From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 1 02:48:13 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:48:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] each pass is LA but combination is not Message-ID: Not sure if this is of any interest. The auction was: N W S W P 1H 1S 2H P HP 2S 3H P P 3S P P 4H P P P The hesitation by West suggests that East bid 3H over passing. I asked three people, one said he would pass in that situation, suggesting that pass was an LA. However, had East passed, West surely would have competed to 3H. Then, over 3 Spades, what would West do? The player who passed over 2 Spades was now bidding 4 Hearts. So, while pass over 2 Spades might be an LA, and the pass over 3S (assuming a pass over 2S) might also be an LA, the combination (two passes) did not seem to be an LA. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 1 03:00:56 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 21:00:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] straw UI turning into gold Message-ID: I'm not sure if this is interesting either. N E S W 2H 2NT P 3S (with stop card) P 4C P 4S P P P The stop card is used when a player is going to skip the bidding. Here, West did not skip. To tell the truth, that was, at first, more perplexing than anything else. Systemically it is a relay to 4C, showing a minor, and that is how East decided to take it. Then I had to address the problem of them landing on their feet. West meant her bid to be for spades, and now she has UI that her partner took it as for the minors. 4 Spades is still her only logical alternative. So no rectification for that. At the expert level, 4 Spades is presumably some slam try. At the intermediate level, they don't do slam tries like that, they do mess up Jacoby transfer, and they all know that the 4 Spade bid means "I really meant spades the first time." West was in between in ability. But East normally hasd no UI, so he can guess whatever he wants. This is where the original UI, so useless at first, came into play. East essentially is trying to decide if his partner screwed up or not. And the UI suggests she did. So, after thought, it became a clear ruling, even if East-West remained adament that they should not have been ruled against. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 01:35:42 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 23:35:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA6FAB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 20G1, **Incorrect Procedure**: "It is **improper** to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." Richard Hills, June 2014: One occasional opponent of mine, George Stockham, is meticulous in warning his partner at the start of the round that he has studied the Ali- Hills Symmetric Relay system, so therefore George is not entitled to ask any questions about our highly artificial auctions. Marvin French, May 2012: >WBF minutes, Lille 1998: > >"It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be >aware of the information in the reply." > >Why was this language not incorporated into the 2007 Laws? Afraid >of offending the pros? I was told that "improper" is very strong and >serious consequences will fall upon any pro violating this law. Maybe >in Australia, but not in ACBL-land. When I object to the practice, the >TD tells me it's just "improper," and "incorrect procedure," but not >an infraction, so forget it. > > Grattan, please abide by the WBFLC wording and make it illegal, >not merely improper, in 2017. > >Marv >Marvin L French >www.marvinfrenchj.com Grattan Endicott, April 2006: >>+=+ We do not have a common language. We have >>languages that have a great deal in common. But since >>1620 AD, or earlier, our languages have been diverging - >>until fairly recently when we have languages coming >>together at the same time as they move apart. The conceit >>of some Americans in their (American) 'English' is no less >>than my conceit in our autochthonous tongue. >> >>As an aside, this is one of the perils for the juridical >>draughtsman - producing text that has the same meaning in >>American English as in English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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/20140601/7ae17727/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 3 04:06:34 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 02:06:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA73F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Example #3 of Ton's discussion paper on serious errors W/NS AQJT7 --- KT64 AKQJ K 95 QJT85 AK9642 AQ7532 --- 2 T8753 86432 73 J98 964 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D 1S X 2S 3H 4S 5H Pass Pass 5S ...Pass Pass 6H X Pass Pass Pass East has hesitated, the 6H-bid is not obvious. Leads : CA and CK, contract made TD : North should have played SA in trick 2, subsequent damage Ton Kooijman, February 2010: >>>>North could have realized that it is much more likely that >>>>West has a spade left (would South bid only 2S with K 6th?), >>>>but continuing clubs is not a stupid action. >>>> >>>>No serious error. Richard Hills, February 2010: >>>Declarer has played the deuce of clubs, leaving the >>>outstanding club pips of 9, 6 and 4. >>> >>>It is possible that the North-South carding agreement at Trick >>>One might be: >>> >>>(a) When holding 964 tripleton, play the 6. >>>(b) When holding 96 doubleton, play the 6. >>>(c) When holding 6 singleton, play the 6. >>> >>>While this means that the play of the 6 at Trick One gives no >>>useful information to partner, there are compensating negative >>>inferences that the play of the 4 at Trick One promises no more >>>than a doubleton, and the play of the 9 at Trick One guarantees >>>a singleton. >>>[snip] Grattan Endicott, February 2010: >>+=+ We are agreed, I think, their method is something the >>Director might enquire about before ruling ......... mind you, in >>my partnerships it was expected that partner, following to the >>trick, would do the useful thing. >> ..... and I doubt any of us is believing declarer has three >>small in the suit...... in which case the hope is that the defence's >>signalling arrangements do not call for the same card from a >>doubleton as from three. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ David Burn, February 2010: >If I understand Ton's position, failure to observe and draw the >correct conclusions from partner's putative signal would almost >never constitute a "serious error [unrelated to the infraction]". >One may, for example, be "caught in an idea" to such an extent >that defending a doubled contract like a complete idiot in order >to prevent it from making an overtrick is not considered a >"serious error". WBF Law Committee minutes 8th September 2009, item 6: ".....the standard for judging a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant." Richard Hills, June 2014: In my opinion, if "the calibre of the player" was a novice, then the only serious error that the novice could conceivably make would be a mechanical error such as a revoke. David Burn, February 2010: >[snip] >I have a great deal more sympathy with the Lawmakers in the >matter of "serious errors" than in the matter of claims (it would, >of course, be impossible for me to have less). While I personally >think it repugnant to the nature of the game that you can stop >trying to play bridge just because one of your opponents did >something that was based on UI or told you some lies about his >partnership's methods, I recognise that use of UI or mis- >explanation of system frequently create unnatural pressures to >which you should not be subjected. > >In the good old days, I just used to give everyone a bottom - one >of my first rulings as chair of an AC in a national event involved >awarding both pairs minus 670, since North-South had cheated >by removing a slow double of 2S (which would have made) to >3C doubled (which ought to have gone down three, but was >permitted to make by a defence not very much better than some >of the performances in Ton's paper). Now, of course, I would >subtract the damage done through irregularity from the damage >done through irrationality, divide by two (or three, if I felt so >inclined because no one would notice anyway) and get to the pub >half an hour later than everybody else as usual. > >David Burn >London, England 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/20140603/2a49c2b1/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 3 13:58:53 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 13:58:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ton's serious errors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA73F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA73F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <538DB87D.8030306@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/06/2014 4:06, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Example #3 of Ton's discussion paper on serious errors > W/NS > AQJT7 > --- > KT64 > AKQJ > K 95 > QJT85 AK9642 > AQ7532 --- > 2 T8753 > 86432 > 73 > J98 > 964 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D 1S X 2S > 3H 4S 5H Pass > Pass 5S ...Pass Pass > 6H X Pass Pass > Pass > East has hesitated, the 6H-bid is not obvious. > Leads : CA and CK, contract made > TD : North should have played SA in trick 2, subsequent damage > I disagree strongly with this. NS were deprived from their +650 in 5S. then N's error deprived them of their +100 in 6H. But HAD NORTH PLAYED PERFECTLY, he would still have been injured by the infraction. IOW, even before N's error, NS had already been damaged. "egregious error" provisions aren't for such a case ; they are for cases like an uncontested action to 4S (the last bid after an hesitaiton) and then 4S was inexplicably been allowed to make. In such a case, one might say that the NOS still had their chances after the infraction, and damaged themselves. In the case under scrutiny, even perfect play would have left them injured. Whence the infraction is the main source of their bad result. Not the error. (and anyway the error wans't "egregious". Playing classic carding, North, upon seeing the C4, might reconstruct South's hand as 6331. Not everybody waives ared flag with a 4S bid when outgunned) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140603/b1a5bb1e/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Jun 3 16:20:36 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:20:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? Message-ID: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> Just a simple question: Is a player allowed to use UI, made available from the opponents? (suppose your LHO picks up his cards, muttering 2-6-8-11-14) Looking at law 73 D and F it seems intended to be an AI for the NOS, at least they will get redress when they use such UI and it was given without reason. But unfortunately I do not find a law, that allows to use this information if LHO had reason to give it. (e.g. an Ace, two Kings and two Queens) I am missing something like 16 A 1 A player may use information in the auction or play if .... (e)it is given by the opponents, but he is doing so at his own risk. Greetings, Volker From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 4 03:11:13 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 21:11:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Law 16A is poorly written and basically doesn't work. When other laws contradict it, we always go with the other laws. That leaves a few cases, like yours, which L16A doesn't get right and the other laws don't help out. Or maybe blml found some intricate solution even they weren't so happy with it. Here, just ignore the law and use common sense. My impression is that they hope to change it in the next laws. On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:20:36 -0400, Volker Walther wrote: > Just a simple question: > > Is a player allowed to use UI, made available from the opponents? > (suppose your LHO picks up his cards, muttering 2-6-8-11-14) > > Looking at law 73 D and F it seems intended to be an AI for the NOS, at > least they will get redress when they use such UI and it was given > without reason. > > But unfortunately I do not find a law, that allows to use this > information if LHO had reason to give it. (e.g. an Ace, two Kings and > two Queens) > > I am missing something like 16 A 1 > A player may use information in the auction or play if > .... > (e)it is given by the opponents, but he is doing so at his own risk. > > Greetings, Volker > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jun 4 09:41:49 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 09:41:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <002701cf7fc8$71dc8d60$5595a820$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I consider it rather 'poor' to react on questions with 'that law is poorly written'. Once in a while I agree that laws are poorly written, as I did with L 71 in a previous version and do with L 45C4b in the present. But L16A isn't that bad. I only allow David Burn to say so, normally it is difficult to refute his arguments, though even then I not necessarily do agree. L16A says: ...authorized ... if arising from the legal procedures...... but see B1, where it defines that such information given by a player, could be unauthorized for his partner. Isn't that the answer on the question coming from Robert? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Robert Frick Verzonden: woensdag 4 juni 2014 3:11 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? Law 16A is poorly written and basically doesn't work. When other laws contradict it, we always go with the other laws. That leaves a few cases, like yours, which L16A doesn't get right and the other laws don't help out. Or maybe blml found some intricate solution even they weren't so happy with it. Here, just ignore the law and use common sense. My impression is that they hope to change it in the next laws. On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:20:36 -0400, Volker Walther wrote: > Just a simple question: > > Is a player allowed to use UI, made available from the opponents? > (suppose your LHO picks up his cards, muttering 2-6-8-11-14) > > Looking at law 73 D and F it seems intended to be an AI for the NOS, > at least they will get redress when they use such UI and it was given > without reason. > > But unfortunately I do not find a law, that allows to use this > information if LHO had reason to give it. (e.g. an Ace, two Kings and > two Queens) > > I am missing something like 16 A 1 > A player may use information in the auction or play if .... > (e)it is given by the opponents, but he is doing so at his own risk. > > Greetings, Volker > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2014.0.4592 / Virusdatabase: 3955/7597 - datum van uitgifte: 05/31/14 From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 4 16:16:48 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:16:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <538ecdca.a987440a.3057.ffffea79SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <538ecdca.a987440a.3057.ffffea79SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <538F2A50.5050601@nhcc.net> On 2014-06-04 3:41 AM, ton wrote: > L16A says: ...authorized ... if arising from the legal procedures.... > Isn't that the answer on the question coming from Robert? I don't think this time the question came from Robert, though he as asked it before, and I don't see a good answer. An opponent says "I have the queen of spades." We all "know" that is AI for our side, UI for his partner. L16A makes the latter clear enough, but where is the former stated? The remark is not part of the legal procedures of the game, so that's not it. We can probably stretch L73D1 to cover it, but it is quite a stretch. I like Robert's proposed rewrite of the definition of AI and UI: a) everything opponents do is AI with specified exceptions (probably only things induced in some way by our side) b) everything partner does is UI with specified exceptions (legal calls and plays and a few other things) c) information from external sources is probably fine as is, though I'd prefer a clearer separation between information related to the cards on a specific deal and other types of information. From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Jun 4 16:26:37 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:26:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <002701cf7fc8$71dc8d60$5595a820$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <002701cf7fc8$71dc8d60$5595a820$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <538F2C9D.6000301@vwalther.de> Hello ton, It was my question, and I think I have to repeat it to point out my problem. Your LHO tells aloud: "I have a spade void again!" Obviously this information is not given according to any legal procedure. Law 16B tells us how to deal with this extraneous information for RHO. No Problem so far. But which law allows the NOS to use this information? I have a strong feeling that a side should be allowed to use any information given by their opps, especially the UI they give to each other. (otherwise 73 D makes no sense). But I would be in trouble if I should name the law justifying this. Greetings, Volker Am 04.06.2014 09:41, schrieb ton: > I consider it rather 'poor' to react on questions with 'that law is poorly > written'. Once in a while I agree that laws are poorly written, as I did > with L 71 in a previous version and do with > L 45C4b in the present. But L16A isn't that bad. I only allow David Burn to > say so, normally it is difficult to refute his arguments, though even then I > not necessarily do agree. > > L16A says: ...authorized ... if arising from the legal procedures...... but > see B1, where it defines that such information given by a player, could be > unauthorized for his partner. > > Isn't that the answer on the question coming from Robert? > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Robert > Frick > Verzonden: woensdag 4 juni 2014 3:11 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? > > Law 16A is poorly written and basically doesn't work. When other laws > contradict it, we always go with the other laws. That leaves a few cases, > like yours, which L16A doesn't get right and the other laws don't help out. > Or maybe blml found some intricate solution even they weren't so happy with > it. Here, just ignore the law and use common sense. My impression is that > they hope to change it in the next laws. > > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:20:36 -0400, Volker Walther > wrote: > >> Just a simple question: >> >> Is a player allowed to use UI, made available from the opponents? >> (suppose your LHO picks up his cards, muttering 2-6-8-11-14) >> >> Looking at law 73 D and F it seems intended to be an AI for the NOS, >> at least they will get redress when they use such UI and it was given >> without reason. >> >> But unfortunately I do not find a law, that allows to use this >> information if LHO had reason to give it. (e.g. an Ace, two Kings and >> two Queens) >> >> I am missing something like 16 A 1 >> A player may use information in the auction or play if .... >> (e)it is given by the opponents, but he is doing so at his own risk. >> >> Greetings, Volker >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2014.0.4592 / Virusdatabase: 3955/7597 - datum van uitgifte: > 05/31/14 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 4 16:31:45 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 09:31:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <002701cf7fc8$71dc8d60$5595a820$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <002701cf7fc8$71dc8d60$5595a820$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "ton" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 02:41 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? > I consider it rather 'poor' to react on questions with 'that law is poorly > written'. Once in a while I agree that laws are poorly written, as I did > with L 71 in a previous version and do with > L 45C4b in the present. But L16A isn't that bad. I only allow David Burn > to > say so, normally it is difficult to refute his arguments, though even then > I > not necessarily do agree. > L16A says: ...authorized ... if arising from the legal procedures...... A defect with such an approach arises when the so-called legal procedure is dubious. regards roger pewick > but > see B1, where it defines that such information given by a player, could be > unauthorized for his partner. > > Isn't that the answer on the question coming from Robert? > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Robert > Frick > Verzonden: woensdag 4 juni 2014 3:11 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? > > Law 16A is poorly written and basically doesn't work. When other laws > contradict it, we always go with the other laws. That leaves a few cases, > like yours, which L16A doesn't get right and the other laws don't help > out. > Or maybe blml found some intricate solution even they weren't so happy > with > it. Here, just ignore the law and use common sense. My impression is that > they hope to change it in the next laws. > > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:20:36 -0400, Volker Walther > wrote: > >> Just a simple question: >> >> Is a player allowed to use UI, made available from the opponents? >> (suppose your LHO picks up his cards, muttering 2-6-8-11-14) >> >> Looking at law 73 D and F it seems intended to be an AI for the NOS, >> at least they will get redress when they use such UI and it was given >> without reason. >> >> But unfortunately I do not find a law, that allows to use this >> information if LHO had reason to give it. (e.g. an Ace, two Kings and >> two Queens) >> >> I am missing something like 16 A 1 >> A player may use information in the auction or play if .... >> (e)it is given by the opponents, but he is doing so at his own risk. >> >> Greetings, Volker From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 4 17:20:23 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:20:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <538F2A50.5050601@nhcc.net> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <538ecdca.a987440a.3057.ffffea79SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <538F2A50.5050601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000c01cf8008$81ec6280$85c52780$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-06-04 3:41 AM, ton wrote: > > L16A says: ...authorized ... if arising from the legal procedures.... > > > Isn't that the answer on the question coming from Robert? > > I don't think this time the question came from Robert, though he as asked it > before, and I don't see a good answer. [Sven Pran] This was what came from Robert: Law 16A is poorly written and basically doesn't work. When other laws contradict it, we always go with the other laws. That leaves a few cases, like yours, which L16A doesn't get right and the other laws don't help out. Or maybe blml found some intricate solution even they weren't so happy with it. Here, just ignore the law and use common sense. My impression is that they hope to change it in the next laws. Although not technically a question I had the impression that this was what Ton (rightly) addressed. And frankly, Like Ton I (for one) have no problem with Law 16 here: Any information from opponents' action is as a general rule AI for own side, but can only be used at own risk unless Law 73F applies. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 4 17:22:23 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:22:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <000c01cf8008$81ec6280$85c52780$@online.no> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <538ecdca.a987440a.3057.ffffea79SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <538F2A50.5050601@nhcc.net> <000c01cf8008$81ec6280$85c52780$@online.no> Message-ID: <538F39AF.4000503@nhcc.net> On 2014-06-04 11:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > information from opponents' action is as a general rule AI for own side Everyone "knows" that, but it's hard to find any Law that actually says so. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 4 22:10:56 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 22:10:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <538F39AF.4000503@nhcc.net> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <538ecdca.a987440a.3057.ffffea79SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <538F2A50.5050601@nhcc.net> <000c01cf8008$81ec6280$85c52780$@online.no> <538F39AF.4000503@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000901cf8031$18fadbc0$4af09340$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-06-04 11:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > information from opponents' action is as a general rule AI for own side > > Everyone "knows" that, but it's hard to find any Law that actually says so. [Sven Pran] Read - and most important make sure that you understand - Law 16 (in its entirety). From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 5 00:20:30 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:20:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? In-Reply-To: <002701cf7fc8$71dc8d60$5595a820$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <538DD9B4.9020507@vwalther.de> <002701cf7fc8$71dc8d60$5595a820$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: A player hesitates. Assuming that is not a par of the legal procedures, according to L16A(1) it is UI to *both* sides. We know that isn't right. If you let it be part of the of the legal procedures, then using L16A(1) we get that it is AI to both sides. That isn't right either. A player explains his partner's bid. According to L16A(1), that is AI to *both* sides. Not right. A player announces in point count when sorting his hand. Assuming that is not part of the legal procedures, L16A(1) says that is UI to both sides. That was the original posting. That's not right. But what is it good for? The problem is not the words, it's the structure -- it treats information from partner the same as information from the opponents. I am not complaining so much about L16A1(c) and L16A1(d). But note that they require the director to *read the entire law book* to apply the law. On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:41:49 -0400, ton wrote: > I consider it rather 'poor' to react on questions with 'that law is > poorly > written'. Once in a while I agree that laws are poorly written, as I did > with L 71 in a previous version and do with > L 45C4b in the present. But L16A isn't that bad. I only allow David Burn > to > say so, normally it is difficult to refute his arguments, though even > then I > not necessarily do agree. > > L16A says: ...authorized ... if arising from the legal procedures...... > but > see B1, where it defines that such information given by a player, could > be > unauthorized for his partner. > > Isn't that the answer on the question coming from Robert? > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Robert > Frick > Verzonden: woensdag 4 juni 2014 3:11 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] May I use UI given by the opponents? > > Law 16A is poorly written and basically doesn't work. When other laws > contradict it, we always go with the other laws. That leaves a few cases, > like yours, which L16A doesn't get right and the other laws don't help > out. > Or maybe blml found some intricate solution even they weren't so happy > with > it. Here, just ignore the law and use common sense. My impression is that > they hope to change it in the next laws. > > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:20:36 -0400, Volker Walther > wrote: > >> Just a simple question: >> >> Is a player allowed to use UI, made available from the opponents? >> (suppose your LHO picks up his cards, muttering 2-6-8-11-14) >> >> Looking at law 73 D and F it seems intended to be an AI for the NOS, >> at least they will get redress when they use such UI and it was given >> without reason. >> >> But unfortunately I do not find a law, that allows to use this >> information if LHO had reason to give it. (e.g. an Ace, two Kings and >> two Queens) >> >> I am missing something like 16 A 1 >> A player may use information in the auction or play if .... >> (e)it is given by the opponents, but he is doing so at his own risk. >> >> Greetings, Volker >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2014.0.4592 / Virusdatabase: 3955/7597 - datum van uitgifte: > 05/31/14 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 5 02:21:43 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 00:21:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA970A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 16A2: ?Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the **traits** of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.? Macquarie Dictionary: trait /tre?t/ (say trayt) noun a distinguishing quality (as of personal character): bad traits of character. Volker Walther: >..... >Your LHO tells aloud: ?I have a spade void again!? >..... Richard Hills: In my opinion a LHO so speaking is showing a bad trait of character, ignoring correct procedure (Law 73A1) with her extraneous comment. What?s the problem? The problem is those who want belt-and-braces Laws, for example a hypothetical 2015 Law 16A2: ?Players may also take account of: (a) their estimate of their own score, (b) of the traits and actions of their opponents at their own risk (but see Laws 23 and 73F), and (c) any requirement of the tournament regulations.? 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/20140605/a74caa23/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 5 03:53:10 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 01:53:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA97B3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Hypothetical 2015 Law 16A2, further belt-and-braces thoughts: ?Players may also take account of: (a) their estimate of their own score, (b) of the traits and extraneous actions* of their opponents at their own risk (but see Laws 23 and 73F), and (c) any requirement of the tournament regulations.? * Calls and plays are non-extraneous actions, so usually Law 16A1(a) applies. But if a call or play is withdrawn, then see Law 16D. 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/20140605/faf45407/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 5 09:44:02 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:44:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA97B3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA97B3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:53:10 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Hypothetical 2015 Law 16A2, further belt-and-braces thoughts: >?Players may also take account of: > (a) their estimate of their own score, > (b) of the traits and extraneous actions* of their opponents at their > own risk (but see Laws 23 and 73F), and a. How they sort their cards or where they pull a card from their hand. Can they use the requests for information from the opponents or the opponent's looking at their convention card. E.g., "I realized my partner's bid was X when I saw you looking at my convention card." >> (c) any requirement of the tournament regulations.? >* Calls and plays are non-extraneous actions, so usually Law 16A1(a) > applies. But if a call or play is withdrawn, then see Law 16D. > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140605/55b3562a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 5 09:45:53 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:45:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA970A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA970A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 20:21:43 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Law 16A2: >?Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, > of the **traits** of their opponents, and any requirement of the > tournament regulations.? >Macquarie Dictionary: >trait /tre?t/ (say trayt) noun a distinguishing quality (as of personal > character): bad traits of character. >Volker Walther: > >> ..... >> Your LHO tells aloud: ?I have a spade void again!? >> ..... >Richard Hills: >In my opinion a LHO so speaking is showing a bad trait of > character, ignoring correct procedure (Law 73A1) with her > extraneous comment. >What?s the problem? That isn't what "trait" means, and we all know that. If it matters, it isn't what the lawmakers intended when they wrote the law. >> > The problem is those who want belt-and-braces Laws, for > example a hypothetical >2015 Law 16A2: >?Players may also take account of: > (a) their estimate of their own score, > (b) of the traits and actions of their opponents at their own > risk (but see Laws 23 and 73F), and > (c) any requirement of the tournament regulations.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140605/6337bdd3/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jun 6 00:52:16 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:52:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA97B3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <21AF90EFE0314468B3C9C2FFF82B8EE3@erdos> Robert Frick writes: >On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:53:10 -0400, Richard James HILLS > wrote: >UNOFFICIAL >>Hypothetical 2015 Law 16A2, further belt-and-braces thoughts: >>?Players may also take account of: >>(a) their estimate of their own score, >>(b) of the traits and extraneous actions* of their opponents at their >>own risk (but see Laws 23 and 73F), and >a. How they sort their cards or where they pull a card from their hand. >Can they use the requests for information from the opponents or the opponent's >looking at their >convention card. E.g., "I realized my partner's bid was X when I saw you >looking at my convention card." Yes, as long as there is no UI or other infraction involved. If an opponent asks about a call, the fact that he asked is AI to you that he had some interest in that call. But in the ACBL, where you must announce the range of a 1NT opening, if partner forgets to announce and either opponent asks, that is UI to you because there would have been no question without partner's infraction. On the first round of bidding, the opponents should be presumed to have interest in most calls, just as they are presumed to have something to do at the first trick and first discard even if the play happens to be obvious at the time. It is legal to look at the opponents' convention card to find the meaning of RHO's 2D opening even if you have a bust, so that you can understand the later auction. >>(c) any requirement of the tournament regulations.? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 6 01:22:10 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 23:22:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB317@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>Hypothetical 2015 Law 16A2, further belt-and-braces thoughts: >> >>?Players may also take account of: >>(a) their estimate of their own score, >>(b) of the traits and extraneous actions of their opponents at their >>own risk (but see Laws 23 and 73F), and >>(c) any requirement of the tournament regulations.? The above suggestion was an attempt (perhaps inelegant) to clarify ? without changing ? the intended meaning of the Laws. But the below suggestion is an attempt to detrimentally amend the meaning of the Laws. >[Players may also take account of:] >How [opponents] sort their cards or where they pull a card from >their hand. Actual 2007 Law 74C5 and footnote: ?The following are examples of violations of procedure: looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player?s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of ++observing the place from which he draws a card++ (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent?s card*). * See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.? 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/20140605/b1aaf45f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 6 01:35:11 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 23:35:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB332@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner: >[big snip] >It is legal to look at the opponents? convention card to find the >meaning of RHO?s 2D opening even if you have a bust, so that >you can understand the later auction. Richard Hills: Looking at the opponents? system card, or asking a question, when you hold a Yarborough may be legal in ACBL-land. But in England it may be an illegal infraction of Law 73F. WBF LC minutes 9th November 2003, item 1: The Chairman raised the question of the practice of the English Bridge Union in discouraging questions by players when the answer to the question would not affect their immediate action on the hand. He felt that this is contrary to the laws. The Secretary provided copies of the regulation in question; this does not prohibit a question but reminds players of the risk of passing unauthorised information to partner and urges that questions be left until the player needs to know that answer and, wherever possible, until after the opening lead has been selected (or the questioner is about to select an opening lead). It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be asked. Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked very time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information. It was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information. The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that he had a ?demonstrable bridge reason? for asking the question. The Chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be used in extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know what is happening at the table is a good enough ?bridge reason?. Mr Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinion, it was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced of the Chairman?s argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the Director and the Appeals Committee to judge. Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts. 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/20140605/0a57caa2/attachment-0001.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Jun 6 16:16:42 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 10:16:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB332@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB332@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5391CD4A.8040901@verizon.net> On 6/5/2014 7:35 PM, Richard James HILLS wrote: > > David Grabiner: > >[big snip] > >It is legal to look at the opponents? convention card to find the > >meaning of RHO?s 2D opening even if you have a bust, so that > >you can understand the later auction. > Richard Hills: > Looking at the opponents? system card, or asking a question, > when you hold a Yarborough may be legal in ACBL-land. But > in England it may be an illegal infraction of Law 73F. > WBF LC minutes 9th November 2003, item 1: > The Chairman raised the question of the practice of the English > Bridge Union in discouraging questions by players when the > answer to the question would not affect their immediate action > on the hand. He felt that this is contrary to the laws. The > Secretary provided copies of the regulation in question; this does > not prohibit a question but reminds players of the risk of passing > unauthorised information to partner and urges that questions be > left until the player needs to know that answer and, wherever > possible, until after the opening lead has been selected (or the > questioner is about to select an opening lead). > It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be > asked. Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the > subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced > that a question is asked very time there is an alert there can be > no unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the > manner of asking the question could still create information. It > was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about > every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated > his object of not conveying unauthorised information. > The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of > questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the > requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the > questioner could have known that asking the question might > work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that he had a > ?demonstrable bridge reason? for asking the question. The > Chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be > used in extreme situations when a player asks about the > meaning of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know > what is happening at the table is a good enough ?bridge reason?. > Mr Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinion, > it was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced > of the Chairman?s argument, the Secretary maintained his > position that the occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the > Director and the Appeals Committee to judge. > Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly > whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some > scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply > Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with > announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences > of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was > acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting > subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the > future should be presented clearly in its drafts. I concur with the Chairman. Even with a Yarborough and a silent partner, it still behooves a competent player to follow the opponents' auction in order to defend to best advantage. He is entitled not only to the meaning of the opponents' calls, but also to whatever inferences he chooses to take (at his own risk, of course) from their table action -- if an opponent seems unsure of a particular call, for example, one can take appropriate inferences only if one knows what alternatives the bidder might have been considering (not really possible in a delayed review). Asking questions may be necessary to do this, thus neither provides any information about the questioner's hand nor suggests that he was considering entering the auction. IMO, the only time a player might lack a valid "bridge reason" for asking a question about his opponents' auction is when he already knows the answer. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jun 6 17:31:55 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:31:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5391CD4A.8040901@verizon.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB332@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5391CD4A.8040901@verizon.net> Message-ID: <004f01cf819c$72895d80$579c1880$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> There is an issue which in my opinion overrides any other (used or not yet). A player delivers an overwhelming amount of UI if we follow the EBU approach: only asking if your own action depends on the answer, that is. I am still astonished that this argument seemed of no importance for the, that time, secretary (but also very important EBU-member) and the former CTD of the WBF. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Eric Landau Verzonden: vrijdag 6 juni 2014 16:17 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 6/5/2014 7:35 PM, Richard James HILLS wrote: > > David Grabiner: > >[big snip] > >It is legal to look at the opponents' convention card to find the > >meaning of RHO's 2D opening even if you have a bust, so that you can > >understand the later auction. > Richard Hills: > Looking at the opponents' system card, or asking a question, when you > hold a Yarborough may be legal in ACBL-land. But in England it may be > an illegal infraction of Law 73F. > WBF LC minutes 9th November 2003, item 1: > The Chairman raised the question of the practice of the English Bridge > Union in discouraging questions by players when the answer to the > question would not affect their immediate action on the hand. He felt > that this is contrary to the laws. The Secretary provided copies of > the regulation in question; this does not prohibit a question but > reminds players of the risk of passing unauthorised information to > partner and urges that questions be left until the player needs to > know that answer and, wherever possible, until after the opening lead > has been selected (or the questioner is about to select an opening > lead). > It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be > asked. Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the > subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced that a > question is asked very time there is an alert there can be no > unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of > asking the question could still create information. It was also > pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and > then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not > conveying unauthorised information. > The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions > to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this > is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that > asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that > he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking the question. The > Chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be used in > extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning of a call. He > thought that normally a desire to know what is happening at the table > is a good enough "bridge reason". > Mr Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinion, it > was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced of the > Chairman's argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the > occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the Director and the > Appeals Committee to judge. > Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly > whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for > asking questions even when not interested in the reply Mr Schoder > referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. > There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no > agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a > matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and > its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its > drafts. I concur with the Chairman. Even with a Yarborough and a silent partner, it still behooves a competent player to follow the opponents' auction in order to defend to best advantage. He is entitled not only to the meaning of the opponents' calls, but also to whatever inferences he chooses to take (at his own risk, of course) from their table action -- if an opponent seems unsure of a particular call, for example, one can take appropriate inferences only if one knows what alternatives the bidder might have been considering (not really possible in a delayed review). Asking questions may be necessary to do this, thus neither provides any information about the questioner's hand nor suggests that he was considering entering the auction. IMO, the only time a player might lack a valid "bridge reason" for asking a question about his opponents' auction is when he already knows the answer. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2014.0.4592 / Virusdatabase: 3955/7623 - datum van uitgifte: 06/04/14 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jun 6 17:45:51 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:45:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5391CD4A.8040901@verizon.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB332@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5391CD4A.8040901@verizon.net> Message-ID: <005001cf819e$68004de0$3800e9a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Combining creating this 'UI' by (not) asking, I am waiting for the posting that this is not UI. Since it has by regulation become part of the legal procedure in the EBU. That is the way to solve those problems. ton From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jun 6 20:07:10 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 19:07:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004f01cf819c$72895d80$579c1880$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB332@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><5391CD4A.8040901@verizon.net> <004f01cf819c$72895d80$579c1880$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: [ton] There is an issue which in my opinion overrides any other (used or not yet). A player delivers an overwhelming amount of UI if we follow the EBU approach: only asking if your own action depends on the answer, that is. I am still astonished that this argument seemed of no importance for the, that time, secretary (but also very important EBU-member) and the former CTD of the WBF. [Nige1] To avoid the appearance of UI, you must always ask or never ask. Other strategies (e.g. ask randomly, or ask when you need to know, or ask when you don't know) are demonstrably flawed. [Selected excerpt from WBF LC minutes 9th November 2003, item 1] [SNIP] in the reply Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. [Nige2] IMO [1] Bill Schoder's suggestion is sensible. If partner announces the meaning of your call, as soon as you make it, then you avoid UI and save the time taken for alerts and questions. [2]-[4] are refinements that would be icing on the cake. [2] A table of common explanations would save more time and avoid disturbing near-by tables. (e.g. Sign-off, Natural, F1, FG, Relay, Transfer, Negative, Penalty, Splinter, Keycard, Unusual, and so on). [3] Mandating that you announce *every* call, would allow local regulators to bin rain-forests of alert-regulations. It also would save the time, currently taken by opponents waiting to see if you are going to alert. [4] Opponents should be allowed to switch off such announcements [Selected excerpt from WBF LC minutes 9th November 2003, item 1] [SNIP] There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts. [Nige3] These old minutes remind us that such legal flaws and anomalies have been debated for decades. Proposed solutions vary in likely efficacy but it would be better to try any "remedy" rather than do nothing. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jun 6 20:25:09 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 19:25:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AAB332@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><5391CD4A.8040901@verizon.net><004f01cf819c$72895d80$579c1880$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Further to previous post: The matrix of common announcements could be the front page of the standard system-card (provided the law stipulated that it wouldn't be treated as an aid to memory) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 10 00:09:42 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 22:09:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB2400@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >I concur with the Chairman. Even with a Yarborough and a silent partner, >it still behooves a competent player to follow the opponents' auction in >order to defend to best advantage. >..... >Asking questions may be necessary to do this, thus neither provides any >information about the questioner's hand nor suggests that he was >considering entering the auction. Richard Hills: Yes and No. When I do not intend to enter the auction, it behooves me not to infract Law 90B2 by asking an unnecessary string of time-wasting questions during the auction. Instead I ask just one question before selecting my opening lead: "Could you please explain your entire auction?" EBU Orange Book, clause 3E6: "As well as giving unauthorised information to partner, questions about bidding may mislead opponents, in which case they may be entitled to redress. Similarly, declarer's questions about leads, signals and discards could illegally mislead the defenders. (Law 73F)" Richard Hills: The classic case is a 5H response to Keycard Blackwood. An opponent asks, "Does that promise or deny the queen of trumps?" In the eventual slam declarer takes the two-way finesse for the queen of trumps through the other opponent. Unlucky. The questioner had the queen of trumps. An EBU Director would use Law 73F to adjust the score. Eric Landau: >IMO, the only time a player might lack a valid "bridge reason" for >asking a question about his opponents' auction is when he already >knows the answer. Richard Hills: In the above example, the questioner knows that the 5H bidder does not **hold** the queen of trumps. However, the questioner may not know whether or not the 5H bidder systemically **promises** the queen of trumps. If so, would Director Landau use Law 73F to adjust the score? Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): "She's beginning to see something," the man said. "The water and the glass are just devices to focus her attention. Myla's good at skrenning, though sometimes she gets the future confused with the past. That sort of thing is embarrassing, and it gives skrenning a bad name. It can't be helped, though. Every once in a while the future is there in the water, and Myla has to tell what she sees. Last week she told a Hadji he was going to die in four days." The old man chuckled. "You should have seen the expression on his face." "Did she see how he would die?" Barrent asked. "Yes. By a knife-thrust. The poor man stayed in his house for the entire four days." "Was he killed?" "Of course. His wife killed him. She was a strong-minded woman, I'm told." 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/20140609/9d221339/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 10 02:16:09 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:16:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB3461@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL English Bridge Union's Tangerine Book, page 6: Asking Questions You may ask questions whenever it is your turn, but there can be consequences. Unless you need to know at once, it may be wiser to wait until the end of the auction. If partner is on lead, even better to wait until after he has led face-down. Asking questions about specific calls may give partner information about your hand, which can constrain his actions. It is also improper to ask questions which may mislead your opponents. The TD might adjust the result in either case. Specific questions such as, 'Is that bid weak?' or, 'Is that bid forcing?' often receive simple one-word answers which may be incomplete. Similarly, 'standard' or 'natural' in questions will often lead to un- helpful responses. In general, ask, 'What does that call show?', or ask for an explanation of the entire auction before the opening lead is faced. Richard Hills, 1st April 2003: >..... >My pard and I occasionally take our Symmetric Relay system on the >road to a country town's annual bridge congress. A popular action >by opponents flabbergasted by our auctions is to ask after each of >our relays. > >Opponents then burst into laughter as I give my deadpan iterations, >"relay, asking me to describe my hand further"; "relay, asking me to >describe my hand further"; "relay, asking me to describe my hand >further"..... Ton Kooijman, 1st April 2003: Yesterday I asked about the origin of 1 April jokes. My encyclopaedia tells me that it is unknown, but very old (more than 500 years) and it has an Indo-German (Indo-European) (whatever that means) background. And that Europe brought it to America where it has become quite popular too. Conclusion: it is not originated in bridge. But in England after the third such question opponents hand is known completely: A5 KQ8 J962 K10743 ton 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/20140610/e0fbec2b/attachment-0001.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Jun 10 16:41:54 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:41:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Trait In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB2400@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB2400@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53971932.3030608@verizon.net> On 6/9/2014 6:09 PM, Richard James HILLS wrote: > Eric Landau: > >I concur with the Chairman. Even with a Yarborough and a silent partner, > >it still behooves a competent player to follow the opponents? auction in > >order to defend to best advantage. > >..... > >Asking questions may be necessary to do this, thus neither provides any > >information about the questioner?s hand nor suggests that he was > >considering entering the auction. > Richard Hills: > Yes and No. > When I do not intend to enter the auction, it behooves me not to infract > Law 90B2 by asking an unnecessary string of time-wasting questions > during the auction. Instead I ask just one question before selecting my > opening lead: > ?Could you please explain your entire auction?? > EBU Orange Book, clause 3E6: > ?As well as giving unauthorised information to partner, questions about > bidding may mislead opponents, in which case they may be entitled to > redress. Similarly, declarer?s questions about leads, signals and discards > could illegally mislead the defenders. (Law 73F)? > Richard Hills: > The classic case is a 5H response to Keycard Blackwood. An opponent > asks, ?Does that promise or deny the queen of trumps?? In the eventual > slam declarer takes the two-way finesse for the queen of trumps > through the other opponent. Unlucky. The questioner had the queen of > trumps. An EBU Director would use Law 73F to adjust the score. > Eric Landau: > >IMO, the only time a player might lack a valid ?bridge reason? for > >asking a question about his opponents? auction is when he already > >knows the answer. > Richard Hills: > In the above example, the questioner knows that the 5H bidder does > not **hold** the queen of trumps. True but irrelevant, as the only legal questions are about the meaning of the opponents' auction, not their actual holdings. > However, the questioner may not know whether or not the 5H bidder > systemically **promises** the queen of trumps. If so, would Director > Landau use Law 73F to adjust the score? I would in this case, because the question was clearly improper and potentially misleading. I would have no problem had the question been, "What are your agreements about 5H?" -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 12 03:43:52 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 01:43:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB69DE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, first hypothetical test of Law 73F: >>..... >>However, the questioner [who holds the queen of trumps] may not >>know whether or not the 5H bidder systemically **promises** the >>queen of trumps. If so, would Director Landau use Law 73F to adjust >>the score? Eric Landau: >I would in this case, because the question was clearly improper and >potentially misleading. I would have no problem had the question been, >"What are your agreements about 5H?" Richard Hills, second hypothetical test of Law 73F: Ruritanian matchpoint pairs championship. In Ruritania half of the partnerships overlead honour sequences (thus rendering the lead of an ace ambiguous) and the other half of the partnerships overlead except king from AK (thus rendering the lead of a king ambiguous). And the Ruritanian Regulating Authority has prohibited the use of system cards, but has rendered the use of count signals by the defenders compulsory (however, Law 40A3 permits very occasional psychic count cards). Declarer in 3NT is playing against unknown opponents. LHO leads the king of clubs, and dummy's club holding is the deuce, the trey, and the devil's bedposts. RHO gives a count signal suggesting an even number. LHO had taken a punt by leading the king from KQx, and declarer was ducking from AJx (a Bath Coup), hoping for a vital overtrick if LHO continued clubs at trick two. To encourage LHO to continue, declarer asks RHO, "What are your agreements about an opening lead of a king?" Would a Ruritanian Director Landau rule this question proper and legal? After all, the question mimics the format of "What are your agreements about 5H?" In my opinion, absolutely any question by declarer about honour leads during a potential Bath Coup is an infraction of Law 73F. Inaugural address of President Wagstaff (Groucho Marx): "Members of the faculty, faculty members, students of Huxley and Huxley students - I guess that covers everything. Well, I thought my razor was dull until I heard this speech. And that reminds me of a story that's so dirty I'm ashamed to think of it myself." 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/20140612/8acd2c4f/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Thu Jun 12 17:02:36 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:02:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Trait In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB69DE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB69DE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5399C10C.6020502@verizon.net> On 6/11/2014 9:43 PM, Richard James HILLS wrote: > Richard Hills, first hypothetical test of Law 73F: > >>..... > >>However, the questioner [who holds the queen of trumps] may not > >>know whether or not the 5H bidder systemically **promises** the > >>queen of trumps. If so, would Director Landau use Law 73F to adjust > >>the score? > Eric Landau: > >I would in this case, because the question was clearly improper and > >potentially misleading. I would have no problem had the question been, > >?What are your agreements about 5H?? > Richard Hills, second hypothetical test of Law 73F: > Ruritanian matchpoint pairs championship. In Ruritania half of the > partnerships overlead honour sequences (thus rendering the lead of an > ace ambiguous) and the other half of the partnerships overlead except > king from AK (thus rendering the lead of a king ambiguous). And the > Ruritanian Regulating Authority has prohibited the use of system cards, > but has rendered the use of count signals by the defenders compulsory > (however, Law 40A3 permits very occasional psychic count cards). > Declarer in 3NT is playing against unknown opponents. LHO leads the > king of clubs, and dummy?s club holding is the deuce, the trey, and the > devil?s bedposts. RHO gives a count signal suggesting an even number. > LHO had taken a punt by leading the king from KQx, and declarer was > ducking from AJx (a Bath Coup), hoping for a vital overtrick if LHO > continued clubs at trick two. To encourage LHO to continue, declarer > asks RHO, ?What are your agreements about an opening lead of a king?? > Would a Ruritanian Director Landau rule this question proper and legal? > After all, the question mimics the format of ?What are your agreements > about 5H?? Perhaps fortunately, Ruritanian Director Landau doesn't exist, and non-Ruritanian director Landau doesn't much care about what goes on in Ruritania. In the rest of the world, where count signals aren't mandatory and RHO's card is likely to be an attitude signal, declarer, who would like to think about what holding RHO might have signalled from, or whether or not LHO is likely to continue if he ducks, has a perfectly valid "bridge reason" for wanting to know the defenders' agreement about the opening lead. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 00:12:38 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:12:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB81A8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >..... >In the rest of the world, where count signals aren't mandatory and >RHO's card is likely to be an attitude signal, declarer, who would >like to think about what holding RHO might have signalled from, >or whether or not LHO is likely to continue if he ducks, has a >perfectly valid "bridge reason" for wanting to know the defenders' >agreement about the opening lead. Richard Hills: But what if, on an actual rest-of-the-world complete deal, it is a 100% cost-nothing play for declarer to choose the x from AJx at trick one? Then I argue a "perfectly Invalid" bridge reason for declarer's premature question - declarer could ask the question at trick two or later if declarer really needs to know then. In my opinion, an immediate trick one question from declarer is valid only if declarer has two logical alternatives, between a Bath Coup or a Pig-Pen Coup. Charlie Brown's description of "Pig-Pen": "Don't think of it as dust. Just think of it as the dirt and dust of far- off lands blowing over here and settling on 'Pig-Pen!' It staggers the imagination! He may be carrying the soil that was trod upon by Solomon or Nebuchadnezzar or Genghis Khan!" 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/20140612/104168cb/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 03:41:32 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:41:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Al Ert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB8242@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Yes Minister, ?The Greasy Pole?: Sir Humphrey: ?Well, that?s quite simple. Metadioxin is an inert compound of dioxin.? Jim Hacker: ?I think I follow that, Humphrey, but could you explain it a little more clearly?? Sir Humphrey: ?In what sense, Minister?? Joan Littler: ?What does inert mean?? Sir Humphrey: ?It means it is not......ert.? Bernard: ?Wouldn?t ert a fly.? Appendix A to EBU L&EC Minutes February 11th 2008: Alerting doubles Still the world is wondrous large ? seven seas from marge to marge ? And it holds a vast of various kinds of man, And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Kathmandu, And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban. Rudyard Kipling At the last Laws and Ethics Committee meeting, I rashly undertook to set out some thoughts on the proposal that ?only highly unusual doubles should be alerted?. What follows are those thoughts. The purpose of an alert is not to comply with some set of regulations. The purpose of an alert is to inform the opponents that, in the words of Robert Zimmerman, ?something is happening here but you don?t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?? The recent changes to the alerting procedure were by and large in keeping with this purpose, but some ? especially those relating to the alerting of doubles ? were not. Particularly in England, where the practice of asking ?unnecessary? questions about the auction is discouraged, providing information to the opponents without their having to ask for it is of primary importance. That is why we should be reluctant to adopt the policy that no doubles are alertable. If, for example, South opens 1NT and West doubles to show spades and another suit, North should be told that the double is not for penalty, not least because his methods may very well vary depending on whether the double is for penalty or not. If he asks a question, he may be placed through no fault of his own in the invidious position of having conveyed unauthorised information should he then pass. We should also be reluctant to continue with the policy that all penalty doubles of natural suit bids are alertable while all takeout doubles of natural suit bids are not. True, it has the advantage of simplicity. But it falls a very long way short of embodying the purpose of an alert expressed in my first paragraph. If the bidding proceeds West------North-----East------South 1?---------X-----------XX-------2? Pass-------Pass-------X ?everybody knows? that this double is for penalty, and not even Mr Jones needs telling so. When the double is for takeout, it is crucial to inform the opponents of the fact ? indeed, it could be argued that West?s pass requires an alert if he could have a penalty double of clubs. Whereas it is quite easy to say what we should not do, it is quite hard to say what we should do instead ? or at least, to say it in few words. ?All highly unusual doubles, and no others, should be alerted? is an admirably economical principle, but it is difficult to decide what doubles are ?highly unusual? without compiling a lengthy, complex, and subjective list. As the opening words of this paper suggest, what is ?usual? for me may be ?highly unusual? for someone else. For example, if the bidding proceeds: West---------North--------East---------South ----------------------------------------------1NT (12-14) Pass---------2? (hearts)---Double there are those who would consider it ?usual? for double to show diamonds without reference to the rest of the hand, while there are those who would consider it equally ?usual? for double to show a hand that would have doubled a weak no trump without reference to diamonds. If we say ?doubles of artificial bids usually show the suit doubled? any other meaning is highly unusual? we risk being ridiculed (perhaps rightly) by the substantial number of players who all their lives have played double of Stayman or a transfer following a weak no trump as a strong hand without reference to the suit artificially bid. Moreover, even a ?simple? regulation such as the one above would mean that this: West----------North---------East----------South 1NT----------2? (majors)--Double requires an alert unless double shows clubs. It would be highly unusual in my experience for double to show clubs? the ?usual? meaning of such a double is that East is interested in penalising one or both of the majors. But my experience is not everyone?s. I am sure that a lot of players would have no agreement about the position at all and would simply double to show a club suit (one or two of them might preface this with ?Oh, so it doesn?t show clubs then??) For that reason, I do not think that we should create regulations explicitly containing the words ?unusual? or ?unexpected?. We should of course explain that the purpose of our regulations is to give an idea of what is regarded as unexpected. We should also state quite clearly that players must feel free to depart from the letter of the regulations in order to fulfil the broader obligation of full disclosure. Directors and Appeals Committees should never penalise such departures, nor have any time for those who sneer at their opponents for not obeying the letter of the regulations. I propose to set out a framework for what our regulations might be. I hope that the Laws and Ethics Committee will then be able to discuss this framework with a view to encapsulating it in terms that are as clear and as simple as possible, after making any amendments to it that are considered necessary. Some definitions: ? A double of a natural bid is for penalty if the doubler expects that partner will pass it with most hands consistent with his bidding so far, if any . ? A double of a natural bid is for takeout if the doubler expects that partner will not pass it with most hands consistent with his bidding so far, if any. ? A double of a natural bid is alertable if it is for penalty when the opponents expect it to be for takeout, or for takeout when the opponents expect it to be for penalty. A double of a natural bid is non- alertable otherwise. ? A double of an artificial bid is non-alertable if it shows length or strength in the suit bid, or if it implies length or strength in one or more of the suits shown by the bid, or if it requests that partner lead the suit bid. A double of an artificial bid is alertable otherwise. We will need to decide whether opening bids of 1? on 2+ cards, and 1? on 0+ cards in a strong club system, are natural or artificial in this context (a 2? opening that might be a 4=3=1=5 shape will also require consideration). We will also need to decide whether cue bids and long suit trial bids are natural or artificial in this context. This means that: West----------North---------East----------South 1NT----------2? (majors)--Double is non-alertable if double shows clubs and if double shows a desire to penalise at least one major. South might want to know which it is before passing to suggest playing in clubs? if he does, he can ask. It also means that a double of a Multi 2? opening to show a weak no trump is alertable, even though that is ?usual? these days. We start with the obvious: [1] A double of a natural opening bid in a suit is expected to be for takeout. [2] A double of a natural opening bid in no trumps is expected to be for penalty. Unfortunately, that is where ?the obvious? ends, but we continue: [3] A double of a natural response in a suit, or any response in no trumps, to an opening bid in a suit is expected to be for takeout. This means that: West------North-----East------South 1?---------Pass-------1NT------Double is expected to be for takeout. I think that this is the ?usual? expectation in tournament bridge these days even at levels below the highest, but I could be persuaded otherwise. It also means that: West------North-----East------South 1?---------Pass-------3NT------Double is expected to be for takeout. Since I?ve never heard this auction in all my years of playing bridge, I confess that I don?t know what it usually means, but I?d probably have a 4=0=5=4 shape rather than be able to beat 3NT in my own hand. [4] When a side has made a natural opening bid in a suit, a double by that side of a natural overcall is expected to be for takeout. [5] When a side has made a natural opening bid in no trumps, a double by that side of a natural overcall is expected to be for penalty. [6] When a side has made a penalty double, or a redouble showing strength, any subsequent double by that side is expected to be for penalty. [1] to [5] above refer to the first round of the auction only (where ?the first round? begins with the first bid). I don?t think they contain anything particularly contentious apart from the reservations I have expressed regarding [3]. What follows may be contentious, but it does seem to me to have the effect of simplifying many situations that would otherwise require the creation of a detailed list of exceptions: [7] A double of a natural bid in a suit by a member of a side that has earlier doubled the suit for takeout is expected to be for takeout. [8] A double of a natural bid in a suit, or of a response to that bid in no trumps, by a player who has passed over an earlier natural bid in the suit is expected to be for penalty. [9] Otherwise, a double of a natural bid in a suit by a player who has made a call other than pass, and whose partner has also made a call other than pass, is expected to be for penalty. This means that, for example: West------North-----East------South 1?---------Pass-------1?--------1? Double is alertable if for takeout. The cool school will say that it is highly unusual for such a double to be for penalty? they should come and play in the ?30 game at TGRs sometime (or even the ?1 game). I will leave it here for the moment. The above list may be daunting, but as far as I have been able to achieve it, the idea is that players will alert the doubles their opponents need to know about without actually having to read the list at all, let alone memorise it. After finishing this paper, I have read correspondence (on an internet forum) from Belgium, where it is said that since Belgium adopted the regulation ?no double is alertable?, players have been inventing peculiar meanings for doubles in an effort to trap unwary opponents. Whereas I am well aware that the reaction to this in certain circles may be ?so that?s why we fought the War, eh?? I consider that it provides at least some reinforcement for the idea that we should not adopt such a regulation. Again, I would stress that if we make new regulations, we should (as we did with the latest Orange Book) allow considerable leniency while they are absorbed. I would also urge once again that we abolish the stupid regulation discouraging people from exercising their legal right to ask questions during the auction. Et ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. David Burn 29th January 2008 I have just spotted that my paper says: [4] When a side has made a natural opening bid in a suit, a double by that side of a natural overcall is expected to be for takeout. This means that if West opens 3H, North bids 3S and East doubles it, that is expected to be for takeout. Of course, this is rubbish. The position could be covered in a variety of ways, perhaps by adding ?except that if the opening bid was preemptive, double by opener?s partner is expected to be for penalty?. I have also spotted that in this auction: West------North-----East------South 2D (1)----2H---------Double (1) Multi where the ?usual? meaning is ?pass with hearts, bid with spades, make your own arrangements with strong hands?, no real guidance is given as to whether the double is ?takeout? or ?penalty?. Of course, ?most of the time? the opening bidder will have spades, and the doubler so expects, so this is a ?takeout? double ex def. If the double means ?pass even if you have spades?, it will therefore be alerted, which is a good thing, because the opponents won?t expect that to be what double means (and South will run when he should do, instead of hoping that West will remove). I don?t feel inclined specifically to include this kind of auction (at least, not at this time of night), but I thought I would mention it because there may be similar positions I have failed to consider carefully enough. Best wishes David 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/20140613/3c93186d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 06:05:23 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:05:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB82D3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >But what if, on an actual rest-of-the-world complete deal, it is a >100% cost-nothing play for declarer to choose the x from AJx at >trick one? > >Then I argue a "perfectly Invalid" bridge reason for declarer's >premature question - declarer could ask the question at trick two >or later if declarer really needs to know then. >..... Hypothetical 2015 Law 73D2 (with additional indicative example, and additional cross-references): "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent: (a) by means of remark or gesture (for example, in asking an un- necessarily premature and deceptive question before playing a card without any logical alternative), or (b) by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (for example, in hesitating before playing a singleton), or (c) the manner in which a call or play is made, or (d) by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. See Laws 72B1 and 73F." 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/20140613/9ec810e7/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 13 08:24:33 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:24:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB81A8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB81A8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <539A9921.3040900@skynet.be> You are forgetting one thing, Richard. Not every player knows there are such things as Bath Coups and Pig-Pen plays. Some players just want as much information as possible before deciding what to do, and they don't want to analyse both possibilities just in case they both yield the same answer, and the question be deemed irregular. So the declarer shoulc be allowed to ask "what are your leads?" without any need for analysis before or after. Herman. Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Eric Landau: >>..... >>In the rest of the world, where count signals aren?t mandatory and >>RHO?s card is likely to be an attitude signal, declarer, who would >>like to think about what holding RHO might have signalled from, >>or whether or not LHO is likely to continue if he ducks, has a >>perfectly valid ?bridge reason? for wanting to know the defenders? >>agreement about the opening lead. > Richard Hills: > But what if, on an actual rest-of-the-world complete deal, it is a > 100% cost-nothing play for declarer to choose the x from AJx at > trick one? > Then I argue a ?perfectly /Invalid/? bridge reason for declarer?s > premature question ? declarer could ask the question at trick two or > later if declarer really needs to know then. > In my opinion, an immediate trick one question from declarer is valid > only if declarer has two logical alternatives, between a Bath Coup or > a Pig-Pen Coup. > Charlie Brown?s description of ?Pig-Pen?: > ?Don?t think of it as dust. Just think of it as the dirt and dust of far- > off lands blowing over here and settling on ?Pig-Pen!? It staggers the > imagination! He may be carrying the soil that was trod upon by > Solomon or Nebuchadnezzar or Genghis Khan!? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 09:22:31 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:22:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331ABC5B9@PDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, **among the class of players in question** and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. Richard Hills: >>But what if, on an actual rest-of-the-world complete deal, it is a >>100% cost-nothing play for declarer to choose the x from AJx at >>trick one? >> >>Then I argue a "perfectly Invalid" bridge reason for declarer's >>premature question - declarer could ask the question at trick two or >>later if declarer really needs to know then. >> >>In my opinion, an immediate trick one question from declarer is valid >>only if declarer has two logical alternatives, between a Bath Coup or >>a Pig-Pen Coup. Herman De Wael: >You are forgetting one thing, Richard. >Not every player knows there are such things as Bath Coups and Pig- >Pen plays. Richard Hills: Yes and No. I have definitely not forgotten that the term logical alternative is a misnomer. For a particular class of non-experts (to which I once belonged), holding up a winner is never a "logical" alternative. Herman De Wael: >Some players just want as much information as possible before >deciding what to do, and they don't want to analyse both >possibilities just in case they both yield the same answer, and the >question be deemed irregular. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Some players just want to hesitate with a singleton at trick three before deciding what to do at trick six. Unlucky, the 2007 Law 73D2 specifically outlaws such echeloning of thinking. Likewise, I argue that the 2007 Law 73D2 analogously outlaws the echeloning of a question with deceptive timing. Herman De Wael: >So the declarer should be allowed to ask "what are your leads?" >without any need for analysis before or after. Richard Hills: Yes and No. If a declarer claims without any analysis before (an occasional habit of a long-standing blmler), then the Director rules that that declarer loses doubtful tricks. Likewise, if a declarer asks an unintentionally - the Law 73F criterion is "could have known" NOT "did know" - deceptive and damaging question, then again the Director adjusts the score to restore equity. Robert Sheckley, "The Status Civilization" (1960): "The enjoyment of nature," said Oaky, "is now easy and convenient for everyone. You can enjoy complete seclusion and still be no more than a ten-minute walk from public transportation. For those who do not desire seclusion, we have guided tours at nominal cost through these ancient glades. Remember to tell your friends about your friendly national park. The full facilities of this park are waiting for all lovers of the great outdoors." A panel in the tree opened. Out slid a bedroll, a Thermos bottle, and a box supper. "I wish you a pleasant evening," said Oaky, "amid the wild splendor of nature's wonderland. And now the National Symphony Orchestra under the direction of Otter Krug brings you 'The Upland Glades,' by Ernesto Nestrichala, recorded by the National North American Broadcasting Company. This is your friendly oak tree signing off." 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/20140613/3252e032/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 13 09:47:07 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:47:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331ABC5B9@PDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331ABC5B9@PDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <539AAC7B.2060302@skynet.be> Richard is again acting ad-hominem rather than reading the argument put forward (I assume that this post of his is directed at my recent one). Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Law 16B1(b): > ?A logical alternative action is one that, **among the class of players > in question** and using the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of > whom it is judged some might select it. we are talking illegal deception here, not logical alternatives. > Richard Hills: >>>But what if, on an actual rest-of-the-world complete deal, it is a >>>100% cost-nothing play for declarer to choose the x from AJx at >>>trick one? >>> >>>Then I argue a ?perfectly Invalid? bridge reason for declarer?s >>>premature question ? declarer could ask the question at trick two or >>>later if declarer really needs to know then. >>> >>>In my opinion, an immediate trick one question from declarer is valid >>>only if declarer has two logical alternatives, between a Bath Coup or >>>a Pig-Pen Coup. > Herman De Wael: >>You are forgetting one thing, Richard. >>Not every player knows there are such things as Bath Coups and Pig- >>Pen plays. > Richard Hills: > Yes and No. that way you are always right, Richard, but let's see: > I have definitely not forgotten that the term logical alternative is a > misnomer. For a particular class of non-experts (to which I once > belonged), holding up a winner is never a ?logical? alternative. again, we are talking illegal deception, not logical alternatives. Is it forbidden to think before playing (especially when indeed holding something one has to think about)? > Herman De Wael: >>Some players just want as much information as possible before >>deciding what to do, and they don?t want to analyse both >>possibilities just in case they both yield the same answer, and the >>question be deemed irregular. > Richard Hills: > Yes and No. see above. > Some players just want to hesitate with a singleton at trick three > before deciding what to do at trick six. Unlucky, the 2007 Law 73D2 > specifically outlaws such echeloning of thinking. there is no talk of singletons here, just of holding up a particular card. The story you told was of a player who was thinking of holding and who asked a question before. You thought that question should be illegal since with any answer he would hold up. My reaction was that I do not believe a player should consider both options, see that he needs to hold up in both and then refrain from asking. I believe he should be allowed to ask, and then only needs to consider the one option and arrive at one conclusion. > Likewise, I argue that the 2007 Law 73D2 analogously outlaws the > echeloning of a question with deceptive timing. indeed, and what has that got to do with this one. What is the deceptive timing about asking about the lead when the lead is made? > Herman De Wael: >>So the declarer should be allowed to ask ?what are your leads?? >>without any need for analysis before or after. > Richard Hills: > Yes and No. see above. > If a declarer claims without any analysis before (an occasional > habit of a long-standing blmler), then the Director rules that that > declarer loses doubtful tricks. not every director. but again, what has this got to do with anything. Just because Richard makes a wrong ruling in one case his wrong ruling in another one must be right? > Likewise, if a declarer asks an unintentionally ? the Law 73F criterion > is ?could have known? NOT ?did know? ? deceptive and damaging > question, then again the Director adjusts the score to restore equity. Indeed, but again, what is the deception here? "he asked the question and then he ducked so I deduce that with a different answer he would have taken!". And then? > Robert Sheckley, ?The Status Civilization? (1960): Even though I am probably the second-strongest fan of Sheckley's on this list (seriously, has anyone else a complete set of Sheckley's books besides us two?) I fail to see the relevance of this quote in this matter. Well, that's just like the rest of the post, then. Richard, you really need to focus on what is written and not just write posts for the sake of it. Herman. > ?The enjoyment of nature,? said Oaky, ?is now easy and convenient for > everyone. You can enjoy complete seclusion and still be no more than a > ten-minute walk from public transportation. For those who do not desire > seclusion, we have guided tours at nominal cost through these ancient > glades. Remember to tell your friends about your friendly national park. > The full facilities of this park are waiting for all lovers of the great > outdoors.? > A panel in the tree opened. Out slid a bedroll, a Thermos bottle, and a > box supper. > ?I wish you a pleasant evening,? said Oaky, "amid the wild splendor of > nature's wonderland. And now the National Symphony Orchestra under > the direction of Otter Krug brings you ?The Upland Glades,? by Ernesto > Nestrichala, recorded by the National North American Broadcasting > Company. This is your friendly oak tree signing off.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jun 13 11:14:56 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:14:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Al Ert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB8242@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB8242@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard Hills quotes David Burn quoting Rudyard Kipling in EBU L&EC minutes 2 Feb 08] Alerting doubles Still the world is wondrous large ? seven seas from marge to marge ? And it holds a vast of various kinds of man, And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Kathmandu, And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban. [SNIP] [Nige1] In the SBU, we don?t alert doubles. The EBU regulations seem better but still too complex for most players to understand. I recommend [1] Announce ?Penalty? doubles. [2] Announce ?Take-out? doubles. [3] Alert all other doubles. (Failure to alert might be deemed sufficient, but alerting saves opponents the time taken to wait for a possible announcement). Even more radical: IMO "announcements" should completely replace "alerts"; but to avoid disturbing other tables, a table of common announcements should be provided; opponents should be allowed to "switch-off" your announcements.; and the law book should mandate this protocol. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 16 01:18:14 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:18:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AC31A3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>If a declarer claims without any analysis before (an occasional >>habit of a long-standing blmler), then the Director rules that that >>declarer loses doubtful tricks. Herman De Wael: >not every director. >but again, what has this got to do with anything. Just because >Richard makes a wrong ruling in one case his wrong ruling in >another one must be right? First sentence of Law 70A, which "not every Director" obeys: "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, 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." Richard Hills: >>Likewise, if a declarer asks an unintentionally - the Law 73F >>criterion is "could have known" NOT "did know" - deceptive >>and damaging question, then again the Director adjusts the >>score to restore equity. Herman De Wael: >Indeed, but again, what is the deception here? "he asked the >question and then he ducked so I deduce that with a different >answer he would have taken!". And then? Richard Hills: Missing the point of the hypothetical scenario. LHO's actual reasoning is, "Declarer asked a question which would be unnecessary if she held the ace of clubs, so therefore RHO holds the ace of clubs, and thus I can safely continue with the queen of clubs at trick two." Herman De Wael: >Even though I am probably the second-strongest fan of >Sheckley's on this list (seriously, has anyone else a complete >set of Sheckley's books besides us two?) I fail to see the >relevance of this quote in this matter. Relevant quote from Sheckley's The Status Civilization: "The law," he said, "is above the criminal and the judge, and rules them both. The law is inescapable, for an action is either lawful or unlawful. The law, indeed, may be said to have a life of its own, an existence quite apart from the finite lives of the beings who administer it. The law governs every aspect of human behavior; therefore, to the same extent that humans are lawful beings, the law is human. And being human, the law has its idiosyncrasies, just as a man has his. For a citizen who abides by the law [a bridge player who abides by the Lawbook's Proprieties], the law is distant and difficult to find. For those who reject and violate it, the law [Law 73F] emerges from its musty sepulchers and goes in search of the transgressor." 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/20140615/3813ebc7/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 16 03:17:46 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:17:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Al Ert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AC420C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, June 2014: >>>In the SBU, we don?t alert doubles. The EBU regulations seem better >>>but still too complex for most players to understand. I recommend >>>[1] Announce ?Penalty? doubles. >>>[2] Announce ?Take-out? doubles. >>>[3] Alert all other doubles. (Failure to alert might be deemed >>>sufficient, but alerting saves opponents the time taken to wait for a >>>possible announcement). >>> >>>Even more radical: IMO ?announcements? should completely >>>replace ?alerts?; >>>..... Konrad Ciborowski, December 2008: >>..... >>doubles are one of the most frequently used calls and most pairs >>simply have no agreements about doubles (except for obvious >>situations). >>..... Richard Hills, December 2008: >Many years ago Aussie expert Nick Hughes published a session >report of an expert Butler Pairs, a qualifying round to select the New >South Wales Open Team (Sydney bridge experts are more numerous >and higher quality than other Aussie experts, partly because Sydney >is Australia?s biggest city, and partly because of the continuing >influence of the late world-class Sydney player, Tim Seres). > >The overwhelming trend revealed by Nick?s Australian Bridge >article was that even the cr?me-de-la-cr?me of Sydney experts had >no idea about meta-rules for undiscussed doubles. Doubles intended >as takeout were perceived as penalties (hello -670) and doubles >intended as penalties were perceived as takeout (goodbye +800). > >So the ABF Regulating Authority, which lives in the real world (not >in the fantasy world of every single partnership having discussed >doubles as deeply as the Ali-Hills partnership has done ? system >notes emailed on request), has sensibly decided that the minor >inconvenience of doubles being self-alerting (no MI, since Aussie >players know doubles are self-alerting) is greatly outweighed by >the avoidance of vast numbers of Law 75A infractions had doubles >remained alertable. Extract from David Burn?s alert discussion paper: ?After finishing this paper, I have read correspondence (on an internet forum) from Belgium, where it is said that since Belgium adopted the regulation ?no double is alertable?, players have been inventing peculiar meanings for doubles in an effort to trap unwary opponents. Whereas I am well aware that the reaction to this in certain circles may be ?so that?s why we fought the War, eh?? I consider that it provides at least some reinforcement for the idea that we should not adopt such a regulation.? Richard Hills, June 2014: Some of the Ali-Hills doubles have ?peculiar meanings? But the Australian RA is much more sensible than the Belgian RA. In Australia peculiar doubles must be pre-alerted at the start of the round or match. Nigel Guthrie?s hobby-horse of announcements universally replacing alerts would generate ?vast numbers of Law 75A infractions? squared. But the ABF recently introduced two minimal announcements unlikely to cause Law 75A infractions: (a) An announcement of the nature of a 1C opening bid. For example, 2+ cards, 3+ cards, 16+ hcp and artificial (Precision Club) or forcing one round and artificial (Polish Club). [Formerly three of the four above possibilities were merely alerted, thus giving opponents insufficient information.] (b) An announcement of the hcp range of a 1NT opening bid. [Formerly asking ?Do you play a strong or weak 1NT,? gave UI that the questioner held values.] Totally irrelevant quote from Sheckley?s The Status Civilization: Besides, Harrisbourg?s wife?s uncle was a Minister of Public Works. Through him, Harrisbourg expected to receive a murder certificate. With this all-important document, he could make his six-months kill and move upward to the status of Privileged Citizen. Barrent nodded his agreement. But he wondered if Harrisbourg?s wife, a thin, restless woman, wouldn?t decide to poison him first. She appeared to be dissatisfied with her husband; and divorce was forbidden on Omega. 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/20140616/af7290d1/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 16 09:12:45 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:12:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Trait [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AC31A3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AC31A3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <539E98ED.3030408@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Richard Hills: >>>If a declarer claims without any analysis before (an occasional >>>habit of a long-standing blmler), then the Director rules that that >>>declarer loses doubtful tricks. > Herman De Wael: >>not every director. >>but again, what has this got to do with anything. Just because >>Richard makes a wrong ruling in one case his wrong ruling in >>another one must be right? > First sentence of Law 70A, which ?not every Director? obeys: > ?In ruling on a contested claim or concession, 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.? Quoting the law but not reading it? "every doubtful point". Who says I'm in doubt? I am in no doubt whatsoever that a person who claims without a moment's thought would not play without a moment's thought. The two processes are simply not the same. But that was not the discussion and Richard knows it. Herman. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jun 16 09:46:58 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:46:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Trait In-Reply-To: <53971932.3030608@verizon.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB2400@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53971932.3030608@verizon.net> Message-ID: <539EA0F2.5000800@btinternet.com> On 10/06/2014 15:41, Eric Landau wrote: > On 6/9/2014 6:09 PM, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> Richard Hills: The classic case is a 5H response to Keycard >> Blackwood. An opponent asks, ?Does that promise or deny the queen of >> trumps?? In the eventual slam declarer takes the two-way finesse for >> the queen of trumps through the other opponent. Unlucky. The >> questioner had the queen of trumps. An EBU Director would use Law 73F >> to adjust the score. >> Eric Landau: >>> IMO, the only time a player might lack a valid ?bridge reason? for >>> asking a question about his opponents? auction is when he already >>> knows the answer. >> Richard Hills: >> In the above example, the questioner knows that the 5H bidder does >> not **hold** the queen of trumps. > True but irrelevant, as the only legal questions are about the meaning > of the opponents' auction, not their actual holdings. > >> However, the questioner may not know whether or not the 5H bidder >> systemically **promises** the queen of trumps. If so, would Director >> Landau use Law 73F to adjust the score? > I would in this case, because the question was clearly improper and > potentially misleading. I would have no problem had the question been, > "What are your agreements about 5H?" > We've had a couple of cases here where the proper question got an incomplete answer, "Two key-cards" and so was followed up by a more pointed question from the player who held the trump queen. It has been established that they are entitled to ask this, regardless of their holding in the trump suit, in the face of incomplete information. Were it not to be so, an unscrupulous player could gain by deliberately failing to give a full answer and seeing whether either of his opponents asked. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jun 16 09:51:17 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:51:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Al Ert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB8242@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <539EA1F5.5060305@btinternet.com> On 13/06/2014 10:14, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > In the SBU, we don?t alert doubles. The EBU regulations seem better but > still too complex for most players to understand. I recommend > [1] Announce ?Penalty? doubles. > [2] Announce ?Take-out? doubles. > [3] Alert all other doubles. (Failure to alert might be deemed sufficient, > but alerting saves opponents the time taken to wait for a possible > announcement). Announcements have been successfully introduced by the EBU in various common situations where players are thought likely to know their own agreements and are therefore unlikely to gain from hearing them stated by their partners. That does not apply to Nigel's first two situations above, where players are often not on the same page as their partners. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jun 16 10:52:37 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:52:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Al Ert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <539EA1F5.5060305@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AB8242@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <539EA1F5.5060305@btinternet.com> Message-ID: [Nige1] I recommend [1] Announce ?Penalty? doubles. [2] Announce ?Take-out? doubles. [3] Alert all other doubles. (Failure to alert might be deemed sufficient, but alerting saves opponents the time taken to wait for a possible announcement). [Gordon Rainsford] Announcements have been successfully introduced by the EBU in various common situations where players are thought likely to know their own agreements and are therefore unlikely to gain from hearing them stated by their partners. That does not apply to Nigel's first two situations above, where players are often not on the same page as their partners. [Nigel] I agree with Gordon that the EBU rules are better than no alerts/announcements at all. But the EBU rules do keep dodgy partnerships on the same page -- distinguishing take-out from penalty doubles (the most frequent confusion according to Richard). Roughly speaking, in the EBU, you alert a double unless it is a - take-out double of a natural suit bid or - a penalty double of an artificial bid or a natural notrump bid. It is easy to make a mistake in alerting. AFAIR.... (1H) P (1N) X This double is alertable if it's take-out of 1H. (1H) X (1S) X The first (take-out) double is not alerted. The second (penalty) double is alerted. (2D) X (2H) X (Where 2D is Multi and 2H is Pass/Correct) The first double is alertable unless it's penalty of diamonds. The second double is alertable if it's penalty of hearts Anyway, like most EBU players I occasionally get these rules wrong. From sap.externals.lees at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 17 06:43:00 2014 From: sap.externals.lees at immi.gov.au (SAP Externals and LEES) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:43:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331ACD014@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL First sentence of Law 70A: "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, 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, June 2014: >>>Quoting the law but not reading it? >>>"every doubtful point". Who says I'm in doubt? >>> >>>I am in no doubt whatsoever that a person who claims without >>>a moment's thought would not play without a moment's thought. >>>The two processes are simply not the same. >>>..... Richard Hills, June 2014: Yes and No. The two processes are not the same, but I argue vice versa. When adjudicating a claim Law requires the Director to assume not any irrational plays. But a player who chooses not to claim sometimes perpetrates an irrational play "without a moment's thought". In an earlier post Herman asserted (perhaps because English is a second language for him) that "Yes and No" meant: "that way you are always right, Richard". Rather, the purpose of the phrase "Yes and No" is shorthand for "I do not see the issue under discussion as black-or-white, but rather a nuanced shade of grey". So in this case I support the nuanced shade of grey idea belonging to John (MadDog) Probst, quoted below. Grattan Endicott, December 2002: >>..... >>I do not believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility when >>clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying claimer the >>number of tricks that is available to the field and which becomes >>clamorous for recognition in the pursuit of his statement. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ J?rgen Rennenkampff, December 2002: >The prose is florid and the statement is clamorous nonsense: >Yesterday at the club the following end position arose (assume I >made it up, if you like); it is the last round and presumably declarer, >not otherwise incapable of playing such a hand correctly, is tired >and has evidently lost count: > > AT > -- > -- > 9 >K8 -- >-- T5 >-- Q >T -- > J > A6 > -- > -- > >South plays the HA and while I am discarding the CT she, without >waiting for my card to become clearly visible, calls for the C9. > >Is it your opinion that she should be awarded the 3 tricks available >to any player who is not asleep? Or should she be awarded the >third trick only after an illogical claim of 2 tricks? John (MadDog) Probst, December 2002: I would award three tricks on the claim, and two tricks on the play (subject to South convincing me that no clubs higher than the 10 remain). As far as I'm concerned, one of the benefits of claiming is that one is *protected* from stupid errors. It's certainly one of the reasons that I do it, apart from liking to play 16 hands an hour, so I can go for a ciggy and a beer most rounds. 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/20140617/0b05219a/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 17 08:32:41 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:32:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331ACD014@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331ACD014@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <539FE109.8000406@skynet.be> SAP Externals and LEES schreef: >>>>?every doubtful point?. Who says I?m in doubt? >>>> >>>>I am in no doubt whatsoever that a person who claims without >>>>a moment?s thought would not play without a moment?s thought. >>>>The two processes are simply not the same. >>>>..... > Richard Hills, June 2014: > Yes and No. > The two processes are not the same, but I argue vice versa. When > adjudicating a claim Law requires the Director to assume not any > irrational plays. But a player who chooses not to claim sometimes > perpetrates an irrational play ?without a moment?s thought?. What? Of course a player who chooses not to claim sometimes perpetrates an irrational play. He also sometimes revokes. But the claim laws are such, that both revokes and irrational plays are not to be regarded in the lines of play (and I don't see how the claim laws could say otherwise without punishing every single claim by awarding zero tricks). Now the point I was trying to make is this one: If one looks at a lay-out and decides that it is irrational for a player not to notice some line of play, then the mere fact that the player claimed without mentioning that obvious line does not render the line "normal" for that claimer. Especially not when it appears that the player claimed without even looking at the details of the two hands. Rather, it is the player who claims after looking at the hand for three minutes and then fails to mention some "obvious" point who might be considered having overlooked that point. And don't worry, I will look for any doubt. But the mere fact that something is not mentioned does not automatically mean that I will rule against. And quoting the law about "doubtful points" serves no purpose, Richard, as I will find there are no doubtful points left to be resolved. I don't need you to agree to this in every case, I just want you to see that such rulings are possible, and I objected to your ad-hominem attack (without mentioning my name, so I apologize if it was not your intention to single me out) in a post about something entirely different. It is a very bad argument, not to say very bad manners, to try and win one discussion by pointing out that your opponent is wrong about something entirely different. Especially when that different discussion has been done several times without any consensus that he is wrong. what if I were to say: "Richard must be wrong about claims, because everyone knows Australian Immigration Policy is unfair and against principles of Human Rights." To make clear: I have no views about Australian Immigration Policies. They just don't matter in a discussion about claims. Herman. > In an earlier post Herman asserted (perhaps because English is a > second language for him) that ?Yes and No? meant: > ?that way you are always right, Richard?. > Rather, the purpose of the phrase ?Yes and No? is shorthand for ?I > do not see the issue under discussion as black-or-white, but rather a > nuanced shade of grey?. So in this case I support the nuanced shade > of grey idea belonging to John (MadDog) Probst, quoted below. > Grattan Endicott, December 2002: >>>..... >>>I do not believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility when >>>clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying claimer the >>>number of tricks that is available to the field and which becomes >>>clamorous for recognition in the pursuit of his statement. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > J?rgen Rennenkampff, December 2002: >>The prose is florid and the statement is clamorous nonsense: >>Yesterday at the club the following end position arose (assume I >>made it up, if you like); it is the last round and presumably declarer, >>not otherwise incapable of playing such a hand correctly, is tired >>and has evidently lost count: >> >> AT >> -- >> -- >> 9 >>K8 -- >>-- T5 >>-- Q >>T -- >> J >> A6 >> -- >> -- >> >>South plays the HA and while I am discarding the CT she, without >>waiting for my card to become clearly visible, calls for the C9. >> >>Is it your opinion that she should be awarded the 3 tricks available >>to any player who is not asleep? Or should she be awarded the >>third trick only after an illogical claim of 2 tricks? > John (MadDog) Probst, December 2002: > I would award three tricks on the claim, and two tricks on the play > (subject to South convincing me that no clubs higher than the 10 > remain). > As far as I?m concerned, one of the benefits of claiming is that one is > **protected** from stupid errors. It?s certainly one of the reasons that I > do it, apart from liking to play 16 hands an hour, so I can go for a > ciggy and a beer most rounds. > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 06:17:20 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:17:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >What? >Of course a player who chooses not to claim sometimes perpetrates an >irrational play. He also sometimes revokes. But the claim laws are such, >that both revokes and irrational plays are not to be regarded in the >lines of play (and I don't see how the claim laws could say otherwise >without punishing every single claim by awarding zero tricks). Richard Hills: Agreed. This is the point that Grattan Endicott mellifluously made and John Probst clearly made. Herman De Wael: >Now the point I was trying to make is this one: If one looks at a >lay-out and decides that it is irrational for a player not to notice >some line of play, then the mere fact that the player claimed without >mentioning that obvious line does not render the line "normal" for that >claimer. Especially not when it appears that the player claimed without >even looking at the details of the two hands. >Rather, it is the player who claims after looking at the hand for three >minutes and then fails to mention some "obvious" point who might be >considered having overlooked that point. Richard Hills: Disagree. In my opinion the amount of time that a player spends on looking at a hand before claiming without a statement neither renders an irrational line normal, nor renders a normal line irrational. That is, if I was the Director, a quick claimer would get the same ruling as a slow claimer if all other circumstances were identical. Herman De Wael: >And don't worry, I will look for any doubt. But the mere fact that >something is not mentioned does not automatically mean that I will >rule against. Richard Hills: In my opinion, as discussed extensively on blml a while back, there is necessarily some doubt about the arbitrarily created De Wael principle, "when adjudicating a claim without any statement, always assume that trumps are played last". As I recall, I mentioned at the time that a former semi-expert partner of mine failed in a cold 7D contract because he used the opposite arbitrary principle, "draw one more trump for lurkers," thus falling one trick short on the later necessary cross-ruff. :( :( Herman De Wael: >And quoting the law about "doubtful points" serves no purpose, >Richard, as I will find there are no doubtful points left to be >resolved. Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass (slightly modified): "When I use the 'doubtful' word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make the 'doubtful' word mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the Director - that's all." 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/20140620/88d05976/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 20 08:13:37 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:13:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53A3D111.603@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > Richard Hills: > Disagree. In my opinion the amount of time that a player spends on > looking at a hand before claiming without a statement neither renders > an irrational line normal, nor renders a normal line irrational. That is, > if I was the Director, a quick claimer would get the same ruling as a > slow claimer if all other circumstances were identical. But that's just the point - the situations are not identical. A slow claimer has looked at the hand, and not mentioned something, so we might believe he has not noticed it. A fast claimer, who does not mention that same thing could very well not have "seen" it (rather than "noticed" it). Some things are too obvious to miss, unless one does not even open their eyes. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 20 08:16:15 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:16:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53A3D1AF.2090708@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > Richard Hills: > In my opinion, as discussed extensively on blml a while back, there > is necessarily some doubt about the arbitrarily created De Wael > principle, ?when adjudicating a claim without any statement, always > assume that trumps are played last?. As I recall, I mentioned at the > time that a former semi-expert partner of mine failed in a cold 7D > contract because he used the opposite arbitrary principle, ?draw one > more trump for lurkers,? thus falling one trick short on the later > necessary cross-ruff. L L A totally different topic, and yet again, an ad-hominem attack. When Richard fails to make a point, he regurgitates a point he and I disagree upon, and writes in such a tone as to make my points so ridiculous there should be no credence to any other point I am trying to make. This topic has been discussed and Richard will refuse to see any sense, so let's let this baby sleep. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 20 09:29:07 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:29:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD2891@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Dylan Thomas (1914-1953): The hand that signed the treaty bred a fever, And famine grew, and locusts came; Great is the hand that holds dominion over Man by a scribbled name. What the scribe of the 2001 EBL AC actually scribbled: "It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." What was _not_ the 2001 EBL AC's reasoning: "It is the view of the Committee however that this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." Herman De Wael, February 2009: >OK, so tell me what "in a case like this" means. Richard Hills, February 2009: The second and hypothetical statement, the one which was not made, would be the Appeals Committee's view of a general exception applying to the previous general rule (which previous general rule would then hypothetically only apply to no-trump claims). The first and actual statement, the one which was made, merely states that this Appeals Committee believes that it should decide this particular case (and, if the identical Appeals Committee later reconvenes, what it thinks are cases "like this" -- an undefined term) on the basis of trumps last. Herman De Wael, February 2009: >So I believe that the AC decision is pertinent to the >question asked. Law 93B1: "The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon **such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law**....." Law 93B3: "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, **except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law**....." Richard Hills, February 2009: Since any and every Appeals Committee has zero power to interpret the Lawbook, it is a contradiction in terms for Herman De Wael to argue that an Appeals Committee decision is "pertinent" to creating a new interpretation of the Lawbook. Law 70E2 (first part): "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..." Herman De Wael, February 2009: >And I think e.g. is a word just like "such as". Richard Hills, February 2009: Correct. Herman De Wael, February 2009: >So this list, even only one item long, should not mean that >other things are excluded. Richard Hills, February 2009: Grammatical error. Because the bracketed example "(e.g. 'from the top down')" is nested within a sentence, the example only applies to that sentence, which is about "a suit", _not_ about "several suits". So a Regulating Authority only has the power to specify an order of play for a single suit. If it wishes, the "e.g." in Law 70E2 permits the Regulating Authority to specify that a single suit is played "from the bottom up" or "from the middle". Law 70E2 (second part) "...(but always subject to any other requirement of this Law)." Richard Hills, February 2009: So no matter what the Regulating Authority specifies, it can be overridden by other requirements of Law 70, most notably this provision of Law 70A (General Objective): "...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer..." What's the problem? Nigel Guthrie, February 2009, not an "ad hominem" attack :) : >>Richard contentiously asks "What's the problem?" about any >>half-baked solution :) >>..... >>For example, some players find it hard to express themselves >>lucidly, especially in a foreign language. Richard Hills, February 2009, "ad hominem" attack on Richard: Yes, my blml postings demonstrably suggest that English is a foreign language to me, so therefore this fact is unauthorized information to my readers (Law 16B1). What's the problem? :) :) 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/20140620/5ce7ea5b/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 20 10:01:28 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:01:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD2891@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD2891@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53A3EA58.4040204@skynet.be> What a load of dribble! (and yes, that is ad-hominem) Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Dylan Thomas (1914-1953): > The hand that signed the treaty bred a fever, > And famine grew, and locusts came; > Great is the hand that holds dominion over > Man by a scribbled name. [I will not snip anything in this post] > What the scribe of the 2001 EBL AC actually scribbled: > ?It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case > like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is > cashed last.? please tell me where I scribbled this so that I can explain the difference with: > What was _not_ the 2001 EBL AC?s reasoning: > ?It is the view of the Committee however that this does not > include the trump suit, which is cashed last.? or when I wrote that one. > Herman De Wael, February 2009: >>OK, so tell me what ?in a case like this? means. > Richard Hills, February 2009: > The second and hypothetical statement, the one which was > not made, would be the Appeals Committee?s view of a general > exception applying to the previous general rule (which > previous general rule would then hypothetically only apply > to no-trump claims). what general rule? there are no "general rules", except in the mind of individuals who do not care about the Law, just about those "general rules" that they accept. > The first and actual statement, the one which was made, > merely states that this Appeals Committee believes that it > should decide this particular case (and, if the identical > Appeals Committee later reconvenes, what it thinks are > cases ?like this? -- an undefined term) on the basis of > trumps last. Yes, so, unless we drag up the case, we need to see what this particular case is. Anyway, what the EBL clearly decided is that in this case, and others like it, the rule that trumps are cashed first does not apply. Now it does not matter what the cases like it are, fact is that the "general rule" that trumps are treated just like any other suit, is invalid. So sticking to that "general rule" is wrong, especially when used to criticize this particular EBL appeal decision, and probably others like it. > Herman De Wael, February 2009: >>So I believe that the AC decision is pertinent to the >>question asked. Without knowing what question was asked in 2009, there is nothing to be learnt from this quote. > Law 93B1: > ?The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon **such part > of the appeal as deals solely with the Law**.....? And I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion. > Law 93B3: > ?In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all > powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, **except > that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on > a point of law**.....? Indeed, and? > Richard Hills, February 2009: > Since any and every Appeals Committee has zero power to > interpret the Lawbook, it is a contradiction in terms for > Herman De Wael to argue that an Appeals Committee decision > is ?pertinent? to creating a new interpretation of the Lawbook. Unless the lawbook states that trumps are to be cashed first, or last, it is the duty of the director, and by extension the AC, to rule that they are or that they are not. So this is pertinent. What Richard is actually saying is that, sinnce Richard has issued a "general rule" that trumps are to be drawn first, it is illegal for any AC to rule otherwise. Need I really go on? > Law 70E2 (first part): > ?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...? MAY > Herman De Wael, February 2009: >>And I think e.g. is a word just like ?such as?. > Richard Hills, February 2009: > Correct. > Herman De Wael, February 2009: >>So this list, even only one item long, should not mean that >>other things are excluded. > Richard Hills, February 2009: > Grammatical error. Because the bracketed example ?(e.g. ?from > the top down?)? is nested within a sentence, the example only > applies to that sentence, which is about ?a suit?, _not_ about > ?several suits?. > So a Regulating Authority only has the power to specify an > order of play for a single suit. > If it wishes, the ?e.g.? in Law 70E2 permits the Regulating > Authority to specify that a single suit is played ?from the > bottom up? or ?from the middle?. > Law 70E2 (second part) > ?...(but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).? > Richard Hills, February 2009: > So no matter what the Regulating Authority specifies, it can be > overridden by other requirements of Law 70, most notably this > provision of Law 70A (General Objective): > ?...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against > the claimer...? > What?s the problem? You. > Nigel Guthrie, February 2009, not an ?ad hominem? attack J : >>>Richard contentiously asks ?What?s the problem?? about any >>>half-baked solutionJ >>>..... >>>For example, some players find it hard to express themselves >>>lucidly, especially in a foreign language. > Richard Hills, February 2009, ?ad hominem? attack on Richard: > Yes, my blml postings demonstrably suggest that English is a > foreign language to me, so therefore this fact is unauthorized > information to my readers (Law 16B1). > What?s the problem? J J > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Jun 20 15:21:59 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:21:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <7C8A0649-1B69-49B7-A68D-4D33D17B7C49@verizon.net> On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Richard James HILLS wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >What? > >Of course a player who chooses not to claim sometimes perpetrates an > >irrational play. He also sometimes revokes. But the claim laws are such, > >that both revokes and irrational plays are not to be regarded in the > >lines of play (and I don't see how the claim laws could say otherwise > >without punishing every single claim by awarding zero tricks). > > Richard Hills: > > Agreed. This is the point that Grattan Endicott mellifluously made and > John Probst clearly made. > > Herman De Wael: > > >Now the point I was trying to make is this one: If one looks at a > >lay-out and decides that it is irrational for a player not to notice > >some line of play, then the mere fact that the player claimed without > >mentioning that obvious line does not render the line ?normal? for that > >claimer. Especially not when it appears that the player claimed without > >even looking at the details of the two hands. > >Rather, it is the player who claims after looking at the hand for three > >minutes and then fails to mention some ?obvious? point who might be > >considered having overlooked that point. > > Richard Hills: > > Disagree. In my opinion the amount of time that a player spends on > looking at a hand before claiming without a statement neither renders > an irrational line normal, nor renders a normal line irrational. That is, > if I was the Director, a quick claimer would get the same ruling as a > slow claimer if all other circumstances were identical. A player who "claimed without even looking at the details of the two hands" cannot know with confidence how many tricks he is likely to take, and can only be claiming the number of tricks he aspires to take, hoping the opponents will accept the claim and save him the trouble of actually looking at the "details". While I might give him "the same ruling as a slow claimer if all other circumstances were identical", I would also give him a stern lecture, and make it clear that a repeat incident would warrant disciplinary action. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140620/19f20a43/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jun 21 12:18:52 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:18:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) In-Reply-To: <7C8A0649-1B69-49B7-A68D-4D33D17B7C49@verizon.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <7C8A0649-1B69-49B7-A68D-4D33D17B7C49@verizon.net> Message-ID: <53A55C0C.2080107@skynet.be> I agree with Eric, but would like to add some extenuating circumstances: Eric Landau schreef: > > A player who "claimed without even looking at the details of the two > hands" cannot know with confidence how many tricks he is likely to take, > and can only be claiming the number of tricks he aspires to take, hoping > the opponents will accept the claim and save him the trouble of actually > looking at the "details". While I might give him "the same ruling as a > slow claimer if all other circumstances were identical", I would also > give him a stern lecture, and make it clear that a repeat incident would > warrant disciplinary action. > Two extenuations: - A player may not wish to claim, but do so unintentionally. As in "why did you stop in four? it's seven!". Such a player is willing to accept 12 tricks, but we should not withhold him from 13 tricks if this is what he can expect. - No player is never expecting to get the best result when claiming too quickly. The fact that he may get 12 tricks when almost everyone scores 13 with a little thought should be enough to discourage this behaviour. But if everyone scores 13 tricks, so should this player. I believe there is no need to punish irrational claims by imposing irrational plays. So a stern lecture maybe, but no disciplinary action needed. Herman. > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 24 05:07:03 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 03:07:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50C1@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL "Living Next Door To Alice" chorus (slightly modified): Oh, I don't know why I'm leaving, Or where I'm gonna go, I guess I've got my reasons, But I just don't want to know, 'Cos for twenty-six years I've been living next door to Immi. Twenty-six years just waiting for a chance, To tell it how I feel, and maybe get a second glance, Now I've got to get used to not living next door to Immi... Richard Hills, June 2014: After twenty-six years' service, I will be retiring from the Department of Immigration in approximately one month's time. Herman De Wael, June 2014: >..... >what if I were to say: "Richard must be wrong about claims, because >everyone knows Australian Immigration Policy is unfair and against >principles of Human Rights." >To make clear: I have no views about Australian Immigration Policies. >They just don't matter in a discussion about claims. Richard Hills, June 2014: Yes and No. Now that I am retiring I can say that Australian Immigration Policy is unfair. But fairness - equity to both sides - does matter in a discussion about claims. The Claim Laws have as their Prime Directive: "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but ..... " Now that I am ejecting from Immi, I will also eject from blml. (I will have better things to do in my spare time in retirement.) So in this valejectory thread I will reminisce about favourite posts written by myself and others. Below is a post with words from another blmler, but set to music by myself. Fowler, "Modern English Usage": "Petitio principii" or "begging the question". The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. "Arguing in a circle is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right." Richard Hills, February 2009, asserts: >>Unintentionally ("without design") giving incorrect disclosure of >>partnership methods is an infraction. But unintentionally ("without >>design") creating unauthorised information is not an infraction, so >>there is not any possible conflict between the requirement to avoid >>creation of MI, and the requirement to obey Law 73C. Richard Hills, February 2009, quibbles: >>What about Laws 73D2 and 73F? Is not creating UI deemed to be >>an infraction in those circumstances? Richard Hills, February 2009, bashes: >>Richard deliberately goes around my argument again; this is just >>plain silly > >>As always Richard has not thought everything through to its >>logical conclusion; the only reason Richard is writing this is >>because we disagree. >> >>Richard has never even attempted to prove me wrong. He has >>repeated the same arguments over and over again. Please don't go >>turning my words around and don't use false logic. >> >>Drop this argument now. It is wrong. Richard Hills, February 2009, apologises: >>Yes, my Law 73D2 and 73F example was really too silly. I was >>inviting a case just to find an argument - too crazy for words. >> >>I should not criticise Richard for repeating over and over that >>he's right. All Richard's posts contain detailed logical reasoning >>as to why he believes I am wrong. Mine do not always contain >>such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. (sic) Richard Hills, February 2009, bashes again: >>Richard's claim that I am always logical is most certainly >>untrue. This is not just a personal preference but a reasoned >>personal preference. >> >>Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point many >>of you need to realise. 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/20140624/2b67a96a/attachment.html From arbhuston at aol.com Tue Jun 24 05:30:19 2014 From: arbhuston at aol.com (,) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:30:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53A3D1AF.2090708@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD1787@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53A3D1AF.2090708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D15D73C1DD077B-4718-5F13@webmail-va003.sysops.aol.com> If I understand you gentlemen correctly, then you might also disagree about this situation: Declarer is in 5C (opponents cash two tricks in Spades, a suit in which declaring side has doubletons). At this point, declarer has all top tricks if he can manage to get back and forth between dummy and hand. However his trump suit is KJ opp. AQ9xxxx. Declarer faces his hand and says he can win the remainder on any continuation. Declarer also says that if the one on lead continues a Spade, he can ruff in either hand. There are no possible ruffs available to the opponents, but the trumps split 4-0 and, thus, if declarer ruffs in the hand with only two trumps (next to play after the person on lead), he will inevitably lose a trick to the CT. Clearly it is irrational to ruff in the hand with the doubleton Club. However, declarer made a statement of claim which included that possibility. I seem to understand that Herman would allow the claim on the grounds that a poor statement of claim does not (or cannot) require declarer to play the cards irrationally. I understand Eric and Richard to be in the camp that would disallow the claim since the line of play in the claim statement incorporates the losing line as an acceptable option. Doesn't it seem clear that without a "clarifying" statement of claim, this claim would have been allowed? Does anyone think it makes a difference that this claim occurred in the National Fast Pairs (yes, in the ACBL such things exist)? Michael Huston -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List blml at rtflb.org Sent: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard James HILLS schreef: > Richard Hills: > In my opinion, as discussed extensively on blml a while back, there > is necessarily some doubt about the arbitrarily created De Wael > principle, ?when adjudicating a claim without any statement, always > assume that trumps are played last?. As I recall, I mentioned at the > time that a former semi-expert partner of mine failed in a cold 7D > contract because he used the opposite arbitrary principle, ?draw one > more trump for lurkers,? thus falling one trick short on the later > necessary cross-ruff. L L A totally different topic, and yet again, an ad-hominem attack. When Richard fails to make a point, he regurgitates a point he and I disagree upon, and writes in such a tone as to make my points so ridiculous there should be no credence to any other point I am trying to make. This topic has been discussed and Richard will refuse to see any sense, so let's let this baby sleep. Herman. _______________________________________________ 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/20140624/2f1807dc/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 24 06:01:31 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:01:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Doubtful claim (was Trait) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50F5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL 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 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. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.? Michael Huston, 24th June 2014: If I understand you gentlemen correctly, then you might also disagree about this situation: Declarer is in 5C (opponents cash two tricks in Spades, a suit in which declaring side has doubletons). At this point, declarer has all top tricks if he can manage to get back and forth between dummy and hand. However his trump suit is KJ opp. AQ9xxxx. Declarer faces his hand and says he can win the remainder on any continuation. Declarer also says that if the one on lead continues a Spade, he can ruff in either hand. There are no possible ruffs available to the opponents, but the trumps split 4-0 and, thus, if declarer ruffs in the hand with only two trumps (next to play after the person on lead), he will inevitably lose a trick to the CT. Clearly it is irrational to ruff in the hand with the doubleton Club. However, declarer made a statement of claim which included that possibility. I seem to understand that Herman would allow the claim on the grounds that a poor statement of claim does not (or cannot) require declarer to play the cards irrationally. I understand Eric and Richard to be in the camp that would disallow the claim since the line of play in the claim statement incorporates the losing line as an acceptable option. Doesn?t it seem clear that without a ?clarifying? statement of claim, this claim would have been allowed? Does anyone think it makes a difference that this claim occurred in the National Fast Pairs (yes, in the ACBL such things exist)? Grattan Endicott, 1st April 2009: > +=+ It is a non-sequitur. There is nothing in the law > that stops the Director following a line proposed by > the claimer because it is irrational. Herman stands > the law upon its head, and himself with it. Irrational > plays are *not* excluded by law. What Law 70E1 > does is to stop the Director disallowing a claimer?s > supplementarily proposed play if not to make that > play would be irrational. > ~ G ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140624/73aeb207/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 24 06:32:27 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:32:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Another Doubtful Claim In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50F5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50F5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: In a four-card ending, declarer claimed 4 diamond tricks with Axxx of diamonds opposite K10x. There were 2 diamonds out, one player having Jx. I gave this to a few good players, and I asked the actual to play the hand out blind. No one saw the upcoming problem. Everyone saw the problem once the K had been cashed. The declarer, for example, with his hand face down on the table, said he was playing the 10 of diamonds to the ace. It might be a problem worth providing a standard answer to. Hey, I directed 6 sessions of bridge on Saturday, by myself. Is that a record? Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140624/6ebccf8f/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jun 24 10:12:27 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:12:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50C1@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50C1@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <9B7626F2FECF4294A248408877974992@G3> Enjoy your retirement, Richard; Giving up the day job is fine but please don?t abandon BLML! From: Richard James HILLS Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:07 AM To: Laws Bridge Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL ?Living Next Door To Alice? chorus (slightly modified): Oh, I don?t know why I?m leaving, Or where I?m gonna go, I guess I?ve got my reasons, But I just don?t want to know, ?Cos for twenty-six years I?ve been living next door to Immi. Twenty-six years just waiting for a chance, To tell it how I feel, and maybe get a second glance, Now I?ve got to get used to not living next door to Immi... Richard Hills, June 2014: After twenty-six years? service, I will be retiring from the Department of Immigration in approximately one month?s time. Herman De Wael, June 2014: >..... >what if I were to say: ?Richard must be wrong about claims, because >everyone knows Australian Immigration Policy is unfair and against >principles of Human Rights.? >To make clear: I have no views about Australian Immigration Policies. >They just don?t matter in a discussion about claims. Richard Hills, June 2014: Yes and No. Now that I am retiring I can say that Australian Immigration Policy is unfair. But fairness ? equity to both sides ? does matter in a discussion about claims. The Claim Laws have as their Prime Directive: ?In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but ..... ? Now that I am ejecting from Immi, I will also eject from blml. (I will have better things to do in my spare time in retirement.) So in this valejectory thread I will reminisce about favourite posts written by myself and others. Below is a post with words from another blmler, but set to music by myself. Fowler, ?Modern English Usage?: ?Petitio principii? or ?begging the question?. The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. ?Arguing in a circle is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right.? Richard Hills, February 2009, asserts: >>Unintentionally (?without design?) giving incorrect disclosure of >>partnership methods is an infraction. But unintentionally (?without >>design?) creating unauthorised information is not an infraction, so >>there is not any possible conflict between the requirement to avoid >>creation of MI, and the requirement to obey Law 73C. Richard Hills, February 2009, quibbles: >>What about Laws 73D2 and 73F? Is not creating UI deemed to be >>an infraction in those circumstances? Richard Hills, February 2009, bashes: >>Richard deliberately goes around my argument again; this is just >>plain silly > >>As always Richard has not thought everything through to its >>logical conclusion; the only reason Richard is writing this is >>because we disagree. >> >>Richard has never even attempted to prove me wrong. He has >>repeated the same arguments over and over again. Please don?t go >>turning my words around and don?t use false logic. >> >>Drop this argument now. It is wrong. Richard Hills, February 2009, apologises: >>Yes, my Law 73D2 and 73F example was really too silly. I was >>inviting a case just to find an argument ? too crazy for words. >> >>I should not criticise Richard for repeating over and over that >>he?s right. All Richard?s posts contain detailed logical reasoning >>as to why he believes I am wrong. Mine do not always contain >>such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. (sic) Richard Hills, February 2009, bashes again: >>Richard?s claim that I am always logical is most certainly >>untrue. This is not just a personal preference but a reasoned >>personal preference. >> >>Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point many >>of you need to realise. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140624/dc503b34/attachment-0001.html From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Tue Jun 24 11:30:01 2014 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:30:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Another Doubtful Claim In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50F5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: 2014-06-24 6:32 GMT+02:00 Robert Frick : > > > Hey, I directed 6 sessions of bridge on Saturday, by myself. Is that a > record? > > depends on how you define a session. In a barometer tournament, you could call any number of rounds a session, even just the one. That way, I have once directed 27 sessions in a day (admittedly ending after midnight, so you might have to call it just 23). Tell me the number of boards the players played and I'll tell you if I can better it. I have done marathons of 115 boards (23 rounds of 5). Interesting claim problem, by the way. I might rule against the 4 tricks (unless there is ample communication in other suits, of course). > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > Herman. -- This mail was sent from Opatija, Croatia (at the European Bridge Championships). Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140624/69df20e5/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jun 24 13:09:17 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:09:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Another Doubtful Claim In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50F5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53A95C5D.9040702@btinternet.com> I think the first time I directed the Young Chelsea Marathon I did all the sessions - 5x33 = 165 boards. Thereafter I used to do take off the third & fourth sessions. Gordon On 24/06/2014 10:30, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > 2014-06-24 6:32 GMT+02:00 Robert Frick >: > > > > Hey, I directed 6 sessions of bridge on Saturday, by myself. Is > that a record? > > depends on how you define a session. In a barometer tournament, you > could call any number of rounds a session, even just the one. That > way, I have once directed 27 sessions in a day (admittedly ending > after midnight, so you might have to call it just 23). Tell me the > number of boards the players played and I'll tell you if I can better > it. I have done marathons of 115 boards (23 rounds of 5). > > Interesting claim problem, by the way. I might rule against the 4 > tricks (unless there is ample communication in other suits, of course). > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Herman. > > -- > This mail was sent from Opatija, Croatia (at the European Bridge > Championships). > Please do not save this address - always use: > hermandw at skynet.be . > Herman De Wael > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140624/0e947793/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jun 24 16:10:45 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:10:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9B7626F2FECF4294A248408877974992@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AD50C1@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <9B7626F2FECF4294A248408877974992@G3> Message-ID: <53A986E5.6060002@aol.com> I agree, please don't abandon blml. JE Am 24.06.2014 10:12, schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > Enjoy your retirement, Richard; > Giving up the day job is fine but please don?t abandon BLML! > *From:* Richard James HILLS > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:07 AM > *To:* Laws Bridge > *Subject:* [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > UNOFFICIAL > ?Living Next Door To Alice? chorus (slightly modified): > Oh, I don?t know why I?m leaving, > Or where I?m gonna go, > I guess I?ve got my reasons, > But I just don?t want to know, > ?Cos for twenty-six years > I?ve been living next door to Immi. > Twenty-six years just waiting for a chance, > To tell it how I feel, and maybe get a second glance, > Now I?ve got to get used to not living next door to Immi... > Richard Hills, June 2014: > After twenty-six years? service, I will be retiring from the Department > of Immigration in approximately one month?s time. > Herman De Wael, June 2014: > >..... > >what if I were to say: ?Richard must be wrong about claims, because > >everyone knows Australian Immigration Policy is unfair and against > >principles of Human Rights.? > >To make clear: I have no views about Australian Immigration Policies. > >They just don?t matter in a discussion about claims. > Richard Hills, June 2014: > Yes and No. > Now that I am retiring I can say that Australian Immigration Policy is > unfair. But fairness ? equity to both sides ? does matter in a discussion > about claims. The Claim Laws have as their Prime Directive: > ?In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but > ..... ? > Now that I am ejecting from Immi, I will also eject from blml. (I will > have better things to do in my spare time in retirement.) So in this > valejectory thread I will reminisce about favourite posts written by > myself and others. Below is a post with words from another blmler, > but set to music by myself. > Fowler, ?Modern English Usage?: > ?/Petitio //principii/? or ?begging the question?. The fallacy of founding > a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the > conclusion itself. > ?*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) > examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it > murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of > government because the majority are always right.? > Richard Hills, February 2009, asserts: > >>Unintentionally (?without design?) giving incorrect disclosure of > >>partnership methods is an infraction. But unintentionally (?without > >>design?) creating unauthorised information is not an infraction, so > >>there is not any possible conflict between the requirement to avoid > >>creation of MI, and the requirement to obey Law 73C. > Richard Hills, February 2009, quibbles: > >>What about Laws 73D2 and 73F? Is not creating UI deemed to be > >>an infraction in those circumstances? > Richard Hills, February 2009, bashes: > >>Richard deliberately goes around my argument again; this is just > >>plain silly > > > >>As always Richard has not thought everything through to its > >>logical conclusion; the only reason Richard is writing this is > >>because we disagree. > >> > >>Richard has never even attempted to prove me wrong. He has > >>repeated the same arguments over and over again. Please don?t go > >>turning my words around and don?t use false logic. > >> > >>Drop this argument now. It is wrong. > Richard Hills, February 2009, apologises: > >>Yes, my Law 73D2 and 73F example was really too silly. I was > >>inviting a case just to find an argument ? too crazy for words. > >> > >>I should not criticise Richard for repeating over and over that > >>he?s right. All Richard?s posts contain detailed logical reasoning > >>as to why he believes I am wrong. Mine do not always contain > >>such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. (sic) > Richard Hills, February 2009, bashes again: > >>Richard?s claim that I am always logical is most certainly > >>untrue. This is not just a personal preference but a reasoned > >>personal preference. > >> > >>Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point many > >>of you need to realise. > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 26 05:58:04 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 03:58:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331ADEF9A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >>Enjoy your retirement, Richard; >>Giving up the day job is fine but please don?t abandon BLML! Jeff Easterson: >I agree, please don?t abandon blml. JE Richard Hills: Thank you both. I will investigate establishing a new email address via Google?s gmail. Nigel often attempts to reframe blml discussions by defining non- offending sides as ?victims? and by defining offending sides as ?Law breakers?. Is Nigel correct in so doing? Yes and No. Non-offending sides cannot be ?victimised? by blatant cheats, who will go to the well too often and get expelled. But there will be a multitude of victims ? at the actual table and also at the other tables (because bridge is a zero-sum game) ? when a grey-ethics player and/or a pseudo-Director tests the boundaries of the Laws in their favour. This point is discussed in Peter Gill?s May 2001 encomium of me: >>>?for the class of player involved? (Footnote to Law 69B) ... >>> >>>Herman, Richard Hills, whom I realise you do not know >>>personally, is anything but a beginner. An expert card >>>player, deep thinker and exceedingly ethical player (in fact, >>>the rare kind of player whose bridge record might have >>>been more glittering had he been less ethical, sad but true >>>to say), but no resemblance whatsoever to a beginner. >>> >>>Peter Gill >>>Australia. 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/20140626/97829b10/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Jun 26 20:28:32 2014 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jesus, Hotlips, go ahead and resign your damn commission. Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard James HILLS Sent: 06/25/2014 11:58 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >>Enjoy your retirement, Richard; >>Giving up the day job is fine but please don?t abandon BLML! Jeff Easterson: >I agree, please don?t abandon blml. JE Richard Hills: Thank you both. I will investigate establishing a new email address via Google?s gmail. Nigel often attempts to reframe blml discussions by defining non- offending sides as ?victims? and by defining offending sides as ?Law breakers?. Is Nigel correct in so doing? Yes and No. Non-offending sides cannot be ?victimised? by blatant cheats, who will go to the well too often and get expelled. But there will be a multitude of victims ? at the actual table and also at the other tables (because bridge is a zero-sum game) ? when a grey-ethics player and/or a pseudo-Director tests the boundaries of the Laws in their favour. This point is discussed in Peter Gill?s May 2001 encomium of me: >>>?for the class of player involved? (Footnote to Law 69B) ... >>> >>>Herman, Richard Hills, whom I realise you do not know >>>personally, is anything but a beginner. An expert card >>>player, deep thinker and exceedingly ethical player (in fact, >>>the rare kind of player whose bridge record might have >>>been more glittering had he been less ethical, sad but true >>>to say), but no resemblance whatsoever to a beginner. >>> >>>Peter Gill >>>Australia. 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/20140626/7ec70b6e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 27 06:19:46 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:19:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AE0903@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL In the "X as first call" thread, March 2004, Kojak wrote: >So, I should now discard the law that is >applicable, substitute my greater knowledge and >prescience for a simple situation, and come up >with some manufactured solution. Richard James Hills replies, March 2004: Kojak should not be critical of blmler sea- lawyers from coming up with minor manufactured solutions - that is peanuts compared to a major manufactured solution that a real lawyer could generate. See attached. Best wishes RJH * * * Letters of Marque : Heidi Bond's blog of life as a weird Michigan law student. December 09, 2003 Sauron: Offer and acceptance "As a small token of your friendship Sauron asks this," he said: "that you should find this thief," such was his word, "and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?" --The Fellowship of the Ring, in "The Council of Elrond" It seems to me that's really two, maybe three separate offers. The first seems to be unambiguously an offer for a unilateral contract (to find the supposedly piddling ring for three of the Dwarf rings of power plus the estate of Moria), to be completed by performance. Dain wouldn't want to bind himself to produce a ring; it's too risky. This seems like the straight-forward reward scenario envisioned as a prototypical offer for a unilateral contract. A few comments on material facts: You might say that Sauron should have disclosed the Balrog living in the deeps of Moria. But the Dwarves had ancient records of Moria which probably mention this, and Sauron is old enough to imagine that the Dwarves knew. It seems silly to require disclosure of a fact which, though admittedly material, is known to both parties, even though they never actually mention it to each other. The same sort of reasoning applies to the fact that the Dwarven rings are actually tainted (although Dwarves tend to resist his power a little better than men). The second (offer to exchange news of the whereabouts of the ring and owner in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship) also seems like a unilateral contract, for the same reason; it's not clear that the Dwarf-lords would be able to get information about the ring, and so again, it looks like a standard reward scenario. But then we get to the last statement. "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." There are (at least) two ways I can think of to view this. One possibility is that Sauron is not actually proposing unilateral contracts at all. After all, a reasonable interpretation of his offers would be that they were unilateral, but we're talking about Dark Lord Sauron who really wants to enslave all the free peoples. He might not contemplate reasonable contracts. In fact, given the ease with which agents of the Dark exact damages from lackeys who fail them, it seems possible that in Mordor, where the shadows lie, all contracts are bilateral, no matter how ridiculous it seems to contemplate such a thing. So maybe what he's saying is that if they fail to produce the ring or any information, he'll exact expectation damages. But this reading doesn't really make sense given the express language of the offer. The Messenger from Mordor isn't claiming that if they fail to deliver the ring they'll suffer expectation damages unto the fourth generation. He's saying "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." The "Refuse" comment modifies the offer. The law doesn't contemplate expectation damages if you don't accept an offer, although Sauron might. So it seems to me that the proper reading of this is that there are three bilateral contracts. You give me the One Ring in exchange for these three tainted Dwarven rings and Moria (bilateral contract) if you find the Ring (condition precedent). You give me information about the One Ring in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship (bilateral contract) if you find such information (condition precedent). You promise to make a good faith effort to find the One Ring or information about it, or I march my Wargs and goblin hordes to your doorstep and make mincemeat of you all (bilateral contract; if the Dwarves agreed to it, but wanted out they could argue duress). Now suppose Dain agrees to this, and finds the Ring. Could Sauron enforce this contract to get the Ring? If the contract were valid, this might be one of those things where specific performance would be allowed. The item is unique. And damages are nearly impossible to calculate. If they produce the Ring, Sauron rules over all the peoples of Middle Earth and orcs overrun everything. Sauron gets his body back. He can *blink* his eyes. He can use eye drops. If your eye had been wreathed in flame for millennia, how would you value that? Damages are clearly uncertain. And enforcing the contract wouldn't require that the court do much by way of babysitting. So it seems like a straight-forward contract for a unique item, where specific performance may be contemplated. On the other hand, there's a little problem with the Ring. See, Sauron can use it to enslave everybody. And courts don't like specific performance in cases which smack of personal servitude. The problem is, though, this is a case of first impression. Normally they eschew specific performance in the case of, say, employment contracts, where the proximate result of the contract is that someone is forced to do work they don't want to. We've never had a case of supernatural exchange, where you're forced to give over something that would enslave all the Free Peoples of the earth. Some courts might understandably balk at this result. But others would say that what Sauron does with the ring to enslave people really doesn't matter. After all, if this were a standard employment contract, and all you could do was collect money damages, you might very well use the money to employ someone else. The Dwarves would argue that this is disanalogous in the extreme, since you'd be employing someone who freely chose to be there. The Ring, they'd say, would rob Men, Hobbits, and Elves of their free will. Ultimately, I don't think Sauron should win this one; even the most conservative judges would balk at the idea that the right of contract is so sacred that we should throw away everyone's collective ability to make free choices. If anything should be void on grounds of public policy, this contract's it. But we can't underestimate the corrupting power of the Ring. It wants to go back to him, my preciousss. Luckily there are a few other issues that can be raised in defense of the Dwarves right to toss the Ring (if found) in Mount Doom rather than handing it over to a powerful, evil corrupt Maia. For one, there's a bit of a misunderstanding. See, Sauron labels this Ring as "the least of Rings" but really he can use it to enslave everyone. The Dwarves might well say "What? We thought you meant that plastic decoder thing that Isildur stole from your breakfast cereal - Elrond's had that as a memento of the War of the Ring forever! Damn. But we had no contract for this Ring." Unfortunately, it seems that there was evidence that the Great Lord made it clear exactly which Ring he meant. It's not listed here, but it's pretty clear that Sauron knew that the Dwarves knew that he was talking about Bilbo's ring. So the Dwarves knew which ring he meant, and Sauron knew which ring he meant, and if his description was possibly not as descriptive as we might like, there was clear evidence of intent. There was no misunderstanding about which Ring the parties intended. The Dwarves might claim that Sauron's description was fraudulent. After all, he did sort of describe it as "a trifle" when in fact it was the most powerful Ring ever. Sauron might try to get around this by saying, "Look, it was me. I'm pure evil. What were you expecting, fair and open dealing?" But it seems kind of bizarre to claim a contract wasn't fraudulent because you're known to be a fraud. Yes, the Dwarves shouldn't have trusted his statements. But just because it would be foolish for them to believe Sauron's valuation of the Ring doesn't mean that he's allowed to misrepresent. So Sauron's best argument was that he wasn't fraudulent at all. True, he undervalued the Ring. Significantly. But this is probably the standard sort of puff that appears in the bargaining process; each party downplays the worth of the item he wants, to try and get as good a price as possible. The Dwarves' best argument is that the contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The One Ring itself is of incalculable value. The rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old are almost certainly worth more than $5,000,000 a piece, let alone $5,000. Plus Moria is a vast mining tract, so the promise to hand it over can't be conveyed by an oral contract. It's hard to imagine that a disembodied all-seeing eye wreathed in flame can produce a signed writing, and besides, all I see are oral conversations in hissed whispers, maybe a palant?r conversation or two - nothing, really, that would satisfy the memorandum required by the Statute. I was going to go on and do the bit where Dain answers and discuss whether it's acceptance (it's not) or refusal (it's not) or a counter-offer (it's not) but quite frankly, what I did above was plenty exhausting (and admittedly strained in parts, but hey, my preciouss, what did you expect? The contracts case, it hurts us, yess it does). * * * John (MadDog) Probst, March 2004: absofrigginglutely brilliant. cheers john copied to my daughter as an act of piety. * * * Diana Probst, March 2004: Ah, sorry the lawsuit would be directed at the Balrog on behalf of the tribe of Durin, as the Balrog chased the dwarves out of the ancestral home on no less than 2 separate occasions. Wrongful death would be another interesting avenue. One might argue that the Balrog in fact had a prior claim on the property (as he was the one dug up and freed accidently by the dwarves), but I believe there is ample historical evidence proving that Durin's folk owned and excavated Moria since deep into the first age, while Balrogs went into hiding with the downfall of Morgoth at the end of the first age. It would be up to the Balrog to prove prior ownership. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 19, 2003 04:26 PM /// I am no expert on Law, or indeed Lore, but I have to say that seems not to be trespass. The Balrog, by the fact of entering the land and adding his labour to it, has made it his own. This is (I believe) the basis of property law. The Dwarves have, in the meantime, entered the upper levels, (hereafter known as Khazad Dum) and made that area their own. The dwarves delved too deep, and wakened the evil (trespass AND partying late into the night. An anti-social behaviour order is in the links.) The Balrog then over-reacted, taking the law into his own hands with multiple acts of murder to add to his terrorism. The Dwarves are a nation, while the Balrog is an individual. Moria Plc is not a company, but a country. The question becomes whether the Balrog himself (itself?) is more than a mere individual, in which case the matter becomes more like war. I would say not, on the evidence previously presented. The Balrog is a previous and disgruntled employee of Morgoth Inc., and as such, one of the last remnants of a country. The Balrog is removed, by Sauron's existence, from inheriting the rights to the country, which it seems that Sauron acquired within the then-current law on the defeat of Morgoth. Balrog Enterprises is nothing more than a splinter-group making things difficult for others, and should be treated as such. 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/20140627/a2625bfd/attachment-0001.html From moysian at talktalk.net Fri Jun 27 16:44:52 2014 From: moysian at talktalk.net (Bill Hood) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:44:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams Message-ID: Hi All, I am new to BLML so please forgive my unfamiliarity with protocol/ procedures. I was re-directed here by the EBU after I tried to engage them in a review of the IMP_table. I submitted a paper outlining my (long-held) concerns and argued that the IMP_table was a relic that had survived from an earlier time and that it would not be acceptable in any other modern professional sport or game. I also demonstrated that their proposed IMPing process for multi-pair teams was not fit for purpose as it effectively randomises how the game has to be played in a way that cannot be expected to be known by the vast majority of players. My basic premise is that it is a fundamental requirement of any scoring system that not only can it can be used to derive an understanding of how best to play the game to maximise our chances of coming out ahead but also that the derived strategy is sensible and consistent. I suggested that the IMP_table had simply been overlaid on underlying aggregate scoring with no real design objectives other than a crude compression of the scores and that it simply accepted whatever that gave rise to in terms of optimum bidding strategies. In effect, it was design by happenstance and as such it was untidy, inconsistent and beset by anomalies. I outlined an approach that would allow the building of new IMP_table based on design objectives determined by a consensus view. I pointed out that - in the absence of such a concensus - most players would continue to imagine that the game was somehow organised in such a way that it rewarded their best judgement when, in practice, their expectation is subjective and the scoring process itself is somewhat indeterminate. Is this a more suitable forum in which I can initiate and promote such a debate and/or is there any interest in slaying this particular dinosaur? Best regards, moysian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140627/bcb9918d/attachment.html From roger-eymard at orange.fr Fri Jun 27 22:45:38 2014 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 22:45:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams References: Message-ID: <4709DE22F2E74C58957F9789CCD3EFCD@magnifique> See http://monecle.qbicinternet.co.uk/imp4.htm Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Hood To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 4:44 PM Subject: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams Hi All, I am new to BLML so please forgive my unfamiliarity with protocol/ procedures. I was re-directed here by the EBU after I tried to engage them in a review of the IMP_table. I submitted a paper outlining my (long-held) concerns and argued that the IMP_table was a relic that had survived from an earlier time and that it would not be acceptable in any other modern professional sport or game. I also demonstrated that their proposed IMPing process for multi-pair teams was not fit for purpose as it effectively randomises how the game has to be played in a way that cannot be expected to be known by the vast majority of players. My basic premise is that it is a fundamental requirement of any scoring system that not only can it can be used to derive an understanding of how best to play the game to maximise our chances of coming out ahead but also that the derived strategy is sensible and consistent. I suggested that the IMP_table had simply been overlaid on underlying aggregate scoring with no real design objectives other than a crude compression of the scores and that it simply accepted whatever that gave rise to in terms of optimum bidding strategies. In effect, it was design by happenstance and as such it was untidy, inconsistent and beset by anomalies. I outlined an approach that would allow the building of new IMP_table based on design objectives determined by a consensus view. I pointed out that - in the absence of such a concensus - most players would continue to imagine that the game was somehow organised in such a way that it rewarded their best judgement when, in practice, their expectation is subjective and the scoring process itself is somewhat indeterminate. Is this a more suitable forum in which I can initiate and promote such a debate and/or is there any interest in slaying this particular dinosaur? Best regards, moysian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20140627/1d54c268/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 30 04:00:13 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:00:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Valejectory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AE27D2@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ton Kooijman, October 2009: Hi, Is it possible to find such a story for at least a day per week in the coming year? That will increase my lust to open blml files considerably. And please throw out one of the normal contributions. ton Grattan Endicott, October 2009: +=+ Normal contributions here are highly abnormal. :-) +=+ Nigel Guthrie, October 2009: [snip] >We are too lazy to campaign for law simplifications that may attract >potential players, prolong the existence of the game, and make it even >more fun. Very complex 2007 Law 67B2: After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows. 2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change. (b) A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender's hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke. * The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender's played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defenders hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Very simple 1963 Law 68(a): When attention is drawn to a defective trick after a player on each side has played to the following trick, the defective trick stands as played and: (a) A player with too few cards plays the remainder of his hand with fewer cards than the other players; he does not play to the final trick (or tricks); and if he wins a trick with his last card, the lead passes in rotation. Richard Hills, October 2009: So under the 1963 Lawbook, there was the "even more fun" possibility of -> NORTH (Dummy) AKJ97543 AQ86 3 --- SOUTH (Declarer) --- --- AKQT AKQJT9632 January 1970 Bridge World, "Fish Kill", Stephen R. Sandler: [snip] "We did finally stop at seven notrump with me declarer. The opening lead -- low club of course. I'll spare you my thoughts of running everything in the hope that somebody would unguard the jack of diamonds or that it would fall. A quick peek had shown that card five times to my right in a hand with no other card above a ten. From the glint of determination in the eyes of the jack-holder and his steely grip on the cards, I knew that jack would not be unguarded." [snip] "I managed to lead my last club with the ten of diamonds concealed under it. The stage was set." [snip] "So I reeled off my top diamonds, producing a simple squeeze at trick 12: NORTH A A --- --- WEST EAST Q --- K --- --- J9 --- --- SOUTH --- --- Q --- I led the diamond queen, and all I had to do was follow West's discard. He threw the spade queen, so I pitched the spade ace and announced that since I now had no more cards my left-hand opponent was on lead. The added pressure was too much for the beleaguered pharmacist. Crying hysterically by this time, he dropped his heart king on the floor, continued to fumble with his wallet and led ... yes ... his Social Security card. I might have been able to handle the situation myself, but some lousy kibitzer called the director when the pharmacist's partner momentarily stopped breathing. After applying artificial respiration for 90 seconds, the director made his decision. The lead of the Social Security card stood. Unless dummy could produce a Social Security card with a higher number (and the director knew as well as I did that Kozinkoff had never worked a day in his life) we would lose the trick." [snip] What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Email: hildalirsch at gmail.com 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/20140630/07bf83c5/attachment-0001.html From moysian at talktalk.net Sun Jun 29 16:13:24 2014 From: moysian at talktalk.net (Bill Hood) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:13:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams In-Reply-To: <4709DE22F2E74C58957F9789CCD3EFCD@magnifique> References: <4709DE22F2E74C58957F9789CCD3EFCD@magnifique> Message-ID: <7E660BC78E1F4B25BC88F314C5FADE17@Pathfinder> Hi Roger, I am indebted to you for the links to the articles on the early history of IMPs as I had spent considerable effort in trying to find such material. While I appreciate the detailed reconstruction of the "staircase" scaling with its ever-widening tread relative to riser ratio and can imagine that this may have diverted the attention of the "design committee", it is - in my opinion - a distraction from practical considerations. The reality is that the actual IMP table is nothing special and any one of a myriad of similar tables would be "as good" whether or not their origin could be shown to be supported by some form of calculus. Such considerations are undoubtedly interesting but have no real pragmatic importance in establishing a scoring system that gives rise to a coherent, consistent and knowable bidding strategy. It may well be that the detail working out of tread depths adds an impression of fairness but the compression is so crude that it hardly matters, especially since the underlying scoring does not lend itself to smoothing in this way because of the lumpy nature of the bonuses which are added at different contract levels. My approach is to decide what characteristics/ properties we want the scoring system to have and then build the IMP table to realise those design objectives rather than simply constructing a crude table for compressing the scores and accepting whatever that throws up in terms of how we should bid in order to maximise our chances of taking advantage of the scoring. As yet, my proposal (see attached file) should be regarded as "work-in-progress" and, indeed, it requires that we start with a set of agreed design objectives and standards before we build the IMP table and apply the "make sense" boundary adjustments. [In other words, rather than accepting whatever properties happen to drop out of a crude compression process, we actually decide on the design characteristics we want and build a process that delivers them.] What disturbs me is that there is no consistency or sense to the default bidding strategy and, in the absence of a known or practically knowable bidding strategy, most players somehow trust that the scoring is organised in a way that rewards their best efforts even as they separately use their subjective and largely independent judgements. I was finally prompted to raise these issues when the EBU proposed the use of IMP tables for multi-pair teams by multiplying end-range values by somewhat arbitrary mathematical factors as that effectively randomises the bidding strategy in a way that is practically unknowable to players. I believe that the game and its players deserve better but I am told there is no interest in such concerns. Best regards Bill _____ From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Roger Eymard Sent: 27 June 2014 21:46 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams See http://monecle.qbicinternet.co.uk/imp4.htm Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Hood To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 4:44 PM Subject: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams Hi All, I am new to BLML so please forgive my unfamiliarity with protocol/ procedures. I was re-directed here by the EBU after I tried to engage them in a review of the IMP_table. I submitted a paper outlining my (long-held) concerns and argued that the IMP_table was a relic that had survived from an earlier time and that it would not be acceptable in any other modern professional sport or game. I also demonstrated that their proposed IMPing process for multi-pair teams was not fit for purpose as it effectively randomises how the game has to be played in a way that cannot be expected to be known by the vast majority of players. My basic premise is that it is a fundamental requirement of any scoring system that not only can it can be used to derive an understanding of how best to play the game to maximise our chances of coming out ahead but also that the derived strategy is sensible and consistent. I suggested that the IMP_table had simply been overlaid on underlying aggregate scoring with no real design objectives other than a crude compression of the scores and that it simply accepted whatever that gave rise to in terms of optimum bidding strategies. In effect, it was design by happenstance and as such it was untidy, inconsistent and beset by anomalies. I outlined an approach that would allow the building of new IMP_table based on design objectives determined by a consensus view. I pointed out that - in the absence of such a concensus - most players would continue to imagine that the game was somehow organised in such a way that it rewarded their best judgement when, in practice, their expectation is subjective and the scoring process itself is somewhat indeterminate. Is this a more suitable forum in which I can initiate and promote such a debate and/or is there any interest in slaying this particular dinosaur? Best regards, moysian _____ _______________________________________________ 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/20140629/135d97e0/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary_proposal.doc Type: application/msword Size: 73728 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140629/135d97e0/attachment-0001.doc