimer believes all trumps are gone, and he claims. Good claim, except for the outstanding trump. We play out the hand, in its many facets, and arrive at the opponent's ruff. OK so far. But now opponent plays something. Are we going to rule that claimer plays without thought to that trick? Or do we allow him to draw the necessary conclusions and play the correct card? Of course we shall give him a careless play, but an unthought one? I had a ruling like this at the European Championships. Claimer, after having given a faulty claim, tells me he can count out RHO's hand. I agree that indeed he can do this. Given that count, it is completely logical to start the particular suit from one side and not the other (say the Ace in hand rather than the King at the table). If I accept that he does know all this, should I not rule (that specific point) in his favour? And my point is always this: It is up to the TD to decide whether some line might be followed at the table or not. It is not up to some authority to give definite guidelines about what is to be accepted and what not. > If we wanted to find out what the player would do if he thought about it, > why not ask him or let him play out the claim? A lot simpler and more > accurate. > > Isn't that what we're there for? Of course we ask him how he would play it, and why. And then we rule if some lesser succesful alternative might also be possible. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 15 12:26:36 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 06:26:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <525CED9B.1040706@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> <525CED9B.1040706@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:24:11 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:57:32 -0400, Roger Pewick >> wrote: >> >>> >>>> The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do >>>> without >>>> further thought. >>> >>> A dubious assertion. >> >> The laws do say to pick the worst of the alternatives that include >> careless. >> > > I side with Roger on this one - Bob's assertion is dubious. > Rather: > "The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do." > > If, during the hypothetical play of a claimed hand, it turns out that > the claimer cannot fail to notice something, even something not > mentioned in his claim, then it is irrational for him not to spend some > further thought about it. And that should be allowed. > > An example: > > Claimer believes all trumps are gone, and he claims. Good claim, except > for the outstanding trump. We play out the hand, in its many facets, and > arrive at the opponent's ruff. OK so far. But now opponent plays > something. Are we going to rule that claimer plays without thought to > that trick? Or do we allow him to draw the necessary conclusions and > play the correct card? Of course we shall give him a careless play, but > an unthought one? > > I had a ruling like this at the European Championships. Claimer, after > having given a faulty claim, tells me he can count out RHO's hand. I > agree that indeed he can do this. Given that count, it is completely > logical to start the particular suit from one side and not the other > (say the Ace in hand rather than the King at the table). If I accept > that he does know all this, should I not rule (that specific point) in > his favour? > > And my point is always this: It is up to the TD to decide whether some > line might be followed at the table or not. It is not up to some > authority to give definite guidelines about what is to be accepted and > what not. > > >> If we wanted to find out what the player would do if he thought about >> it, >> why not ask him or let him play out the claim? A lot simpler and more >> accurate. >> >> > > Isn't that what we're there for? Of course we ask him how he would play > it, and why. And then we rule if some lesser succesful alternative might > also be possible. So, a player claims, saying the board is good. It is all trumps. But he is in hand and has no trumps. The opponents dispute this claim, suggesting that it might not work depending on how he plays it. You are called, and when you ask him how he would play it, he says he is going to lead a diamond to ruff rather than a club and explains why. Fact. He could have have thought of this explanation after the claim and before you got to the table. Fact. His explanation is correct -- it is better to lead a diamond and he has correctly explained why. Given this explanation, it is irrational to lead a club. Fact. The diamond lead nets him the rest of the tricks. The club lead does not. Is this enough for you to make a ruling? From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 15 13:43:38 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:43:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> <525CED9B.1040706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <525D2A6A.1040103@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > So, a player claims, saying the board is good. It is all trumps. But he is > in hand and has no trumps. The opponents dispute this claim, suggesting > that it might not work depending on how he plays it. You are called, and > when you ask him how he would play it, he says he is going to lead a > diamond to ruff rather than a club and explains why. > > Fact. He could have have thought of this explanation after the claim and > before you got to the table. > Fact. His explanation is correct -- it is better to lead a diamond and he > has correctly explained why. Given this explanation, it is irrational to > lead a club. > Fact. The diamond lead nets him the rest of the tricks. The club lead does > not. > > Is this enough for you to make a ruling? No. Should it? Everything depends on how certain I am that he would have found the reasoning at the table. You do give a number of good facts. For example, if he knew he was in hand, then of course he could easily have said which suit he would play. If he doesn't say it, perhaps he believes it does not matter - so we don't allow him to rethink. Nothing in the story as you tell it, is enough to deny him the claim. But I could not say I would award the claim without hearing the player, including his reasons for playing diamonds, and the reason why he thought he was in hand. Is that enough of an answer? Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 15 17:19:21 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:19:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <525CED9B.1040706@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> <525CED9B.1040706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <525D5CF9.4030606@starpower.net> On 10/15/2013 3:24 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: > >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:57:32 -0400, Roger Pewick >> wrote: >> >>>> The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do without >>>> further thought. >>> >>> A dubious assertion. >> >> The laws do say to pick the worst of the alternatives that include >> careless. > > I side with Roger on this one - Bob's assertion is dubious. > Rather: > "The laws are trying to tell us to judge what the player would do." > > If, during the hypothetical play of a claimed hand, it turns out that > the claimer cannot fail to notice something, even something not > mentioned in his claim, then it is irrational for him not to spend some > further thought about it. And that should be allowed. > > An example: > > Claimer believes all trumps are gone, and he claims. Good claim, except > for the outstanding trump. We play out the hand, in its many facets, and > arrive at the opponent's ruff. OK so far. But now opponent plays > something. Are we going to rule that claimer plays without thought to > that trick? Or do we allow him to draw the necessary conclusions and > play the correct card? Of course we shall give him a careless play, but > an unthought one? > > I had a ruling like this at the European Championships. Claimer, after > having given a faulty claim, tells me he can count out RHO's hand. I > agree that indeed he can do this. Given that count, it is completely > logical to start the particular suit from one side and not the other > (say the Ace in hand rather than the King at the table). If I accept > that he does know all this, should I not rule (that specific point) in > his favour? Absolutely not. What "claimer, after having given a faulty claim, tells [you]" is "not embraced in the original clarification statement" [L70D1] and may not be considered. If I, after having given a faulty claim, were to tell Herman that I can find the sure double squeeze that happens to be there on the hand, I would be rather upset to have Herman insult me by refusing to "agree that indeed [I] can do this". But I certainly wouldn't expect to him "rule (that specific point) in [my] favor" when adjudicating a claim in which I failed to mention the double squeeze possibility until after he arrived at the table. Claimer would not have "given a faulty claim" if he had told his opponents that "he can count out RHO's hand" instead of saving it to tell it to Herman only after his claim was contested. Perhaps he didn't realize it until his claim was contested? Just sayin'. > And my point is always this: It is up to the TD to decide whether some > line might be followed at the table or not. It is not up to some > authority to give definite guidelines about what is to be accepted and > what not. > >> If we wanted to find out what the player would do if he thought about it, >> why not ask him or let him play out the claim? A lot simpler and more >> accurate. > > Isn't that what we're there for? Of course we ask him how he would play > it, and why. And then we rule if some lesser succesful alternative might > also be possible. If a player fails to fulfill the obligation imposed by L70C ("A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement...") the penalty, in effect, is that we presume in any subsequent adjudication that he was not aware of any critical factor that he failed to mention (such as that "he can count out RHO's hand") even if we (or Herman) are certain that it is true. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 16 01:14:42 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:14:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA21EF8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau, Silver Spring MD: >Absolutely not. What "claimer, after having given a faulty claim, tells >[you]" is "not embraced in the original clarification statement" [L70D1] >and may not be considered. >..... Richard Hills, Canberra ACT: "Absolutely" is an overstatement. Eric has misread Law 70D1. The first clause of Law 70D1 ends with a comma, then that first clause is weakened by the following over-riding word "unless". Peter Bowler, The Superior Person's Book of Words: "Ultramontane, a. Formerly, that faction within the Catholic Church which either lived north of the Alps, outside of Italy, and opposed the concept of papal supremacy, or lived south of the Alps, within Italy, and supported the concept of papal supremacy. Nowadays, more commonly used simply to mean situated beyond the mountains. As, for example, Canberra. Not to be confused with 'ultramundane', which means beyond the realities of earthly existence; unreal, unworldly. As, for example, Canberra. Not to be confused, also, with 'ultra-mundane' (with a hyphen), which means excessively humdrum. As, for example, Canberra." 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/20131015/b373579c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 16 03:08:49 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:08:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA21F5A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 70D1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful." >"Absolutely" is an overstatement. Eric has misread Law 70D1. The >first clause of Law 70D1 ends with a comma, then that first clause is >weakened by the following over-riding word "unless". Oops. Eric has correctly read Law 70D1; I was foolishly inconsistent in instead reading the over-riding word "unless" in Law 70E1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless ... " Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882): "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." 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/20131016/63fead85/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 16 08:25:12 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:25:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <525D5CF9.4030606@starpower.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001501cec264$51e4f280$f5aed780$@online.no> <5252946A.2050805@aol.com> <5253EC6D.4030609@aol.com> <5254F84B.1070203@skynet.be> <525641E7.2050903@skynet.be> <525AC385.8030803@skynet.be> <525B9ED3.1080409@skynet.be> <525CED9B.1040706@skynet.be> <525D5CF9.4030606@starpower.net> Message-ID: <525E3148.3060808@skynet.be> Eric Landau schreef: > On 10/15/2013 3:24 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> I had a ruling like this at the European Championships. Claimer, after >> having given a faulty claim, tells me he can count out RHO's hand. I >> agree that indeed he can do this. Given that count, it is completely >> logical to start the particular suit from one side and not the other >> (say the Ace in hand rather than the King at the table). If I accept >> that he does know all this, should I not rule (that specific point) in >> his favour? > > Absolutely not. What "claimer, after having given a faulty claim, tells > [you]" is "not embraced in the original clarification statement" [L70D1] > and may not be considered. > Incredible. I'm not reading on. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 19 09:57:14 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 07:57:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 70A, Contested Claim or Concession, General Objective: "... the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer ..." Herman De Wael: >>>..... >>>Of course we shall give him a careless play, but an unthought one? >>> >>>I had a ruling like this at the European Championships. Claimer, >>>after having given a faulty claim, tells me he can count out RHO's >>>hand. I agree that indeed he can do this. Given that count, it is >>>completely logical to start the particular suit from one side and >>>not the other (say the Ace in hand rather than the King at the >>>table). If I accept that he does know all this, should I not rule (that >>>specific point) in his favour? Eric Landau: >>Absolutely not. What "claimer, after having given a faulty claim, >>tells [you]" is "not embraced in the original clarification statement" >>[L70D1] and may not be considered. Herman De Wael: >Incredible. I'm not reading on. Richard Hills: It seems to me that this "incredible" exchange of views is based upon the glass one-third full and the glass two-thirds empty. It seems to me that Herman is emphasising the "equitably as possible to both sides" glass one-third full criterion. Likewise, it seems to me that Eric is emphasising the "any doubtful point" glass two-thirds empty criterion. Why the difference from the traditional weighting of the glass half full and the glass half empty? It seems to me that Herman either gave an incomplete description of his European Championships' ruling, or alternatively Herman missed a subtle nuance from the famous footnote: "* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Richard Hills: Because of "class of player" it is insufficient for Herman to decide that the actual at-the-table claimer knew how to count. Rather, Herman has to also decide that the claimer's peers - who hypothetically did NOT mention the count in their hypothetical claim statements - failed to do so due to mere slips of their tongues instead of much more likely slips of their brains. Marcus Tullius Cicero: "Salus populi suprema est lex." 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/20131019/a946bf8b/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Oct 19 11:46:08 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:46:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <526254E0.5080501@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > Eric Landau: >>>Absolutely not. What ?claimer, after having given a faulty claim, >>>tells [you]? is ?not embraced in the original clarification statement? >>>[L70D1] and may not be considered. > Herman De Wael: >>Incredible. I?m not reading on. Allow me to explain. When a poster tells me that a piece of evidence is not to be considered, that is enough for me to not read on. > Richard Hills: > It seems to me that this ?incredible? exchange of views is based upon > the glass one-third full and the glass two-thirds empty. I feil to see what this means. > It seems to me that Herman is emphasising the ?equitably as possible > to both sides? glass one-third full criterion. Indeed, if a player tells me something, I listen to him. And then I decide whether I (have to) believe him. > Likewise, it seems to me > that Eric is emphasising the ?any doubtful point? glass two-thirds > empty criterion. I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but I cannot believe any director would simply stop listening, or discard the evidence without further consideration, simply because it was given at some later moment than it should have been. > Why the difference from the traditional weighting of the glass half > full and the glass half empty? It seems to me that Herman either gave > an incomplete description of his European Championships? ruling, or Well, what else do I need to tell you than that I believed he knew exactly what he was telling me, at the time of his claim. > alternatively Herman missed a subtle nuance from the famous footnote: > ?* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that > would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.? Well, I don't see how this applies. You cannot judge whether a line of play is normal or not unless you know what the claimer knew at the time of his claim. If you are not going to listen to him, how can you tell. And this has nothing to do with careless or not. If a player knows a suit is divided exactly 3-1, it is irrational, not normal, for him not to play from hand first and then finesse the queen. (this was the lay-out: KJxx ?xx ? Axxxx) There is nothing careless about playing it anyway else. The only decision the TD must make is whether claimer did indeed, at the time of his claim, realize that the suit was 3-1. And I agree, if claimer does not state it immediately, that is an indication that he did not in fact realize. But if there are other reasons why he did not say (and I believed at the time there were), then that too must be taken into consideration. > Richard Hills: > Because of ?class of player? it is insufficient for Herman to decide that > the actual at-the-table claimer knew how to count. Rather, Herman has > to also decide that the claimer?s peers ? who hypothetically did NOT > mention the count in their hypothetical claim statements ? failed to do > so due to mere slips of their tongues instead of much more likely slips > of their brains. And that is what I did. And it is not fair of you to suggest that my decision must be wrong, since it cannot possibly be right. I was at the table, you were not. Herman. From g3 at nige1.com Sun Oct 20 00:33:20 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:33:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1AE8F2126DBC4724BB715E43928491F3@G3> [Richard Hills] Because of ?class of player? it is insufficient for Herman to decide that the actual at-the-table claimer knew how to count. Rather, Herman has to also decide that the claimer?s peers ? who hypothetically did NOT mention the count in their hypothetical claim statements ? failed to do so due to mere slips of their tongues instead of much more likely slips of their brains. [nigel] I'm swayed by Richard's argument. Nevertheless, we've now discussed many claims on this and other fora. We rarely come to a consensus ruling, even in the hundreds of simple basic cases, with agreed facts. Current rules are too complex for most players and directors but even the brightest directors seem to disagree over rulings. Thus, again, inconsistency is embedded in the very fabric of the rules. The rules are manifestly unfair to players. There are several ways the rules might be made simpler and more consistent. Why do rule-makers make no effort to try any of them? From anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de Sun Oct 20 06:50:19 2013 From: anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de (Dr. Richard Bley) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:50:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking Message-ID: <2EDBBFFD-007B-4F67-944B-A5432A4C698A@bley-strafrecht.de> Does anyone have an oversight, what guidelines are in charge in WBF / EBL / national organisations for situations, where a defender / declarer(?) plays a False card / trick card after a long hesitation. The problem lies in LAW 73F of course (bridge reasons for thinking) Yours Richard From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 20 09:23:51 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:23:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1AE8F2126DBC4724BB715E43928491F3@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <1AE8F2126DBC4724BB715E43928491F3@G3> Message-ID: <52638507.7000006@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > [Richard Hills] > Because of ?class of player? it is insufficient for Herman to decide that > the actual at-the-table claimer knew how to count. Rather, Herman has > to also decide that the claimer?s peers ? who hypothetically did NOT > mention the count in their hypothetical claim statements ? failed to do > so due to mere slips of their tongues instead of much more likely slips > of their brains. > > [nigel] > I'm swayed by Richard's argument. Which is, however, completely wrong. The Director needs to reach two decisions: 1) what does claimer know of the hand; 2) given what he knows of the hand, which lines are normal. The second decision can be made with reference to "peers of the player", but the first cannot. This is just a fact. One that it may be difficult to determine, but something that exists as a fact. And there is no "class of player" that can help determine this. Of course, through his experience, a Director will know what it means when a player of a particular class makes a particular kind of claim. But what needs to be determined is still the individual knowledge of the claimer. Nevertheless, we've now discussed many > claims on this and other fora. We rarely come to a consensus ruling, even in > the hundreds of simple basic cases, with agreed facts. Current rules are > too complex for most players and directors but even the brightest directors > seem to disagree over rulings. Thus, again, inconsistency is embedded in the > very fabric of the rules. The rules are manifestly unfair to players. There > are several ways the rules might be made simpler and more consistent. Why do > rule-makers make no effort to try any of them? > Well, the main problem is that even when some authority states that such and such is the correct solution to a claim, individuals on this list and others still maintain that they know better. That way, no consensus lies. Herman. From harsanyi at t-online.de Sun Oct 20 10:18:50 2013 From: harsanyi at t-online.de (Josef Harsanyi) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:18:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking In-Reply-To: <2EDBBFFD-007B-4F67-944B-A5432A4C698A@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: Please give also some hint and ideas about the potential reduction of damage by saying: "SORRY" or "PLEASE FORGET MY HESITATION" or some other expression of a player, to reset the situation to the ideal case without hesitation. Regards Josef Am 20.10.13 06:50 schrieb "Dr. Richard Bley" unter : >Does anyone have an oversight, what guidelines are in charge in WBF / EBL >/ national organisations for situations, where a defender / declarer(?) >plays a False card / trick card after a long hesitation. > > >The problem lies in LAW 73F of course (bridge reasons for thinking) > > >Yours >Richard >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Sun Oct 20 15:02:38 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 14:02:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52638507.7000006@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><1AE8F2126DBC4724BB715E43928491F3@G3> <52638507.7000006@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Nigel] Nevertheless, we've now discussed many claims on this and other fora. We rarely come to a consensus ruling, even in the hundreds of simple basic cases, with agreed facts. Current rules are too complex for most players and directors but even the brightest directors seem to disagree over rulings. Thus, again, inconsistency is embedded in the very fabric of the rules. The rules are manifestly unfair to players. There are several ways the rules might be made simpler and more consistent. Why do rule-makers make no effort to try any of them? [Herman De Wael] Well, the main problem is that even when some authority states that such and such is the correct solution to a claim, individuals on this list and others still maintain that they know better. That way, no consensus lies. [Nigel] Opinions are sometimes divided about 50-50. Herman seems to be claiming that his half speaks with authority and the other half are wilfully bolshie. I don't think so. From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Oct 20 16:26:47 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:26:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5263E827.4000105@starpower.net> On 10/20/2013 4:18 AM, Josef Harsanyi wrote: > Please give also some hint and ideas about the potential reduction of > damage by saying: "SORRY" or "PLEASE FORGET MY HESITATION" or some other > expression of a player, to reset the situation to the ideal case without > hesitation. That is appropriate when you've hesitated for lack of attention, distracted by something entirely outside of the purview of the game at the table. If, however, you hesitated over what card to play -- as when deciding whether to "false card" (perhaps trying to determine whether you're in a "mandatory false card" position) -- to suggest by such a remark that the hesitation was for something other than a "bridge decision" would be a violation of law subject to adjustment per L23. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 20 17:43:15 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:43:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA27D5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><1AE8F2126DBC4724BB715E43928491F3@G3> <52638507.7000006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5263FA13.7080703@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > > [Herman De Wael] > Well, the main problem is that even when some authority states that such and > such is the correct solution to a claim, individuals on this list and others > still maintain that they know better. That way, no consensus lies. > > [Nigel] > Opinions are sometimes divided about 50-50. Herman seems to be claiming that > his half speaks with authority and the other half are wilfully bolshie. I > don't think so. > Well, it seems to me that if the opinions are 50/50 at the start, they are 49/51 at the end of a discussion on blml. That is no way to carry on a discussion. We are all here to learn, but if all we want to do is teach, there is no sense in this forum. Which many, now absent from the list, have already concluded. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 20 23:05:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:05:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA284DC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >Opinions [on blml] are sometimes divided about 50-50. Herman seems >to be claiming that his half speaks with authority [about interpretation >of the Laws] and the other half are wilfully bolshie. I don't think so. Richard Hills: 100% of opinions on blml always lack authority about interpretation of the Laws. Only the collective decisions of the prestigious WBF Laws Committee have that authority. Charles de Gaulle: "Authority doesn't work without prestige, or prestige without distance." 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/20131020/aadae880/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 20 23:20:27 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:20:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2851F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Does anyone have an oversight, what guidelines are in charge in >WBF / EBL / national organisations for situations, where a >defender / declarer(?) plays a False card / trick card after a long >hesitation. > >The problem lies in LAW 73F of course (bridge reasons for >thinking) > > >Yours >Richard WBF Code of Practice, page 8, False carding by defenders: "Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards. (See 'Unauthorized Information'.)" WBF Code of Practice, page 6, Unauthorized Information: " ..... A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the inclinations ('style') of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is a violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) ..... " Best wishes, Richard UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131020/3f940463/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 20 23:39:32 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:39:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2854D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>..... >>? It seems to me that Herman either gave an incomplete description >>of his European Championships' ruling >>..... Herman De Wael: >..... >But if there are other reasons why he did not say (and I believed at >the time there were), then that too must be taken into consideration. > >..... > >And that is what I did. >And it is not fair of you to suggest that my decision must be wrong, >since it cannot possibly be right. I was at the table, you were not. Richard Hills: No, I never suggested that Herman's ruling "must" be wrong. It is now clear that Herman's normally impeccable scribing of a Director's decision was initially incomplete, failing to state the "other reasons" that the Director discovered "at the table". What's the problem? The problem (which I am also guilty of) is paraphrasing what one believes to be a blmler's intent. 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/20131020/3378a350/attachment.html From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Mon Oct 21 00:48:57 2013 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:48:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking In-Reply-To: <2EDBBFFD-007B-4F67-944B-A5432A4C698A@bley-strafrecht.de> References: <2EDBBFFD-007B-4F67-944B-A5432A4C698A@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: <8D27898E-E979-45E7-8C2A-1E20231E4E1A@wesleyan.edu> On 2013 Oct 20, at 00:50, Dr. Richard Bley wrote: > Does anyone have an oversight, what guidelines are in charge in WBF / EBL / national organisations for situations, where a defender / declarer(?) plays a False card / trick card after a long hesitation. > > The problem lies in LAW 73F of course (bridge reasons for thinking) ACBL policy: ??Considering falsecard possibilities? is not a ?demonstrable bridge reason? for the purposes of Law 73F.? Tim -- Timothy N. Hill home: 781-235-2902, 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 mobile: 781-929-7673 Westwood Bridge Club: 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4889 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131020/4ae45ced/attachment.bin From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Oct 21 01:36:31 2013 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 19:36:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking In-Reply-To: <8D27898E-E979-45E7-8C2A-1E20231E4E1A@wesleyan.edu> References: <2EDBBFFD-007B-4F67-944B-A5432A4C698A@bley-strafrecht.de> <8D27898E-E979-45E7-8C2A-1E20231E4E1A@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <526468FF.7010308@comcast.net> On 10/20/13 6:48 PM, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > On 2013 Oct 20, at 00:50, Dr. Richard Bley wrote: > >> Does anyone have an oversight, what guidelines are in charge in WBF / EBL / national organisations for situations, where a defender / declarer(?) plays a False card / trick card after a long hesitation. >> >> The problem lies in LAW 73F of course (bridge reasons for thinking) > ACBL policy: ??Considering falsecard possibilities? is not a ?demonstrable bridge reason? for the purposes of Law 73F.? > > Tim > > So if defender (or declarer) hesitates and then does not falsecard.....?? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 01:59:34 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 23:59:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA285E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >100% of opinions on blml always lack authority about interpretation of >the Laws. Only the collective decisions of the prestigious WBF Laws >Committee have that authority. "Only" was a slight exaggeration. Because the prestigious WBF Laws Committee has not yet comprehensively interpreted the claim Laws, therefore the almost-as-prestigious Zone 7 Laws Committee has collectively decided upon authoritative but temporary interpretations of the claim Laws for the Directors of New Zealand and Australia. --> Law 70A In adjudicating a contested claim or concession the director is required to use his bridge judgement to determine, as equitably as possible for both sides, what in his opinion would have happened if play had continued normally [giving no weight to irrational (silly) lines]. There is however no option to award a split or weighted score, since the margin of doubt that might remain after consultation with colleagues (or if appropriate, players) must be resolved in favour of the non-claiming side. To assist directors in making this distinction, please refer to the examples in Sections 70C and 70E2 below. Law 70C A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is 'careless' rather than 'irrational' in failing to draw that missing trump or stating how he will take care of it. Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the director should award that trick to the non- claimers. Examples (a) Declarer claims all the tricks with a good trump (the D9), two spade winners and a heart winner. The defence can ruff the heart with their outstanding small trump. Despite declarer swearing on a stack of bibles that he knew there was a trump out, if he was too careless to mention it, then he may easily have forgotten it, and the defence is allocated a trick. (b) Declarer is in 7S with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. He cashes one round and says "All mine" when both players follow. He clearly has not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good. Law 70E2 In adjudicating disputed claims involving an unstated line of play the following guidelines apply: (a) Top down A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, this is especially so if there is some solidity. Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it would be considered irrational to play the 5 first. (b) Different suits If a declarer appears unaware of an outstanding winner, or losing line of play [but see (a) above], and a trick could be lost by playing or discarding one suit rather than another, then the director should award that trick to the non-claiming side. Example Declarer has three winners in dummy and must make three discards. He appears to have forgotten his DJ is not a winner. It is careless rather than irrational that he should discard some other winner to retain the DJ. 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/20131020/78e379df/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 02:18:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:18:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA28626@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Robert Park: >So if defender (or declarer) hesitates and then does not falsecard.....?? Richard Hills: One of my occasional partners use to echelon his thinking as declarer (until I explained to him its illegality). At trick four, when he had zero problems playing a card from the closed hand, he would ponder deeply, so that he could resolve a forthcoming trick seven problem in tempo. That was not only an infraction of Law 73F, but also an infraction of Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." 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/20131021/89ba1ae2/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Oct 21 02:57:48 2013 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 20:57:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA28626@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA28626@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52647C0C.8090209@comcast.net> On 10/20/13 8:18 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > Robert Park: > >So if defender (or declarer) hesitates and then does not falsecard.....?? > Richard Hills: > One of my occasional partners use to echelon his thinking as declarer > (until I explained to him its illegality). At trick four, when he had zero > problems playing a card from the closed hand, he would ponder > deeply, so that he could resolve a forthcoming trick seven problem in > tempo. That was not only an infraction of Law 73F, but also an > infraction of Law 73D2: > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in > hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or > play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." > The key word here seems to be "attempt." If an opponent is mislead by a hesitation (when a choice does exist), is that to be taken as evidence of attempt? Sufficient evidence? How, exactly, does one determine "attempt?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131021/1035c0ae/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Oct 21 03:15:16 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:15:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pass out of turn after the auction is closed, then reopened Message-ID: <52D64A0777974FF39D33BFE70F3ACB58@erdos> Suppose a player passes out of turn after the auction is closed. Normally, there is no rectification for the pass after the auction is closed, and the rectification for the pass out of turn would be irrelevant (the player must pass at future turns). But what happens if the auction is reopened? For example, South bids, West, North, and East all pass, and then West passes. South now informs E-W that a call was incorrectly explained. Is East allowed to change his final pass (under L21), or does he lose that right because West subsequently called even though the call was cancelled? And if East is allowed to change his final pass, is West required to pass at his next turn? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 03:31:57 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:31:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] False Cards after thinking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA286B8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." Robert Park: >The key word here seems to be "attempt". If an opponent is misled >by a hesitation (when a choice does exist), is that to be taken as >evidence of attempt? Sufficient evidence? Richard Hills: Definitely not. If a player has a bridge reason for hesitating, then an opponent misguessing the nature of the bridge reason does so "at his own risk". (Law 73D1) Robert Park: >How, exactly, does one determine "attempt"? Macquarie Dictionary, "attempt": verb (t) 1. to make an effort at; try; undertake; seek: to attempt a conversation; to attempt to study. Richard Hills: Ergo, one does not "make an effort at" hesitating when one has to carefully choose between two true cards; the hesitation naturally flows from the bridge problem that one is analysing. But one does "make an effort at" hesitating when one hesitates with a singleton. Edmund Burke, 9th May 1770: "If ever there was in all proceedings of government a rule that is fundamental, universal, invariable it is this: that you ought never to attempt a measure of authority you are not morally sure you can go through with." 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/20131021/30b2a6e9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 04:44:38 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:44:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Pass out of turn after the auction is closed, then reopened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA286EE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner: >Suppose a player passes out of turn after the auction is closed. Normally, >there is no rectification for the pass after the auction is closed, and the >rectification for the pass out of turn would be irrelevant (the player must >pass at future turns). But what happens if the auction is reopened? > >For example, South bids, West, North, and East all pass, and then West >passes. South now informs E-W that a call was incorrectly explained. > >Is East allowed to change his final pass (under L21), Richard Hills: The Director "could well" determine that North's misinformation was significant; if so Law 21B1(a) applies to East. David Grabiner: >or does he lose that right because West subsequently called even though >the call was cancelled? And if East is allowed to change his final pass, is >West required to pass at his next turn? Law 39B, Call After the Final Pass, Pass by Defender or Any Call by Declaring Side: "If offender's LHO calls before rectification ++or if the infraction is a pass by a defender++ or any call by the future declarer or dummy there is ++no further rectification++." 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/20131021/a7d5bac4/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 21 06:47:48 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:47:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA285E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA285E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] 100% of opinions on blml always lack authority about interpretation of the Laws. Only the collective decisions of the prestigious WBF Laws Committee have that authority. [Introduction to TFLB] Bridge is played in different ways in different countries so the Laws give more power to Regulating Authorities to make controlling regulations. This is particularly so in the area of Special Partnership Understandings, in itself a new concept. Artificial bidding is a fact of life so an attempt has been made to solve problems, or to allow Regulating Authorities to solve problems, that arise when something goes wrong. We have tried to clarify the areas of responsibility of Regulating Authorities, Tournament Organizers and Directors and it is made clear that certain responsibilities may be either assigned or delegated. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 22 06:14:41 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:14:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Classic comments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2B617@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ross Eckler, Making the Alphabet Dance: "The two-Z barrier was breached many years ago in a specialized dictionary, Rupert Hughes's The Musical Guide (later, Music-Lovers Encyclopedia), published in various editions between 1905 and 1956. Its final entry, ZZXJOANW (shaw) Maori 1.Drum 2.Fife 3.Conclusion, remained un- challenged for more than seventy years until Philip Cohen pointed out various oddities: the strange pronunciation, the odd diversity of meanings (including "conclusion") and the non-Maori appearance of the word. (Maori uses the fourteen letters AEGHIKMNOPRTUW, and all words end in a vowel). A hoax clearly entered somewhere; no doubt Hughes expected it to be obvious, but he did not take into account the credulity of logologists, sensitized by dictionary- sanctioned outlandish words such as mlechchha and qaraqalpaq." Richard Hills: The credulity of Directors may be moderated if they peruse the EBU White Book, which can be downloaded from: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/publications 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/20131022/abcc5e9f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 06:40:45 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:40:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2CF4E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/WBFVPscales.pdf 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/20131023/b7bc16af/attachment.html From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 23 07:06:16 2013 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:06:16 +0900 Subject: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2CF4E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2CF4E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52675948.6000304@nifty.com> I'm sure this has occurred to everyone else too, but if we're using VP scales to two decimals it's inconsistent to use integer IMP values. Whay should 740 and 600 both be exactly 12.00 imps? (2013/10/23 13:40), Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/WBFVPscales.pdf > Best wishes, > Richard Hills > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Oct 23 15:35:23 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:35:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2CF4E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Or more significantly, 20, 30, 40 all equal to 1.00 imps? I actually don't agree with messing with either the IMP or the VP scales. Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Geller Sent: 10/23/2013 1:06 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I'm sure this has occurred to everyone else too, but if we're using VP scales to two decimals it's inconsistent to use integer IMP values. Whay should 740 and 600 both be exactly 12.00 imps? (2013/10/23 13:40), Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulatio ns/WBFVPscales.pdf > Best wishes, > Richard Hills > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jjlbridge at free.fr Wed Oct 23 22:35:09 2013 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:35:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52675948.6000304@nifty.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2CF4E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52675948.6000304@nifty.com> Message-ID: There are many reasons for keeping the current state of affairs for IMPs while changing the scale for VPs, here are some I can come up with quickly : 1 - one needs to mention it first on BLML (although secondary IMO) : the IMP scale is defined in TFLB, whereas the VP scale is left to the Regulating Authority 2 - IMPs results are still very often computed by lazy and error-prone humans, but VPs by computers 3 - even if humans have to lookup IMP -> VP conversion, it's (usually) 7 to 32 times less often. And anyway they had to look, (almost) nobody knows the VP scales, which of course depend on the number of deals 4 - the quantization noise of IMPs is a second-order one compared to the late VPs noise, so let's get rid of the latter, then maybe one day think about the former Jean-Jacques, "I really have trouble understanding why it took so long to finally get there" 2013/10/23 Robert Geller : > I'm sure this has occurred to everyone else too, but if we're using VP > scales to two decimals it's inconsistent to use integer IMP values. > Whay should 740 and 600 both be exactly 12.00 imps? > > > (2013/10/23 13:40), Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >> http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/WBFVPscales.pdf >> Best wishes, >> Richard Hills >> UNOFFICIAL >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 23:03:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:03:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2D0F4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805 - 1859): "Decentralisation has, not only an administrative value, but also a civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will." Jean-Jacques: >..... >1 - one needs to mention it first on BLML (although secondary IMO) : >the IMP scale is defined in TFLB, whereas the VP scale is left to the >Regulating Authority >..... Richard Hills: Yes and No. Law 80A3 permits the Regulating Authority to delegate choice between Victory Point scales to local Tournament Organizers. And most other persnickety Conditions of Contest are necessarily decentralised to Tournament Organizers. Law 78D: "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest in advance of a tournament or contest. These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be available to contestants." 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/20131023/449e1d5b/attachment.html From geller at nifty.com Thu Oct 24 00:06:56 2013 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:06:56 +0900 Subject: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2CF4E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52675948.6000304@nifty.com> Message-ID: <52684880.4080107@nifty.com> You are correct in saying that a change in the imp scale would require a change in the laws but that could easily be done in 2017. And the new laws could state that decomal imps were for use in machine-scored events but that the present integer imp scoring could be retained as an option forhuman-scored events. (2013/10/24 5:35), Jean-Jacques wrote: > There are many reasons for keeping the current state of affairs for > IMPs while changing the scale for VPs, here are some I can come up > with quickly : > > 1 - one needs to mention it first on BLML (although secondary IMO) : > the IMP scale is defined in TFLB, whereas the VP scale is left to the > Regulating Authority > 2 - IMPs results are still very often computed by lazy and error-prone > humans, but VPs by computers > 3 - even if humans have to lookup IMP -> VP conversion, it's (usually) > 7 to 32 times less often. And anyway they had to look, (almost) nobody > knows the VP scales, which of course depend on the number of deals > 4 - the quantization noise of IMPs is a second-order one compared to > the late VPs noise, so let's get rid of the latter, then maybe one day > think about the former > > Jean-Jacques, "I really have trouble understanding why it took so long > to finally get there" > > 2013/10/23 Robert Geller : >> I'm sure this has occurred to everyone else too, but if we're using VP >> scales to two decimals it's inconsistent to use integer IMP values. >> Whay should 740 and 600 both be exactly 12.00 imps? >> >> >> (2013/10/23 13:40), Richard HILLS wrote: >>> UNOFFICIAL >>> http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/WBFVPscales.pdf >>> Best wishes, >>> Richard Hills >>> UNOFFICIAL >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >>> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >>> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >>> privileged >>> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >>> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >>> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >>> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >>> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >>> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 24 00:29:41 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:29:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Continuous VP Scale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2D17A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Robert Geller: >You are correct in saying that a change in the imp scale would require a >change in the laws but that could easily be done in 2017. >..... Richard Hills: Incorrect, zero changes to the Laws needed. One should read Law 78 as a whole, rather than merely concentrating on Law 78B. Laws 78A, 78B and 78C specify three possible methods of scoring. But Law 78D permits a Regulating Authority to create "other scoring methods", for example Cross-Imps Scoring or a Decimal Imps Scale. Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE), Athenian poet and statesman: "I grow old ever learning many things." 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/20131023/62e1c84e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 25 02:07:43 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:07:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> Message-ID: Contested claim today. Declarer thought my ruling was ridiculous and unfair; the defense thought I made a good ruling. As you might guess, I gave a trick to the defense. There is no question that other directors would interpret the laws differently and make a different ruling. So it isn't like I can just point to the laws and expect to convince declarer. I guess she will be convinced if she asks some experts and they agree with me. But I don't know if that would happen. Anyway, when I got done, I could say to the declarer (whom I ruled against), "I can show you where the ACBL says you lose a trick on this claim." She had, ironically, found a perfect analog to the ACBL example we were discussing. (She had QJ108 of trump with the 9 being the only outstanding trump.) Neither Sven nor I want this kind of detail in the laws. I think Sven is saying that a director should be allowed to make a ruling from the lawbook and not be responsible for regulations (which may be more or less difficult to obtain). Well, I will say that would be nice. But still, it was really nice to have that regulation in place. And of course that I knew about it. I don' t know what the solution is. Should it be good enough to use the lawbook and give rulings consistent with it? Do we actually support that? It seems like there should be more guidance, a position apparently everyone agrees with. But how much more? And are directors responsible for knowing that? Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 25 02:29:53 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:29:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2D501@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>..... >>What's the problem? The problem (which I am also guilty of) is >>paraphrasing what one ++believes++ to be a blmler's intent. Bob Frick: >..... >I think Sven is saying that a director should be allowed to make a >ruling from the lawbook and not be responsible for regulations >(which may be more or less difficult to obtain). >..... Richard Hills: Bob deserves a PWMW (Paraphrase Without Merit Warning). As a professional Director who performs professionally, Sven seriously strives to obey Law 81B2: "The Director ++applies, and is bound by++, these Laws and supplementary ++regulations++ announced under authority given in these Laws." 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/20131025/10a3f38f/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 25 02:54:25 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:54:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2D501@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2D501@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:29:53 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Richard Hills: > >>> ..... >>> What?s the problem? The problem (which I am also guilty of) is >>> paraphrasing what one ++believes++ to be a blmler's intent. >Bob Frick: > >> ..... >> I think Sven is saying that a director should be allowed to make a >> ruling from the lawbook and not be responsible for regulations >> (which may be more or less difficult to obtain). >> ..... >Richard Hills: >Bob deserves a PWMW (Paraphrase Without Merit Warning). >As a professional Director who performs professionally, Sven > seriously strives to obey Law 81B2: >?The Director ++applies, and is bound by++, these Laws and > supplementary ++regulations++ announced under authority > given in these Laws.? I am not sure what you are saying, Richard. I am bound by the laws of the U.S. and New York. Yes. That doesn't mean I actually know all of them. I think you are saying that in theory, club directors are bound by the regulations given by the BWBFLC and the ACBLLC. But do we really think that's practical or possible? That would seem to be the issue I am raising. Sven can speak for himself. The quote [me] > The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. >Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? [Sven Pran] Yes, A reasonable confidence in Directors' ability to make proper judgments. Yet there are additional regulations every year. I guess I don't know why Sven found something wrong with additional regulations. I am not sure what. I guess I was jumping to conclusions -- we can say a director is responsible for a large body of difficult-to-access information, but is that fair or practical? More me, I want the extensive regulations. But is that fair to the casual club director? And if Sven did not mean to say that, I apologize if there was any insult. It is an excellent point and I am happy to take full credit for it. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131025/15aafdbb/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 25 04:09:31 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:09:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Classic comments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2D54D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Canberra Times editorial, 24th February 2003: >>..... >>but that the end in view is to stop sporting results >>being affected by artificial enhancements caused >>by drugs. It would not be about different rules >>for different people, but rules adapted to >>particular sports. >> >>We should not have to wait until a chess >>player is banned for using body-building drugs, >>or a lawn bowler for using arthritis drugs, >>before being allowed to say that a one-size- >>fits-all approach to drugs in sport is a little >>ridiculous. Alain Gottcheiner, 26th February 2003: >AG : one should distinguish between three cases : > >a) drugs that help you bypass some threshold usually >unpassable by your peers, eg steroids for runners. >Should be absolutely banned. > >b) drugs that only help you remain at the level that's >needed for the practice of your sport, eg anti-arthritis >drugs for lawn bowlers. YMMV, but I suppose they >might be allowed on basis of certification. > >c) drugs that have nothing to do with the sport you're >doing, eg body-building drugs for chess [or bridge] >players. No reason to regulate. > >As was said before on blml, the bridge player's most >useful type a) drug is caffeine. Perhaps it will be >banned. Horresco referens. >..... Virgil, The Aeneid: ecce autem gemini a Tenedo tranquilla per alta (horresco referens) immensis orbibus angues incumbunt pelago pariterque ad litora tendunt; [But behold, (I shudder in telling this) twin snakes with huge coils breast the sea from Tenedos through the quiet waters, and side by side make their way towards the beach.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C3%B6n_and_His_Sons 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/20131025/5912b925/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 25 07:06:12 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 05:06:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2D604@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>..... >>The problem with guidelines is that they are just that, >>guidelines. There are always exceptions and if you're going to >>treat guidelines like law text, then you're simply wrong. >> >>Herman. >[tony] Herman is correct. (There I've said it). Good to see his >happy smiling face on the YouTube clip. > >Just saying: how can Americans who cannot run their own >country, hope to run a bridge tournament which requires much >more fine-tuned judgement. > >Tony (Sydney) Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, 3rd October 2013: ..... as the White House sees it, Speaker John Boehner has begun playing politics as game of Calvinball, in which Republicans invent new rules on the fly and then demand the media and the Democrats accept them as reality and find a way to work around them. First there was the Hastert rule, which is not an actual rule, but which Boehner uses to say he simply can't bring anything to the floor that doesn't have the support of a majority of his members. The shutdown, the White House argues, is now operating under a kind of super-Hastert rule in which a clean CR is supported by a majority of House Republicans but Boehner has given the tea partiers in his conference an effective veto over what he brings to the floor. Then there's Boehner's demand for further concessions on the debt limit, which he now says he can't back down on, but which he made knowing that it would make it harder for him to back down. The White House has decided that they can't govern effectively if the House Republicans can keep playing Calvinball. The rules and promises Boehner makes are not their problem, they've decided. They're not going to save him. ..... 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/20131025/ffd1f11d/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 25 08:05:54 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:05:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5251C1A6.3090407@nhcc.net> <000101cec2df$2dd4a810$897df830$@online.no> Message-ID: <526A0A42.7000203@skynet.be> Bob has made a fatal error: Robert Frick schreef: > Contested claim today. Declarer thought my ruling was ridiculous and > unfair; the defense thought I made a good ruling. As you might guess, I > gave a trick to the defense. > > There is no question that other directors would interpret the laws > differently and make a different ruling. NO. Error. There is nothing in the laws to interpret. The Laws are perfectly clear. If there exists a normal line ... And it is even quite clear what a normal line is. The only thing the Director needs to make a ruling upon, is on what precisely claimer knew about the hand. This is very difficult, and different directors will make different decisions here, but after that, everything is easy. Because ruling whether some line is normal or not can be done by a poll. You give the hands to some players and tell them what the situation is - under the version as the claimer thought it was. And then you ask what the player will do. That defines a normal line, and you rule accordingly. > So it isn't like I can just point > to the laws and expect to convince declarer. I guess she will be convinced > if she asks some experts and they agree with me. But I don't know if that > would happen. > > Anyway, when I got done, I could say to the declarer (whom I ruled > against), "I can show you where the ACBL says you lose a trick on this > claim." She had, ironically, found a perfect analog to the ACBL example we > were discussing. (She had QJ108 of trump with the 9 being the only > outstanding trump.) > And presumably, she had forgotten this 9 was out. Well, when all trumps are out, it is normal to ruff with any trump. That includes the 8, adn if in some line that can be overruffed, then that line is normal and the trick is lost. But it's not the same in other situations. If claimer knows one trump is out, it is not normal to not cash a top trump. And if one needs to cross to this suit in order to do so, it is not normal not to ruff with the Q J or 10. > Neither Sven nor I want this kind of detail in the laws. I think Sven is > saying that a director should be allowed to make a ruling from the lawbook > and not be responsible for regulations (which may be more or less > difficult to obtain). Well, I will say that would be nice. > But it would not solve the problem here. Which is so important, yet Bob fails to mention what the probelm was, exactly. > But still, it was really nice to have that regulation in place. And of > course that I knew about it. > > I don' t know what the solution is. Should it be good enough to use the > lawbook and give rulings consistent with it? Do we actually support that? > It seems like there should be more guidance, a position apparently > everyone agrees with. But how much more? And are directors responsible for > knowing that? > No, the solution is for directors to understand that every situation is different, and stop looking for simple answers. It's as if you would want to have rules for determining what a LA is. No such thing possible, I'm afraid. > Bob Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 26 02:07:27 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:07:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Failure to alert a canceled bid Message-ID: Just seems interesting. Part of a very messy ruling today: The player bid 1H, then replaced his bid with 1D. I ruled that 1 Diamond had to be withdrawn and replaced with 1 Heart. In thinking about it afterwards, part of the reason the opponents did not find their diamond fit might have been the lack of alert of 1 Diamond. It was actually artificial and highly unexpected. Does he alert 1 Diamond after I make the ruling and the 1 Heart bid is on the table? I guess, but it seems strange. Bob -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Oct 26 15:48:50 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:48:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Failure to alert a canceled bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <526BC842.2020508@nhcc.net> On 2013-10-25 8:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > In thinking about it > afterwards, part of the reason the opponents did not find their diamond > fit might have been the lack of alert of 1 Diamond. It was actually > artificial and highly unexpected. You could rule under L23 if you want to adjust the score. Whether that's right or not depends on exactly what happened, but "psyching" a non-suit when you know the "psych" is going to get cancelled seems to fall under "could have known." > Does he alert 1 Diamond after I make the ruling and the 1 Heart bid is on > the table? Technically that would depend on the RA's alerting rules, but I doubt anyone requires alerting of cancelled bids. Were you ruling under L25B, and did you offer LHO the chance to accept 1D? If so, he could then have asked what it would mean. Maybe 1D should have been alerted before LHO makes his choice, but I agree it's far from clear. Weird case. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 27 03:04:05 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 22:04:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Failure to alert a canceled bid In-Reply-To: <526BC842.2020508@nhcc.net> References: <526BC842.2020508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:48:50 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-10-25 8:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> In thinking about it >> afterwards, part of the reason the opponents did not find their diamond >> fit might have been the lack of alert of 1 Diamond. It was actually >> artificial and highly unexpected. > > You could rule under L23 if you want to adjust the score. Whether > that's right or not depends on exactly what happened, but "psyching" a > non-suit when you know the "psych" is going to get cancelled seems to > fall under "could have known." I agree, but this was no psych. He didn't see the double -- or forgot his convention. Diamonds (his second bid) accurately describes his hand. Given all of the penalties, it was very unlikely that the 1 Diamond bid could help. And I think in the end it hurt him. > >> Does he alert 1 Diamond after I make the ruling and the 1 Heart bid is >> on >> the table? > > Technically that would depend on the RA's alerting rules, but I doubt > anyone requires alerting of cancelled bids. I would guess the opposite. Suppose the rule is a simple "All unusual artificial bids must be alerted." That would apply to the bid before it was cancelled. Put another way, any casual statement of alerting procedures will almost certainly include bids that will be cancelled. > Were you ruling under L25B, > and did you offer LHO the chance to accept 1D? If so, he could then > have asked what it would mean. Maybe 1D should have been alerted before > LHO makes his choice, I agree. Good point. I had the problem in this ruling that they were playing a highly unexpected convention, one that I had never heard of. So I was not well-placed to realize 1 Diamond was conventional. But that would not remove his responsibility to alert 1 Diamond before the opponent decided whether or not to accept the bid. > but I agree it's far from clear. Weird case. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 27 21:58:31 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:58:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2DC93@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman, 1066 And All That, page 28: "Henry II was a great Lawgiver, and it was he who laid down the great Legal Principle that everything is either legal or (preferably) illegal." Blml lurker (and senior Aussie Director) Laurie Kelso is the new Secretary of the WBF Laws Committee. Position Name Chairman Ton Kooijman Members Max Bavin Maurizio Di Sacco Al Levy Chip Martell Jeffrey Polisner William Schoder Adam Wildavsky John Wignall Coordinator Grattan Endicott Consultant Giles Hargreave Secretary Laurie Kelso 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/20131027/9a3e06af/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 28 05:21:59 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:21:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Failure to alert a cancelled bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA2F261@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >..... >Technically that would depend on the RA's alerting rules, but I doubt >anyone requires alerting of cancelled bids. Were you ruling under L25B, >and did you offer LHO the chance to accept 1D? If so, he could then >have asked what it would mean. Maybe 1D should have been alerted before >LHO makes his choice, but I agree it's far from clear. Weird case. Richard Hills: Weird??? Yes and No. Not weird if "weird" is being used as a synonym for "very rare". For example, dealer holding 17 hcp and 5 hearts routinely opens 1H. But dealer then remembers that in her current partnership he is playing Precision. So she attempts to change his opening bid to 1C. Her LHO summons the Director, and then his LHO declines to use the Law 25B1 option. Thus the Director cancels the 1C bid-out-of-turn under Law 25B2. And a cross- reference from Law 25B3 causes the Director to apply Laws 16D1 and 16D2: Law 16D1, Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide: 1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. Richard Hills: The phrase used is not merely "information arising" but "all information arising". Therefore it seems to me that the non-offending side are entitled to know the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding pertaining to the offending side's cancelled call. Law 16D2, Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays 2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20131028/e7c8c5e3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 28 21:28:48 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:28:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310420505@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Well-deserved congratulations to Grattan Endicott! Best wishes, Richard Hills English Bridge Union, 3rd October 2013 http://www.ebu.co.uk/node/1214 At yesterday's AGM a number of awards were presented. Gold Award This award, given for outstanding contribution to the management/administration of the game at national and/or international level, will go to: Grattan Endicott - Merseyside & Cheshire Grattan has given great service both to his county and the EBU over many years. Delegate to the EBU Council from the NWCBA throughout the 1970's. Elected to the Board of Directors in 1980 and served for 13 years until 1993. Became the EBU Treasurer in 1984. Remembered in this period for improving working conditions and salaries for staff and introducing a pension system and healthcare. A member of the L&E from 1976 to 1991. He became chairman in 1981. He still attends as a Vice President and makes material, useful contributions. He became a member of the WBF Laws commission [Committee] in 1987. He still serves and has been instrumental in developing the various law changes over the last two decades and is still working on the next edition of the laws due in 2017. He was a very successful NPC of the GB Women's Team winning medals in the European championship, Venice Cup and Olympiad. He is the current President of Merseyside & Cheshire. He became a Vice President of the Union in 1994. 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/20131028/3315dd77/attachment.html From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 29 01:04:20 2013 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:04:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310420505@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <63B2B1F97B834F11B95F8BB919A64362@Anne> Congratulations Grattan. You were a great influence and helped me a lot when I started working for L&E a long time ago now. Well deserved acolade - Well done and Thanks. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard HILLS To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Well-deserved congratulations to Grattan Endicott! Best wishes, Richard Hills English Bridge Union, 3rd October 2013 http://www.ebu.co.uk/node/1214 At yesterday's AGM a number of awards were presented. Gold Award This award, given for outstanding contribution to the management/administration of the game at national and/or international level, will go to: Grattan Endicott - Merseyside & Cheshire Grattan has given great service both to his county and the EBU over many years. Delegate to the EBU Council from the NWCBA throughout the 1970's. Elected to the Board of Directors in 1980 and served for 13 years until 1993. Became the EBU Treasurer in 1984. Remembered in this period for improving working conditions and salaries for staff and introducing a pension system and healthcare. A member of the L&E from 1976 to 1991. He became chairman in 1981. He still attends as a Vice President and makes material, useful contributions. He became a member of the WBF Laws commission [Committee] in 1987. He still serves and has been instrumental in developing the various law changes over the last two decades and is still working on the next edition of the laws due in 2017. He was a very successful NPC of the GB Women's Team winning medals in the European championship, Venice Cup and Olympiad. He is the current President of Merseyside & Cheshire. He became a Vice President of the Union in 1994. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131029/a5121520/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 29 02:14:40 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:14:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310420E2E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Anne Jones, 29th October 2013: >>>>Congratulations Grattan. You were a great influence and helped me a >>>>lot when I started working for L&E a long time ago now. Well- >>>>deserved accolade - Well done and Thanks. Anne Jones, 30th May 2006: >>> Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a wise old bird in a >>>cut in rubber. I led my singleton and he switched. What a pratt, I had my >>>trump out ready to ruff !!!! We lost the rubber and he moved on. He >>>explained to me in the bar after why he had done that, at considerable >>>cost to himself I hasten to add. >>>.....<< Grattan Endicott, 3rd June 2006: >>+=+ One of my fonder reminiscences comes from the early 1950's. >>Playing, as a callow youth, in a district tournament against a couple of >>seasoned local players I required four tricks from AQx in dummy and in >>hand KTxx. I led the third round of the suit towards KT, RHO played >>smoothly and then I saw that LHO already had a card in hand to contribute. >>I switched my play from K to T, noted by RHO who, as we scored nine >>tricks in 3NT, enquired about my change of card and why. >> >>"Well", I explained, "I had to decide whether the Knave was in your >>partner's hand or in his chair." ~ G ~ +=+ Canberra Bridge Club Walk-in butler pairs Tuesday 30th August 2005 Dlr: West Vul: East-West East-West are playing Standard American You, West, hold: AJT3 AKQJ972 J6 --- As dealer you open with a Pass (not a Law 25A unintended call), North also passes, pard opens 1D and South overcalls 2C. What call do you make now? Paul Lamford, 30th September 2010: >Ah, I just realised my partner refused to play a strong pass system, >where partner's 1D would show any invitational hand ... > >Perhaps I should just bid 4H ... No, that might be using the lack of an >alert. I think I need to know more before I can answer fully. Richard Hills: I have perpetrated this pass-with-strong-distributional-values as dealer several times, but each time in a different partnership. This is because this weird psyche is so atypical, and therefore so memorable, that doing it twice in the same partnership would create a Law 40C1 implicit understanding that we were playing an unLawful HUM Strong Pass system. Best wishes Not-so-knavish Hills PS At the table pard's 1D opening and South's 2C overcall tempted me to rebid 6H, which rolled home for +1430 after a misdefence. So the moral of this story is: We had intended you to be The next Prime Minister but three The stocks were sold; the Press was squared; The Middle Class was quite prepared. But as it is! ...My language fails! Go out and govern New South Wales! Hilaire Belloc, Cautionary Tales (1907), "Lord Lundy" 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/20131029/e9dab29d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 29 05:36:37 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:36:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422174@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Argument: "Ach! No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." >>..... >>There is no question that other directors would interpret the laws >> differently and make a different ruling. Herman De Wael >NO. Error. >There is nothing in the laws to interpret. >The Laws are perfectly clear. >If there exists a normal line ... >And it is even quite clear what a normal line is. Richard Hills: Yes, I agree with Herman that the Laws are clear upon this point. To argue that another interpretation exists is akin to arguing that Law 41D's requirement "the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer" could be interpreted as "the least rancid cards closest to declarer, hence the most rancid cards closest to dummy". No true Director would put the "rancid" interpretation on his porridge. Herman De Wael: >Because ruling whether some line is normal or not can be done by a >poll. You give the hands to some players and tell them what the >situation is - under the version as the claimer thought it was. And then >you ask what the player will do. That defines a normal line, and you >rule accordingly. Richard Hills: An excellent protocol suggested by Herman. As the phrase "class of player" appears not only in the definition of "logical alternative" but also in the definition of "normal", it is normally logical that in both cases the Director might poll peers of the player. >>..... >>It seems like there should be more guidance, a position apparently >>everyone agrees with. But how much more? And are directors >>responsible for knowing that? Herman De Wael: >No, the solution is for directors to understand that every situation is >different, and stop looking for simple answers. It's as if you would >want to have rules for determining what an LA is. No such thing >possible, I'm afraid. > >Herman. 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/20131029/030eb87a/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Oct 29 12:47:53 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:47:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310420E2E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310420E2E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <05E1EDADF5C2448799800D33A11CAE68@G3> [Anne Jones, 29th October 2013] Congratulations Grattan. [Nige1] And so say all of us! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131029/b17e3e0c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 29 22:53:49 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:53:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422A40@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/xa_draft.html 26th October 2009 To: Adam Wildavsky Dear Adam, You suggested that you might scan and show the XPM draft. That draft was a forerunner to the XA draft which we sadly abandoned when the ACBL Laws Commission was not prepared to support such a revision of the laws because (sic) "development of the Laws should be incremental". The XA draft is already in the public domain so I can think of no reason why you should not exhibit it among the bridge community as a relic. The history is simple. When the review began in 2002 I argued for putting a bomb under the 1997 laws and rewriting from scratch. The XA draft is where we had arrived at the point of abortion. It was still subject to considerable change, given opinions then still being debated among colleagues, but it did suggest that a revolution was attainable. When we started again I resisted rejection of the direction the XPM / XA drafts were going in 1997 Laws 40, 80, 81, and in these I obtained some at least of the progress I desired. Certain of my colleagues will have felt my ego was pretty big, and no doubt it is, but I am not unique in this. Anyway, here is the estopped `2006 Laws of Duplicate Bridge', as it stood when abandoned. Some will find it an Interesting, if hair-raising, read. You may quote this letter. Grattan Endicott [Anne Jones, 29th October 2013] Congratulations Grattan. [Nige1] And so say all of us! [Richard Hills] In my opinion, Grattan's "pretty big ego" was necessary, as the ridiculously vague 1997 Law 40 was replaced by the much more effective 2007 Law 40, a mazel tov blessing to players, Directors and Tournament Organizers. 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/20131029/362912d9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 30 00:54:51 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:54:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422B05@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, 26th October 2009: >..... >When we started again I resisted rejection of the direction the XPM / XA >drafts were going in 1997 Laws 40, 80, 81, and in these I obtained some at >least of the progress I desired. >..... 2007 Law 81B, The Director, Restrictions and Responsibilities [Added words and phrases not in the 1997 Law 81B highlighted with ++...++] 1. The Director is responsible for the ++on-site++ technical management of the tournament. ++He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer++. 2. The Director ++applies, and++ is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced ++under authority given in these Laws++. Richard Hills: I particularly admire the new phrase "under authority given in these Laws", as it prevents an idiosyncratic Tournament Organizer requiring a Director to obey an illegal regulation. (For example, there is a crank with a pseudo-interpretation of Law 77, who insists that if one side scores +140, the other side does not score -140, but scores zero instead.) Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662), philosopher and mathematician: "Reverend fathers, my letters were not wont either to be so prolix, or to follow so closely on one another. Want of time must plead my excuse for both of these faults. The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter." 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/20131029/ef3537d7/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 30 00:58:00 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:58:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Failure to alert a canceled bid In-Reply-To: References: <526BC842.2020508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52704B88.5040208@nhcc.net> >> You could rule under L23 On 2013-10-26 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I agree, but this was no psych. L23 has nothing about intent. I don't know whether it would apply to your actual circumstances. > any casual statement of alerting > procedures will almost certainly include bids that will be cancelled. Perhaps you are right. It may depend on the exact sequence of events. >> Were you ruling under L25B,... Maybe 1D should have been alerted before >> LHO makes his choice, > I had the problem in this ruling that they were > playing a highly unexpected convention, one that I had never heard of. So > I was not well-placed to realize 1 Diamond was conventional. But that > would not remove his responsibility to alert 1 Diamond before the opponent > decided whether or not to accept the bid. ACBL requires alerting anything "highly unusual and unexpected" in normal circumstances. The question is whether the normal requirement applies in the circumstances, which still are not clear to me. Let's say dealer bids 1H, then after a pause, says "Oh, wait, I mean 1D." The Director is called immediately, and as required no one takes any action until the Director arrives. Let's also say a 1D opening bid is normally alertable for this side. If the Director rules under L25B, when exactly is the 1D bid supposed to be alerted? I don't think it's entirely obvious that third hand is supposed to speak up spontaneously, though second hand is certainly entitled to ask about both 1H and 1D before making his choice of which one to accept. I don't think there's any question about disclosure being required if opponents ask for an explanation. The question is whether a spontaneous alert is required. That's a matter of regulation, not Law. The ACBL regulations are written for ordinary circumstances, and how they apply in unusual circumstances isn't clear to me. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 30 01:43:10 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:43:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422B7A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 31B, Bid Out of Rotation, Partner's or LHO's Turn When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has passed partner's artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply: When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called*, offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. *Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. Richard Hills Observe the phrase "has passed artificially or has passed partner's artificial call". If such artificiality normally requires an Alert by regulation, it seems to me that avoiding an Alert merely because of a BOOT is tantamount to an undisclosed partnership understanding. And as Steve Willner correctly observed, Law 23 may apply. ABF Alert regulation: 3.2 Alerts during the Auction 3.2.1 You must alert a call if it is conventional (unless it is self -alerting). 3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: *Responder's first round jump shift on weak hands. *A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention). *A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE). (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: *A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit. *A jump raise of opener's one-level bid which may be weak or pre- emptive. *A single raise of partner's suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1D - 2D forcing. *The rebid in a canap? sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first. *A 1H opening which denies holding 4+ spades. 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/20131030/d44348f4/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 30 01:54:53 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:54:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422B7A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422B7A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Good point, Richard. To keep pushing, it seems to me that we don't want to require any alert of an insufficient bid, even though those can have meaning. Say a player blurts "I didn't see your bid." Now everyone knows the imaginary auction in which his bid was not insufficient. But technically the insufficient bid is still meaningless. On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:43:10 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Law 31B, Bid Out of Rotation, Partner?s or LHO?s Turn >When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has > passed partner?s artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled > the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following > provisions apply: >When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s > turn to call, if the offender has not previously called*, offender?s > partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the > pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 > may apply. >*Later calls at LHO?s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and > Law 25 applies. >Richard Hills >Observe the phrase ?has passed artificially or has passed partner?s > artificial call?. If such artificiality normally requires an Alert by > regulation, it seems to me that avoiding an Alert merely because of a > BOOT is tantamount to an undisclosed partnership understanding. >And as Steve Willner correctly observed, Law 23 may apply. >ABF Alert regulation: >3.2 Alerts during the Auction >3.2.1 You must alert a call if it is conventional (unless it is self > -alerting). >3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are > self-alerting), viz. >(a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your > call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are > unlikely to expect. Examples: > ?Responder?s first round jump shift on weak hands. > ?A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening > suit bid (whether or not after > intervention). > ?A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE). >(b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other > agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. > Examples: > ?A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not > promise a stopper in the overcalled suit. > ?A jump raise of opener?s one-level bid which may be weak or pre- > emptive. > ?A single raise of partner?s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. > 1D ? 2D forcing. > ?The rebid in a canap? sequence where the second suit may be > longer than the first. > ?A 1H opening which denies holding 4+ spades. > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131030/25a7cdb4/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 30 13:22:49 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:22:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422B7A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310422B7A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5270FA19.2020907@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/10/2013 1:43, Richard HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Law 31B, Bid Out of Rotation, Partner's or LHO's Turn > When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has > passed partner's artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled > the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following > provisions apply: > When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's > turn to call, if the offender has not previously called*, offender's > partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the > pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 > may apply. > *Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and > Law 25 applies. > Richard Hills > Observe the phrase "has passed artificially or has passed partner's > artificial call". If such artificiality normally requires an Alert by > regulation, it seems to me that avoiding an Alert merely because of a > BOOT is tantamount to an undisclosed partnership understanding. AG : only problem, passing partner's artificial call doesn't need to mean anything. At the time when I played a very aggressive 2D (5+ cards in either major, no 4 cards in the other major, 0-8 HCP) we passed, as responder, on very dissimilar hands : AQxx - x - Jxx - xxxxx QJ - xx - AQJxxx - AJx Kxxxx - QTxxx - x - xx J - Jxxx - xx - AKQxxx What partnership understanding ? The pass has the purely natural meaning of "for now, I think that playing in 2D would be a good idea". How on earth could it be alertable ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131030/6ac916ef/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 30 23:32:12 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:32:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >The pass has the purely natural meaning of "for now, I think that playing in 2D >would be a good idea". How on earth could it be alertable ? Richard Hills: A call is Alertable if regulation defines it as Alertable. Indeed, in Australia the ABF Alert regulation requires some "purely natural" calls to be Alerted. Christopher Booker, English author and journalist, 1995 speech: "Our government has recently unleashed the greatest avalanche of regulations in peacetime history; and wherever we examine their working we see that they are using a sledgehammer to miss a nut." 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/20131030/e5d1040b/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 31 08:32:54 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:32:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> Saying more about the regulators than about the regulations: Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 30. oktober 2013 23:32 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >The pass has the purely natural meaning of ?for now, I think that playing in 2D >would be a good idea?. How on earth could it be alertable ? Richard Hills: A call is Alertable if regulation defines it as Alertable. Indeed, in Australia the ABF Alert regulation requires some ?purely natural? calls to be Alerted. [ ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131031/dac6bf3b/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 31 12:26:05 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:26:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> Why the negativity? I find the Australian regulations completely normal: Sven Pran schreef: > Saying more about the regulators than about the regulations: > > > Richard Hills: > > A call is Alertable if regulation defines it as Alertable. Indeed, in > Australia the > > ABF Alert regulation requires some ?purely natural? calls to be Alerted. > So do Belgian regulations (no jokes, please). For example: transfers to majors over 1NT need not be alerted, which means that 1NT - (pass) - 2He must be alerted if natural. Seems far more logical to me than alerting the transfer, a meaning which is even taught to beginners in the Belgian standard beginner system(s). I consider that a good alerting regulation should be one in which beginners who have learnt the standard national system, need never alert and would not be surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. Herman. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 31 12:41:51 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:41:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Herman De Wael] I consider that a good alerting regulation should be one in which beginners who have learnt the standard national system, need never alert and would not be surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. [nigel] Herman is the first commentator not to ridicule this simple proposal which is at least ten years old and could be a default alert-law :) From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Oct 31 12:50:43 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:50:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no><52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: Many years ago, in a td assessment paper, we were asked whether the final bid was alertable in 1M-x-3M where this was not forcing or encouraging. All but 2 of us said 'of couse not - silly - nobody plays that any more'. Two of us got the marks !! L > [Herman De Wael] > I consider that a good alerting regulation should > be one in which beginners > who have learnt the standard national system, need > never alert and would not > be surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. > > [nigel] > Herman is the first commentator not to ridicule > this simple proposal which > is at least ten years old and could be a default > alert-law :) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 31 14:23:14 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:23:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:41:51 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > I consider that a good alerting regulation should be one in which > beginners > who have learnt the standard national system, need never alert and would > not > be surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. > > [nigel] > Herman is the first commentator not to ridicule this simple proposal > which > is at least ten years old and could be a default alert-law :) Then they might remove the regulations. As a regulation fan, and I understand the problems with them, I would prefer the alert laws to be spelled out rather than have just one general principle. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 31 16:12:32 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:12:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52727360.4070507@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/10/2013 23:32, Richard HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Alain Gottcheiner: > >..... > >The pass has the purely natural meaning of "for now, I think that > playing in 2D > >would be a good idea". How on earth could it be alertable ? > Richard Hills: > A call is Alertable if regulation defines it as Alertable. Indeed, in > Australia the > ABF Alert regulation requires some "purely natural" calls to be Alerted. And please tell me, in the case I mention, what should I explain ? That partner is free to pass whenever he wants ? How useful ! > Christopher Booker, English author and journalist, 1995 speech: > "Our government has recently unleashed the greatest avalanche of > regulations > in peacetime history; and wherever we examine their working we see > that they > are using a sledgehammer to miss a nut." > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131031/0f0bd117/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 31 17:46:08 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:46:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means nothing other than willingness to play in the contract specified by the last bid (if any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural call?) > Herman De Wael > > Why the negativity? I find the Australian regulations completely normal: > > Sven Pran schreef: > > Saying more about the regulators than about the regulations: > > > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > A call is Alertable if regulation defines it as Alertable. Indeed, in > > Australia the > > > > ABF Alert regulation requires some "purely natural" calls to be Alerted. > > > > So do Belgian regulations (no jokes, please). > For example: transfers to majors over 1NT need not be alerted, which means > that 1NT - (pass) - 2He must be alerted if natural. > Seems far more logical to me than alerting the transfer, a meaning which is > even taught to beginners in the Belgian standard beginner system(s). > I consider that a good alerting regulation should be one in which beginners who > have learnt the standard national system, need never alert and would not be > surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Oct 31 18:22:16 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:22:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Sven Pran" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2013 17:46:08 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means nothing > other than willingness to play in the contract specified by the last bid (if > any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this has > always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural call?) even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1K x xx pass if pass is an agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled (something like KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not fond of detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think opponents should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread. jpr > > > Herman De Wael > > > > Why the negativity? I find the Australian regulations completely normal: > > > > Sven Pran schreef: > > > Saying more about the regulators than about the regulations: > > > > > > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > > > A call is Alertable if regulation defines it as Alertable. Indeed, in > > > Australia the > > > > > > ABF Alert regulation requires some "purely natural" calls to be Alerted. > > > > > > > So do Belgian regulations (no jokes, please). > > For example: transfers to majors over 1NT need not be alerted, which means > > that 1NT - (pass) - 2He must be alerted if natural. > > Seems far more logical to me than alerting the transfer, a meaning which > is > > even taught to beginners in the Belgian standard beginner system(s). > > I consider that a good alerting regulation should be one in which > beginners who > > have learnt the standard national system, need never alert and would not > be > > surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. > > > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 31 18:52:25 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:52:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> > ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre > > De: "Sven Pran" > > Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means > > nothing other than willingness to play in the contract specified by > > the last bid (if > > any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this > > has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural > > call?) > > even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1K x xx pass if pass is an > agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled (something like > KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not fond of > detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and > unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think opponents > should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread. > jpr [Sven Pran] I fully agree with the principle that an alert shall be a signal to opponents: "You might probably want to ask for an explanation!". But isn't the meaning "I am prepared for an ALL PASS to end this auction" the most natural meaning of PASS that exists? I suppose there is a typo in your example and that you meant "willingness to play 1K redoubled? If that is exactly what the PASS means then I see no reason for alert. If however the partnership agreements is that PASS here suggests takeout to 1D then of course the pass must be alerted. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Oct 31 19:42:14 2013 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:42:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> Message-ID: <595157220.713527.1383244934587.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Sven Pran" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2013 18:52:25 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre > > > De: "Sven Pran" > > > Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means > > > nothing other than willingness to play in the contract specified by > > > the last bid (if > > > any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this > > > has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural > > > call?) > > > > even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1D x xx pass if pass is > > an > > agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled (something > > like > > KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not fond > > of > > detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and > > unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think > > opponents > > should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread. > > jpr > > [Sven Pran] I fully agree with the principle that an alert shall be a signal > to opponents: "You might probably want to ask for an explanation!". But > isn't the meaning "I am prepared for an ALL PASS to end this auction" the > most natural meaning of PASS that exists? > > I suppose there is a typo in your example and that you meant "willingness to > play 1K redoubled? no, 1K was the typo which has to be corrected to 1D! If that is exactly what the PASS means then I see no > reason for alert. If however the partnership agreements is that PASS here > suggests takeout to 1D then of course the pass must be alerted. il think most players would not expect this pass to be a penalty pass but would expect a neutral pass. and it would then also be necessary to alert a 1S bid in this auction as only an escape bid and not a willingly bid suit. maybe i am wrong and in playing fields i am not familiar with, everybody would expect this pass to be penalty. jpr > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 31 20:08:54 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:08:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5272AAC6.8090305@nhcc.net> On 2013-10-31 12:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means nothing > other than willingness to play in the contract specified by the last bid If pass by agreement shows or denies specific hand types, that might make it alertable, depending on the jurisdiction. (I agree it probably won't be alertable in most situations in most jurisdictions.) From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 31 21:37:00 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:37:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5272AAC6.8090305@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <5272AAC6.8090305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002d01ced678$f358b660$da0a2320$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2013-10-31 12:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means nothing > > other than willingness to play in the contract specified by the last > > bid > > If pass by agreement shows or denies specific hand types, that might make it > alertable, depending on the jurisdiction. (I agree it probably won't be alertable > in most situations in most jurisdictions.) [Sven Pran] Sure, no dispute about that. This discussion is about a pass by a player who is fully comfortable with subsequent passes from all players. From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Oct 31 21:46:17 2013 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:46:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01ced678$f358b660$da0a2320$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <5272AAC6.8090305@nhcc.net> <002d01ced678$f358b660$da0a2320$@online.no> Message-ID: <5272C199.3010207@comcast.net> On 10/31/13, 4:37 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Steve Willner >> On 2013-10-31 12:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means nothing >>> other than willingness to play in the contract specified by the last >>> bid >> If pass by agreement shows or denies specific hand types, that might make > it >> alertable, depending on the jurisdiction. (I agree it probably won't be > alertable >> in most situations in most jurisdictions.) > [Sven Pran] Sure, no dispute about that. This discussion is about a pass by > a player who is fully comfortable with subsequent passes from all players. > So...Consider 1NT [weak] - (X)[strong/penalties] -pass[fully comfortable with subsequent passes from all players]. Does it matter in your thinking what the reason is for being "fully comfortable?" From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 31 21:48:04 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:48:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT In-Reply-To: <002d01ced678$f358b660$da0a2320$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <5272AAC6.8090305@nhcc.net> <002d01ced678$f358b660$da0a2320$@online.no> Message-ID: <5272C204.8020907@nhcc.net> On 2013-10-31 4:37 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > This discussion is about a pass by a player who is fully comfortable > with subsequent passes from all players. Yes, I understand that. If the player's comfort implies certain hand types, that might be alertable. Jean-Pierre gave a good example: 1any-x-xx-P-. For most of us, responder's pass says "Nothing to say, rescue yourself, partner." If it says "Let's play this contract redoubled," that's alertable in the ACBL at least and presumably also in France. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 31 22:53:12 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:53:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104261F8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>..... >>ABF Alert regulation requires some "purely natural" calls to be Alerted. >>..... >So do Belgian regulations (no jokes, please). >For example: transfers to majors over 1NT need not be alerted, which >means that 1NT - (pass) - 2He must be alerted if natural. >Seems far more logical to me than alerting the transfer, a meaning which >is even taught to beginners in the Belgian standard beginner system(s). >I consider that a good alerting regulation should be one in which >beginners who have learnt the standard national system, need never alert >and would not be surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. > >Herman. Definitions: Alert - A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that ++opponents may be in need of an explanation++. Aussie Regulating Authority: 3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that ++your opponents are unlikely to expect++. ..... [e.g. 1 banana - X - XX - Pass = unexpected strength, not expected balanced weakness] (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which ++your opponents are unlikely to expect++. ..... UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131031/678cab71/attachment.html