From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 1 03:33:27 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:33:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage Message-ID: 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) P 2H 3H (3) P 3S P 4S P P P (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed (2) Pass is a logical alternative (3) Limit major raise Down 2. Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the auction, it would have gone 1S P 1NT P 2C P 3S P P P But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary fit, both in fact being true.) I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did not work out well for him was his problem. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 1 08:18:00 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 08:18:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <531189A8.6010809@skynet.be> first of all, we must assume that (1) did indeed want to bid something lower than 1S, otherwise we're in illegal deception territory. This is of course UI to his partner, but it is AI to opponents. And so is the (albeit illegal) double. Again, AI to opponents. So the question is not: were they influenced by UI, but it should read: Were they influenced by the AI? And we should all be able to get that one correct. Herman. Robert Frick schreef: > 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) > P 2H 3H (3) P > 3S P 4S P > P P > > (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed > (2) Pass is a logical alternative > (3) Limit major raise > > Down 2. > > Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the > auction, it would have gone > > 1S P 1NT P > 2C P 3S P > P P > > But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner > declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the > first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? > > (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary > fit, both in fact being true.) > > > I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did > not work out well for him was his problem. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 1 16:55:41 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 10:55:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <531189A8.6010809@skynet.be> References: <531189A8.6010809@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:18:00 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > first of all, we must assume that (1) did indeed want to bid something > lower than 1S, otherwise we're in illegal deception territory. > This is of course UI to his partner, but it is AI to opponents. > And so is the (albeit illegal) double. Again, AI to opponents. > > So the question is not: were they influenced by UI, but it should read: > Were they influenced by the AI? > > And we should all be able to get that one correct. I hope so. There is another question, whether he was damaged by the use of UI. Are we all able to get that one correct? > > Herman. > > Robert Frick schreef: >> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >> P 2H 3H (3) P >> 3S P 4S P >> P P >> >> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >> (3) Limit major raise >> >> Down 2. >> >> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >> auction, it would have gone >> >> 1S P 1NT P >> 2C P 3S P >> P P >> >> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner >> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the >> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? >> >> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary >> fit, both in fact being true.) >> >> >> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did >> not work out well for him was his problem. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 3 16:21:57 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:21:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <531189A8.6010809@skynet.be> References: <531189A8.6010809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <53149E15.6000209@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/03/2014 8:18, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > first of all, we must assume that (1) did indeed want to bid something > lower than 1S, otherwise we're in illegal deception territory. > This is of course UI to his partner, but it is AI to opponents. > And so is the (albeit illegal) double. Again, AI to opponents. > > So the question is not: were they influenced by UI, but it should read: > Were they influenced by the AI? > > And we should all be able to get that one correct. > > Herman. > > Robert Frick schreef: >> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >> P 2H 3H (3) P >> 3S P 4S P >> P P >> >> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >> (3) Limit major raise >> >> Down 2. >> >> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >> auction, it would have gone >> >> 1S P 1NT P >> 2C P 3S P >> P P I don't get it. Responder showed a limit raise, then undisciplinately raised to game. How can he pretend that he would have acted otherwise without the bid ? Such a sequence might even be called "failure to play bridge" IMOBO. Anyway, the damage doesn't come from UI use. Also, the UI from the retracted bid is in fact very moderate ; of course, the player might have wanted to open 1C, but in this case he would have striven to call (perhaps an imperfect double) , to avoid giving UI. And that's totally unconsistent with him bidding only 2H on the next round. My explanation is that he wanted to make some weak bid (weak 2H, Dutch 2H, Multi) and didn't want to overcall over 1S. What's the hand of the retractor ? Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 3 16:47:52 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:47:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53149E15.6000209@ulb.ac.be> References: <531189A8.6010809@skynet.be> <53149E15.6000209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:21:57 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 1/03/2014 8:18, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> first of all, we must assume that (1) did indeed want to bid something >> lower than 1S, otherwise we're in illegal deception territory. >> This is of course UI to his partner, but it is AI to opponents. >> And so is the (albeit illegal) double. Again, AI to opponents. >> >> So the question is not: were they influenced by UI, but it should read: >> Were they influenced by the AI? >> >> And we should all be able to get that one correct. >> >> Herman. >> >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >>> P 2H 3H (3) P >>> 3S P 4S P >>> P P >>> >>> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >>> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >>> (3) Limit major raise >>> >>> Down 2. >>> >>> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >>> auction, it would have gone >>> >>> 1S P 1NT P >>> 2C P 3S P >>> P P > > I don't get it. Responder showed a limit raise, then undisciplinately > raised to game. How can he pretend that he would have acted otherwise > without the bid ? Without the opponents entering the auction, he wouldn't have the chance to go to game or I guess the temptation. He would show a limit raise, he partner would pass and that would be the end of it. > > Such a sequence might even be called "failure to play bridge" IMOBO. Last week at the table, yes. But there could be other situations where the opponent's bidding made game a reasonable bid (although unsuccessful). > > Anyway, the damage doesn't come from UI use. If the player had not used UI from partner, she presumably would not have entered the auction and they would have ended up in 3 Spades. I worry some people might see that as damage from UI use. > > Also, the UI from the retracted bid is in fact very moderate ; of > course, the player might have wanted to open 1C, but in this case he > would have striven to call (perhaps an imperfect double) , to avoid > giving UI. And that's totally unconsistent with him bidding only 2H on > the next round. > > My explanation is that he wanted to make some weak bid (weak 2H, Dutch > 2H, Multi) and didn't want to overcall over 1S. > > What's the hand of the retractor ? In this particular example, he had about 8 points and 5 spades, so I have no idea what he was thinking. Apparently his partner was the much better player of the two, so it makes some sense she would try to protect. Or maybe she was just making her bid, but pass is going to be an LA. > > Best regards > > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Mon Mar 3 16:57:28 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:57:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> Message-ID: <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) > P 2H 3H (3) P > 3S P 4S P > P P > > (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed > (2) Pass is a logical alternative > (3) Limit major raise > > Down 2. > > Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the > auction, it would have gone > > 1S P 1NT P > 2C P 3S P > P P > > But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner > declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the > first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? > > (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary > fit, both in fact being true.) > > I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did > not work out well for him was his problem. The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit raise, as he originally intended, reaching 3S. That he then reevaluated his hand to a game raise based on his own interpretation of the opponents' actions in the actual auction, effectively accepting his own intended invitation, was entirely his own doing. He is legitimately allowed to take whatever inferences he chooses from his opponents' irregularities, but he does so entirely at his own risk. No adjustment. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 3 17:57:37 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:57:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531189A8.6010809@skynet.be> <53149E15.6000209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5314B481.7090007@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/03/2014 16:47, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:21:57 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 1/03/2014 8:18, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> first of all, we must assume that (1) did indeed want to bid something >>> lower than 1S, otherwise we're in illegal deception territory. >>> This is of course UI to his partner, but it is AI to opponents. >>> And so is the (albeit illegal) double. Again, AI to opponents. >>> >>> So the question is not: were they influenced by UI, but it should read: >>> Were they influenced by the AI? >>> >>> And we should all be able to get that one correct. >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>>> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >>>> P 2H 3H (3) P >>>> 3S P 4S P >>>> P P >>>> >>>> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >>>> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >>>> (3) Limit major raise >>>> >>>> Down 2. >>>> >>>> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >>>> auction, it would have gone >>>> >>>> 1S P 1NT P >>>> 2C P 3S P >>>> P P >> I don't get it. Responder showed a limit raise, then undisciplinately >> raised to game. How can he pretend that he would have acted otherwise >> without the bid ? > Without the opponents entering the auction, he wouldn't have the chance to > go to game or I guess the temptation. He would show a limit raise, he > partner would pass and that would be the end of it. Indeed. He would have had to choose between 3 and 4. Now he chose to bid 3? (could have bid 3S), then changed opinion over pard's very negative bid. Does this make sense ? > In this particular example, he had about 8 points and 5 spades, so I have > no idea what he was thinking. Perhaps he wanted to open 2S ... Notice that, if neither you nor me can guess what the mannerism 'unmistakably' suggests, there is no UI, hence no possible infraciton. But if I understand the situation, doubler had a spade void and some cards ! In which case you can't call Pass a LA. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 3 18:00:06 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:00:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> Message-ID: <5314B516.8090200@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/03/2014 16:57, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >> P 2H 3H (3) P >> 3S P 4S P >> P P >> >> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >> (3) Limit major raise >> >> Down 2. >> >> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >> auction, it would have gone >> >> 1S P 1NT P >> 2C P 3S P >> P P >> >> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner >> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the >> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? >> >> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary >> fit, both in fact being true.) >> >> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did >> not work out well for him was his problem. > The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. > Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit raise, > as he originally intended, reaching 3S. Indeed. It would be a different case if the UI-suggested bid (if such) had preeempted his side. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Mar 3 18:21:25 2014 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:21:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <5314B516.8090200@ulb.ac.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5314B516.8090200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2112278065.1267954.1393867285987.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alain Gottcheiner" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Lundi 3 Mars 2014 18:00:06 > Objet: Re: [BLML] damage > > Le 3/03/2014 16:57, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) > >> P 2H 3H (3) P > >> 3S P 4S P > >> P P > >> > >> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed > >> (2) Pass is a logical alternative > >> (3) Limit major raise > >> > >> Down 2. > >> > >> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the > >> auction, it would have gone > >> > >> 1S P 1NT P > >> 2C P 3S P > >> P P > >> > >> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner > >> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the > >> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? > >> > >> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary > >> fit, both in fact being true.) > >> > >> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did > >> not work out well for him was his problem. > > The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. > > Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit raise, > > as he originally intended, reaching 3S. > > Indeed. It would be a different case if the UI-suggested bid (if such) > had preeempted his side. > i agree that there was no damage relating to the 4S bid, but i think there is more to scrutinize about opponents' actions: was double influenced by UI? why did he bid only minimal 2H? because he didn't need to signal twice he had some values? because he suspected partner to have made a light double based on UI? impossible to form an opinion on such situations without complete information. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 5 01:30:51 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:30:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:57:28 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >> P 2H 3H (3) P >> 3S P 4S P >> P P >> >> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >> (3) Limit major raise >> >> Down 2. >> >> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >> auction, it would have gone >> >> 1S P 1NT P >> 2C P 3S P >> P P >> >> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner >> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the >> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? >> >> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary >> fit, both in fact being true.) >> >> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did >> not work out well for him was his problem. > > The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. > Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit raise, > as he originally intended, reaching 3S. That he then reevaluated his > hand to a game raise based on his own interpretation of the opponents' > actions in the actual auction, effectively accepting his own intended > invitation, was entirely his own doing. He is legitimately allowed to > take whatever inferences he chooses from his opponents' irregularities, > but he does so entirely at his own risk. No adjustment. > This seems to be the same position as Alain and Herman, leading to our usual unanimous agreement on a topic. I hope you hold this position. There are two different ways to calculate damage. One is logical and usually immediate. If someone wins the lottery they are not damaged. Money is good. The second way is straightforward comparison of endpoints in time. Someone won a huge lottery and died a month later of cyanide poisoning. Assuming he would still be alive had he not won the lottery, winning the lottery caused his death (ergo, he was damaged). Note that someone might win the lottery and get killed in a car accident on the way to collect the money. Again, the second method leads to the conclusion that the person was damaged by winning the lottery. Using the first method, we might say it was just bad luck that caused their death. Obviously, you used the first method, not the second. If you use the second, you get that they were damaged by the opponents entering the auction. (They linger in 3 Spades down two without the opponent's entry; with the entry, they were in 4 Spades down 3.) Can you justify using the first method? From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Wed Mar 5 16:55:45 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:55:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> Message-ID: <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> On 3/4/2014 7:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:57:28 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >>> P 2H 3H (3) P >>> 3S P 4S P >>> P P >>> >>> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >>> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >>> (3) Limit major raise >>> >>> Down 2. >>> >>> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >>> auction, it would have gone >>> >>> 1S P 1NT P >>> 2C P 3S P >>> P P >>> >>> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner >>> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the >>> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? >>> >>> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary >>> fit, both in fact being true.) >>> >>> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did >>> not work out well for him was his problem. >> The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. >> Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit raise, >> as he originally intended, reaching 3S. That he then reevaluated his >> hand to a game raise based on his own interpretation of the opponents' >> actions in the actual auction, effectively accepting his own intended >> invitation, was entirely his own doing. He is legitimately allowed to >> take whatever inferences he chooses from his opponents' irregularities, >> but he does so entirely at his own risk. No adjustment. >> > This seems to be the same position as Alain and Herman, leading to our > usual unanimous agreement on a topic. > > I hope you hold this position. > > There are two different ways to calculate damage. One is logical and > usually immediate. If someone wins the lottery they are not damaged. Money > is good. > > The second way is straightforward comparison of endpoints in time. Someone > won a huge lottery and died a month later of cyanide poisoning. Assuming > he would still be alive had he not won the lottery, winning the lottery > caused his death (ergo, he was damaged). > > Note that someone might win the lottery and get killed in a car accident > on the way to collect the money. Again, the second method leads to the > conclusion that the person was damaged by winning the lottery. Using the > first method, we might say it was just bad luck that caused their death. > > Obviously, you used the first method, not the second. If you use the > second, you get that they were damaged by the opponents entering the > auction. (They linger in 3 Spades down two without the opponent's entry; > with the entry, they were in 4 Spades down 3.) > > Can you justify using the first method? I can, but Edgar Kaplan has done a much better job of it than I could: http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 5 19:40:47 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:40:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> Message-ID: <53176FAF.4020003@nhcc.net> On 2014-03-05 10:55 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Edgar Kaplan has done a much better job of it than I could: > http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm That was some generations of Laws ago. The current rule is L12C1b; I haven't checked the examples to see whether anything would change. As Kaplan wrote, the OS score is still adjusted regardless of whether damage is consequent or subsequent. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 5 21:52:44 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:52:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:55:45 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On 3/4/2014 7:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:57:28 -0500, Eric Landau >> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >>>> P 2H 3H (3) P >>>> 3S P 4S P >>>> P P >>>> >>>> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >>>> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >>>> (3) Limit major raise >>>> >>>> Down 2. >>>> >>>> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >>>> auction, it would have gone >>>> >>>> 1S P 1NT P >>>> 2C P 3S P >>>> P P >>>> >>>> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner >>>> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the >>>> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? >>>> >>>> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary >>>> fit, both in fact being true.) >>>> >>>> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it >>>> did >>>> not work out well for him was his problem. >>> The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. >>> Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit >>> raise, >>> as he originally intended, reaching 3S. That he then reevaluated his >>> hand to a game raise based on his own interpretation of the opponents' >>> actions in the actual auction, effectively accepting his own intended >>> invitation, was entirely his own doing. He is legitimately allowed to >>> take whatever inferences he chooses from his opponents' irregularities, >>> but he does so entirely at his own risk. No adjustment. >>> >> This seems to be the same position as Alain and Herman, leading to our >> usual unanimous agreement on a topic. >> >> I hope you hold this position. >> >> There are two different ways to calculate damage. One is logical and >> usually immediate. If someone wins the lottery they are not damaged. >> Money >> is good. >> >> The second way is straightforward comparison of endpoints in time. >> Someone >> won a huge lottery and died a month later of cyanide poisoning. Assuming >> he would still be alive had he not won the lottery, winning the lottery >> caused his death (ergo, he was damaged). >> >> Note that someone might win the lottery and get killed in a car accident >> on the way to collect the money. Again, the second method leads to the >> conclusion that the person was damaged by winning the lottery. Using the >> first method, we might say it was just bad luck that caused their death. >> >> Obviously, you used the first method, not the second. If you use the >> second, you get that they were damaged by the opponents entering the >> auction. (They linger in 3 Spades down two without the opponent's entry; >> with the entry, they were in 4 Spades down 3.) >> >> Can you justify using the first method? > > I can, but Edgar Kaplan has done a much better job of it than I could: > http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm Not even close. To try to give a short answer, he discusses Eric's examples and pretty much follows L12C1(b). No one applied those to the example at hand. If this did apply, Kaplan ends up with a different ruling. It was painful to try to make sense of what he was saying. Roughly, he says "There is redress only for consequent damage, not subsequent damage." He has no justification for this, so IF this was relevant, it wouldn't answer the question. The terms are not in the laws. He offers no definition the terms, he just gives examples. Twenty people could extract 20 definitions. The whole process is undercut by "Just about any subsequent event is, to some degree, consequent as well." In contrast, the questions by Mr. Landau at the start were organized, thoughtful, and well-written. I would wish someone of equal ability would address the question at hand. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 5 21:58:34 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:58:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53176FAF.4020003@nhcc.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> <53176FAF.4020003@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:40:47 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-03-05 10:55 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> Edgar Kaplan has done a much better job of it than I could: >> http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm > > That was some generations of Laws ago. The current rule is L12C1b; I > haven't checked the examples to see whether anything would change. > > As Kaplan wrote, the OS score is still adjusted regardless of whether > damage is consequent or subsequent. I thought that most Directors would follow Eric on this example: "I was called to the table and confronted with an auction that had gone: North: two hearts; East: pass; South: four hearts; West 90-second huddle, then pass; North: pass; East: five clubs . . . Director! I ordered that the play continue; South bid five hearts, played there, and went down one, for -100. It was quite clear that East did not have a reasonable five-club bid without his partner's hesitation. I ruled that the score should be adjusted to +620 for N-S" From arbhuston at aol.com Wed Mar 5 22:19:00 2014 From: arbhuston at aol.com (,) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:19:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <53174901.9010209@verizon.net> Message-ID: <8D106CFA95B1994-8F4-5371@webmail-m126.sysops.aol.com> Thank you, Eric. It was nice to see Edgar at his best. Michael Huston -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 10:13 am Subject: Re: [BLML] damage On 3/4/2014 7:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:57:28 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >>> P 2H 3H (3) P >>> 3S P 4S P >>> P P >>> >>> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >>> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >>> (3) Limit major raise >>> >>> Down 2. >>> >>> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >>> auction, it would have gone >>> >>> 1S P 1NT P >>> 2C P 3S P >>> P P >>> >>> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner >>> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the >>> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? >>> >>> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary >>> fit, both in fact being true.) >>> >>> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did >>> not work out well for him was his problem. >> The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. >> Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit raise, >> as he originally intended, reaching 3S. That he then reevaluated his >> hand to a game raise based on his own interpretation of the opponents' >> actions in the actual auction, effectively accepting his own intended >> invitation, was entirely his own doing. He is legitimately allowed to >> take whatever inferences he chooses from his opponents' irregularities, >> but he does so entirely at his own risk. No adjustment. >> > This seems to be the same position as Alain and Herman, leading to our > usual unanimous agreement on a topic. > > I hope you hold this position. > > There are two different ways to calculate damage. One is logical and > usually immediate. If someone wins the lottery they are not damaged. Money > is good. > > The second way is straightforward comparison of endpoints in time. Someone > won a huge lottery and died a month later of cyanide poisoning. Assuming > he would still be alive had he not won the lottery, winning the lottery > caused his death (ergo, he was damaged). > > Note that someone might win the lottery and get killed in a car accident > on the way to collect the money. Again, the second method leads to the > conclusion that the person was damaged by winning the lottery. Using the > first method, we might say it was just bad luck that caused their death. > > Obviously, you used the first method, not the second. If you use the > second, you get that they were damaged by the opponents entering the > auction. (They linger in 3 Spades down two without the opponent's entry; > with the entry, they were in 4 Spades down 3.) > > Can you justify using the first method? I can, but Edgar Kaplan has done a much better job of it than I could: http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140305/3b39f79b/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 5 23:22:35 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:22:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] something seems rotten here Message-ID: Declarer has one chance in 20 of completely flubbing a trick on the hand. (You can have the reason for error be hay fever, petit mal, brain fart, or whatever you want.) In 4 hearts, he will make an overtrick 19 times out of 20. The 20th time he makes only 4. In 5 hearts, he will make the same score 19 times out of 20, and go down once. If the Declarer is pushed to 5 hearts by blatant use of UI by the opponents, shouldn't he feel damaged? And if it is the 1 time in 20, shouldn't he still feel damaged? From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Mar 6 00:18:49 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:18:49 -0600 Subject: [BLML] something seems rotten here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer has one chance in 20 of completely flubbing a trick on the hand. > (You can have the reason for error be hay fever, petit mal, brain fart, or > whatever you want.) > > In 4 hearts, he will make an overtrick 19 times out of 20. The 20th time > he makes only 4. > > In 5 hearts, he will make the same score 19 times out of 20, and go down > once. > > > If the Declarer is pushed to 5 hearts by blatant use of UI by the > opponents, shouldn't he feel damaged? > > And if it is the 1 time in 20, shouldn't he still feel damaged? > I would say yes, it is proper for him to feel damaged, even if were 1 time in 2000: The blatant use of UI forced him into a situation he shouldn't have had to face. At a minimum, I would want reciprocal adjustments to 4 hearts making 4. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140305/101024e6/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Mar 6 02:58:15 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:58:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] something seems rotten here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5317D637.2080008@nhcc.net> On 2014-03-05 6:18 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > it is proper for him to feel damaged, even if were 1 time in 2000: The > blatant use of UI forced him into a situation he shouldn't have had to > face. I agree. > At a minimum, I would want reciprocal adjustments to 4 hearts > making 4. Isn't this the normal adjustment? The consequence of the opponents' infraction was that the contract was a level higher. The NOS get that part back. The consequence of the "serious error" was taking 10 tricks instead of 11; the NOS don't get that back. Thus +620 to the NOS in the "4H forced to 5H by UI" example. We have discussed before without conclusion what score to give the OS. Some would give them the benefit of the misplay (-620). Others would adjust to the normal result had UI not been used (-650). I don't think I've seen anything conclusive as to which is right in most of the world. In the ACBL, I think it's the former because of the rephrasing of L12C1e(ii), but I'm not certain. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 03:02:51 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:02:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] damage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A26B34@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL I can, but Edgar Kaplan has done a much better job of it than I could: http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY Law 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, ++because++ of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction ++not++ occurred - but see C1(b). Law 12C1(b): "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for ++such part++ of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction ++only++. [Richard HILLS] Matchpoint pairs, 13 tables. On Board One at 6 of the tables North- South make a cold 11 tricks for +200 in 3H. At 6 of the tables North- South make a cold 11 tricks for +450 in 4H. At the final table North-South cleverly bid game, but not so cleverly revoke for only 10 tricks. An average score for that North-South? It's complicated. East-West unlawfully use UI to bid 4S (which, if it was doubled, would be a penalty of -300 for an average score). North- South were pushed into a "cold" 5H - less frigid after the revoke. How should you rule? Laws 12B1 and 12C1(b) mandate this ruling: North-South get an average score for +420, East-West get an equal bottom for -450. Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): "You are a verbalizer, Citizen Honners?" "I am, sir. Though perhaps 'author' would be a better word, if you don't mind." "Of course. Citizen Honners, are you presently engaged in writing for any of the periodicals I see on the dissemination stands?" "Certainly not! These are written by incompetent hacks for the dubious delectation of the lower middle class. The stories, in case you didn't know, are taken line by line from the works of various popular writers of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The people who do the work merely substitute adjectives and adverbs. Occasionally, I'm told, a more daring hack will substitute a verb, or even a noun. But that is rare. The editors of such periodicals frown upon sweeping innovations." "And you are not engaged in such work?" "Absolutely not! My work is non-commercial. I am a Creative Conrad Specialist." "Would you mind telling me what that means, Citizen Honners?" "I'd be happy to. My own particular field of endeavor lies in re- creating the works of Joseph Conrad, an author who lived in the pre- atomic era." "How do you go about re-creating those works, sir?" "Well, at present I am engaged in my fifth re-creation of Lord Jim. To do it, I steep myself as thoroughly as possible in the original work. Then I set about rewriting it as Conrad would have written it if he had lived today. It is a labor which calls for extreme diligence, and for the utmost in artistic integrity. A single slip could mar the re-creation. As you can see, it calls for a preliminary mastery of Conrad's vocabulary, themes, plots, characters, mood, approach, and so on. All this goes in, and yet the book cannot be a slavish repeat. It must have something new to say, just as Conrad would have said it." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140306/20525da4/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 18:01:58 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:01:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> Message-ID: <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/03/2014 1:30, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:57:28 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On 2/28/2014 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> 1S P (1) 1NT X (2) >>> P 2H 3H (3) P >>> 3S P 4S P >>> P P >>> >>> (1) Reached for a card from the box, saw 1S, then passed >>> (2) Pass is a logical alternative >>> (3) Limit major raise >>> >>> Down 2. >>> >>> Were they damaged by use of UI? Had the opponents not intruded in the >>> auction, it would have gone >>> >>> 1S P 1NT P >>> 2C P 3S P >>> P P >>> >>> But in both auctions, he makes a limit-major raise and his partner >>> declines. The only difference was that he got extra information on the >>> first auction. How can he be damaged by more information? >>> >>> (He reasoned that partner was short in hearts and they had a secondary >>> fit, both in fact being true.) >>> >>> I think there is no "immediate" damage, so no rectification. That it did >>> not work out well for him was his problem. >> The opponents' actions did not cause any damage to opener's side. >> Despite the improper double, responder was able to show his limit raise, >> as he originally intended, reaching 3S. That he then reevaluated his >> hand to a game raise based on his own interpretation of the opponents' >> actions in the actual auction, effectively accepting his own intended >> invitation, was entirely his own doing. He is legitimately allowed to >> take whatever inferences he chooses from his opponents' irregularities, >> but he does so entirely at his own risk. No adjustment. >> > This seems to be the same position as Alain and Herman, leading to our > usual unanimous agreement on a topic. > > I hope you hold this position. > > There are two different ways to calculate damage. One is logical and > usually immediate. If someone wins the lottery they are not damaged. Money > is good. > > The second way is straightforward comparison of endpoints in time. Someone > won a huge lottery and died a month later of cyanide poisoning. Assuming > he would still be alive had he not won the lottery, winning the lottery > caused his death (ergo, he was damaged). > The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. See the case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Fri Mar 7 20:57:32 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:57:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F972C87-5A99-44B8-802B-20276CDBE971@wesleyan.edu> I certainly agree that there should be no adjustment for deciding to bid 4S, but I don't think anybody mentioned the defense against 4S. If the defense did better because they had illegally discovered their H fit, then an adjustment is in order. Tim -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2330 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140307/c8f499bd/attachment.bin From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Mar 8 03:22:21 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:22:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A Message-ID: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> Here's one I can't figure out. West makes the opening lead, dummy comes down, and in due course South (declarer) wins trick 1. West has a momentary lapse, not caused by NS, thinks he has won the trick, and "leads" to trick 2. Obviously the card led is a MPC, but do the additional rectifications in L57A apply? They seem too severe for the offense, but I can't see how the text excludes this case. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Mar 8 05:32:04 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:32:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes" > Here's one I can't figure out. West makes the opening lead, dummy comes > down, and in due course South (declarer) wins trick 1. West has a > momentary lapse, not caused by NS, thinks he has won the trick, and > "leads" to trick 2. > > Obviously the card led is a MPC, but do the additional rectifications in > L57A apply? They seem too severe for the offense, but I can't see how > the text excludes this case. The wording of L57A is, "When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played..." West did not lead to trick 2 before partner played to trick 1, nor did he play to trick 2 before partner's turn to play to trick 2. (This is particularly clear in your example, because South won trick 1 and thus West would play before East, but even if North had won trick 1, West's card was a "lead", not a "play", so I would say that L57A does not apply.) West led out of turn, and thus L56D applies; the card becomes a major penalty card unless declarer accepts the lead out of turn under L53. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Mar 8 15:50:39 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:50:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> Message-ID: <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> On 2014-03-07 11:32 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The wording of L57A is, "When a defender leads to the next trick before his > partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner > has played..." West did not lead to trick 2 before partner played to trick 1, > nor did he play to trick 2 before partner's turn to play to trick 2. (This is > particularly clear in your example, because South won trick 1 and thus West > would play before East, but even if North had won trick 1, West's card was a > "lead", not a "play", so I would say that L57A does not apply.) > > West led out of turn, and thus L56D applies; the card becomes a major penalty > card unless declarer accepts the lead out of turn under L53. Thanks. My worry was that West has played to trick 2 before his partner has played to trick 2. The second clause of L57A says "played," not "turn to play." Could the point be to distinguish between "lead" and "play?" I kind of like that declarer can accept the lead, and L45E1 (which I now see for the first time) seems to bear that out. This is another "mind reading" law, though. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 9 02:59:04 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 20:59:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > > The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? See the > case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the > contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. > > Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, > hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and lost a > tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we assess damage at the end of the hand. This seems eminently fair and reasonable. Can you think of any counter-examples? To use your example, a player is forced to play a dropped card. This is not a good strategy, so there is advantage, not disadvantage to the nonoffending side. If that turns out to the a correct play the offender never would have found, that is damage, as assessed by the end of the hand. But we ignore it. This also explains the original example. We could identify a point where the player, having extra information, was not disadvantaged by the opponents coming in the auction. From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sun Mar 9 12:22:09 2014 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:22:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140309112211.76628E78C54@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> At 12:00 9-3-2014, "Robert Frick" wrote: >That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. There >is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we can >identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not assess damage >at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we assess damage at >the end of the hand. > >This seems eminently fair and reasonable. Can you think of any >counter-examples? What if time B < time A ? :-) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Mar 9 15:09:23 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 10:09:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <500B5910939E4D47AB761110AEAE22C8@erdos> > "Steve Willner" writes: > On 2014-03-07 11:32 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> The wording of L57A is, "When a defender leads to the next trick before his >> partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his >> partner >> has played..." West did not lead to trick 2 before partner played to trick >> 1, >> nor did he play to trick 2 before partner's turn to play to trick 2. (This >> is >> particularly clear in your example, because South won trick 1 and thus West >> would play before East, but even if North had won trick 1, West's card was a >> "lead", not a "play", so I would say that L57A does not apply.) >> >> West led out of turn, and thus L56D applies; the card becomes a major penalty >> card unless declarer accepts the lead out of turn under L53. > > Thanks. My worry was that West has played to trick 2 before his partner > has played to trick 2. The second clause of L57A says "played," not > "turn to play." > > Could the point be to distinguish between "lead" and "play?" I kind of > like that declarer can accept the lead, and L45E1 (which I now see for > the first time) seems to bear that out. This is another "mind reading" > law, though. That was my interpretation; West "led" rather than "playing". The fact that L56D exists also excludes this application of L57A. Since there is a rule for a lead out of turn during the hand, and every lead out of turn is made before partner plays to the trick, L57A cannot be intended to apply to these leads. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Mar 9 21:40:41 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:40:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <500B5910939E4D47AB761110AEAE22C8@erdos> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> <500B5910939E4D47AB761110AEAE22C8@erdos> Message-ID: <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> >> Could the point be to distinguish between "lead" and "play?" I >> kind of >>> like that declarer can accept the lead, and L45E1 (which I now >>> see for the first time) seems to bear that out. This is another >>> "mind reading" law, though. On 2014-03-09 10:09 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > That was my interpretation; West "led" rather than "playing". Except for the mind reading, I like this interpretation. (I seem to be the only person who objects to mind-reading Laws, so I accept their existence.) > The fact that L56D exists also excludes this application of L57A. I don't see any 56D, and 54D specifies _opening_ lead. Which Law did you mean? > Since there is a rule for a lead out of turn during the hand, That would be L53A, right? > and every lead out of turn is made before partner plays to the > trick, L57A cannot be intended to apply to these leads. I like this logic. Let me try to sum up the general rules for a defender's exposed card; please somebody tell me if I have it wrong: 1. if the card was accidentally dropped, it's a MPC if an honor or mPC if not. 2. if the card was led, declarer can accept it as a lead and otherwise it's a MPC. 3. if the card was played as the fifth card to a trick, it's a MPC. 4. if the card was played out of turn within a trick, L57A may apply. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Mar 10 01:34:18 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 20:34:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> <500B5910939E4D47AB761110AEAE22C8@erdos> <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <34B2BC3CBF664D1D963EE45E5B1C197A@erdos> Steve Willner writes: > David Grabiner writes: >> The fact that L56D exists also excludes this application of L57A. > > I don't see any 56D, and 54D specifies _opening_ lead. Which Law did > you mean? L56 (sorry, no D): "Defender's Lead Out of Turn:" See Law 54D. > Let me try to sum up the general rules for a defender's exposed card; > please somebody tell me if I have it wrong: > > 1. if the card was accidentally dropped, it's a MPC if an honor or mPC > if not. (it's also a MPC if there is more than one card). > 2. if the card was led, declarer can accept it as a lead and otherwise > it's a MPC. > > 3. if the card was played as the fifth card to a trick, it's a MPC. > > 4. if the card was played out of turn within a trick, L57A may apply. From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 10 11:41:48 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:41:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> <500B5910939E4D47AB761110AEAE22C8@erdos> <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002401cf3c4d$573170c0$05945240$@online.no> Steve Willner [...] > Except for the mind reading, I like this interpretation. (I seem to be the only > person who objects to mind-reading Laws, so I accept their > existence.) [...] [Sven Pran] I don't see how "mind reading" enters the issue in any way with Law 57? It is a straight forward law as far as I can see. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 14:26:17 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:26:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <4F972C87-5A99-44B8-802B-20276CDBE971@wesleyan.edu> References: <4F972C87-5A99-44B8-802B-20276CDBE971@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <531DBD79.20607@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/03/2014 20:57, Timothy N. Hill a ?crit : > I certainly agree that there should be no adjustment for deciding to bid 4S, but I don't think anybody mentioned the defense against 4S. If the defense did better because they had illegally discovered their H fit, then an adjustment is in order. AG : absolutely right, but the initial message mentioned thesame number of tricks in 3s and 4S IIRC. Butt this is indeed something too often forgotten. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140310/1dc1ba69/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 14:33:12 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:33:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/03/2014 2:59, Robert Frick a ?crit : > >> >> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. > > Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? > > See the >> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >> >> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? > > > That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. > There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we > can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not > assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we > assess damage at the end of the hand. > > This seems eminently fair and reasonable. Can you think of any > counter-examples? > > To use your example, a player is forced to play a dropped card. This > is not a good strategy, so there is advantage, not disadvantage to the > nonoffending side. If that turns out to the a correct play the > offender never would have found, that is damage, as assessed by the > end of the hand. But we ignore it. I don't think any player would understand this. We decide at the end of the hand - no we don't. Also, it doesn't fit well when invoking "failed to protect himself". Since your solution isn't explicitly written and is difficult to use, I don't think we should explicitly use it. IMHO the "damage & link check" procedure is more efficient. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 10 14:25:29 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:25:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> <500B5910939E4D47AB761110AEAE22C8@erdos> <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:40:41 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >>> Could the point be to distinguish between "lead" and "play?" I >>> kind of >>>> like that declarer can accept the lead, and L45E1 (which I now >>>> see for the first time) seems to bear that out. This is another >>>> "mind reading" law, though. > > On 2014-03-09 10:09 AM, David Grabiner wrote: >> That was my interpretation; West "led" rather than "playing". > > Except for the mind reading, I like this interpretation. (I seem to be > the only person who objects to mind-reading Laws, so I accept their > existence.) I don't like mind-reading laws either, and the lawmakers seem to avoid them when possible. But I never had any trouble with leads versus plays. I'm not sure why, though people probably don't know the laws well enough to intelligently lie if they wanted to. > >> The fact that L56D exists also excludes this application of L57A. > > I don't see any 56D, and 54D specifies _opening_ lead. Which Law did > you mean? > >> Since there is a rule for a lead out of turn during the hand, > > That would be L53A, right? > >> and every lead out of turn is made before partner plays to the >> trick, L57A cannot be intended to apply to these leads. > > I like this logic. > > Let me try to sum up the general rules for a defender's exposed card; > please somebody tell me if I have it wrong: > > 1. if the card was accidentally dropped, it's a MPC if an honor or mPC > if not. > > 2. if the card was led, declarer can accept it as a lead and otherwise > it's a MPC. > > 3. if the card was played as the fifth card to a trick, it's a MPC. > > 4. if the card was played out of turn within a trick, L57A may apply. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 10 15:25:50 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:25:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:33:12 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/03/2014 2:59, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> >>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >> >> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >> >> See the >>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>> >>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and lost >>> a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >> >> >> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not assess >> damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we assess >> damage at the end of the hand. >> >> This seems eminently fair and reasonable. Can you think of any >> counter-examples? >> >> To use your example, a player is forced to play a dropped card. This is >> not a good strategy, so there is advantage, not disadvantage to the >> nonoffending side. If that turns out to the a correct play the offender >> never would have found, that is damage, as assessed by the end of the >> hand. But we ignore it. > > I don't think any player would understand this. We decide at the end of > the hand - no we don't. Sometimes we consider damage at the end of the hand and sometimes we don't. That's a fact of the laws. You said the same thing, right? Does anyone understand why? > > Also, it doesn't fit well when invoking "failed to protect himself". Well, in this example, I am not sure how that applies. More generally, can you site in the laws where it says that we do not protect for damage caused by the use of UI? Almost always we do, and almost always we assess damage at the end of the hand. Right? But no one did that for the presenting example. > > Since your solution isn't explicitly written and is difficult to use, I > don't think we should explicitly use it. IMHO the "damage & link check" > procedure is more efficient. What is the damage & link check? Actually, my method is very intuitive. According to my calculations, everyone on blml naturally applied it. I agree that once you start talking about things like "Point B", it might be tough reading. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 16:23:03 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <531DD8D7.1030403@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/03/2014 15:25, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > What is the damage & link check? 1) check whether there was an infraction 2) check whether there was damage 3) check wether the damage was a consequence of the infraction or whether it was self-inflicted From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 10 14:18:53 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:18:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 20:59:04 -0500, Robert Frick wrote: > >> >> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. > > Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? > > See the >> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >> >> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and lost a >> tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? > > > That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. There > is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we can > identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not assess > damage > at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we assess damage at > the end of the hand. > > This seems eminently fair and reasonable. Can you think of any > counter-examples? > > To use your example, a player is forced to play a dropped card. This is > not a good strategy, so there is advantage, not disadvantage to the > nonoffending side. If that turns out to the a correct play the offender > never would have found, that is damage, as assessed by the end of the > hand. But we ignore it. > > This also explains the original example. We could identify a point where > the player, having extra information, was not disadvantaged by the > opponents coming in the auction. In the presenting problem, the infraction (Point A) was N-S coming into the auction. E-W would have been in 3 Spades (going down) without the infraction; because of the infraction, they were in 4 Spades down another trick. So they were damaged by the infraction, as measured at Point C (the end of the hand). However, when this player bid 4 Spades, he had more information than other players. Information is always good. So at this point (Point B), he was not damaged by the infraction (assuming no damage in play). Therefore, all of the answers from blml were correct and appropriate. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 10 16:34:59 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:34:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> >> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. > > Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? > > See the >> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >> >> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? > > > That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. > There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we > can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not > assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we > assess damage at the end of the hand. ton: I have the habit to try to understand what is going on, since it is not impossible that it might affect the laws and gives us a suggestion for improvement. To do so I need to know what is going on. Here I have no clue. What was the reason to come up with time A,B and C? I am willing to accept that the choice for these letters means that time B occurs between A and C. To be honest I thought that these damage laws well reasonably clear. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 11 05:17:34 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:17:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:34:59 -0400, ton wrote: > >>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >> >> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >> >> See the >>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>> >>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >> >> >> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >> assess damage at the end of the hand. > > > ton: > > > I have the habit to try to understand what is going on, since it is not > impossible that it might affect the laws and gives us a suggestion for > improvement. To do so I need to know what is going on. Here I have no > clue. > What was the reason to come up with time A,B and C? I am willing to > accept > that the choice for these letters means that time B occurs between A and > C. > To be honest I thought that these damage laws well reasonably clear. > > Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter the auction. Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. Does that mean NS gained an advantage from the infraction? Anyway, everyone ruled that EW should not be protected. Why? When it came time for East to either pass 3S or bid 4S, he wasn't damaged. The entry of the opponents into the auction didn't interfere with anything. To the contrary, it gave him more information. He used this extra information (rightly or wrongly) to bid 4 Spades. This is a general principle: When we can identify a point following the infraction where the offending side was not damaged, then their should be no rectification of apparent damage as measured at the end of the hand. The laws in general seem to follow this principle. That's good, because it's a good principle. But I believe I can find instances where people do not follow this principle in ruling. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Mar 11 21:41:35 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:41:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <60674260-1497-40B3-ACCC-DE473D8BF5F1@verizon.net> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 20:59:04 -0500, Robert Frick > wrote: > >>> >>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >> >> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >> >>> See the >>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>> >>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and lost a >>> tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >> >> >> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. There >> is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we can >> identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not assess >> damage >> at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we assess damage at >> the end of the hand. >> >> This seems eminently fair and reasonable. Can you think of any >> counter-examples? >> >> To use your example, a player is forced to play a dropped card. This is >> not a good strategy, so there is advantage, not disadvantage to the >> nonoffending side. If that turns out to the a correct play the offender >> never would have found, that is damage, as assessed by the end of the >> hand. But we ignore it. >> >> This also explains the original example. We could identify a point where >> the player, having extra information, was not disadvantaged by the >> opponents coming in the auction. > > In the presenting problem, the infraction (Point A) was N-S coming into > the auction. E-W would have been in 3 Spades (going down) without the > infraction; because of the infraction, they were in 4 Spades down another > trick. So they were damaged by the infraction, as measured at Point C (the > end of the hand). E-W would have reached 3S without the infraction; because of the infraction, they reached 3S by a somewhat different route. Period. Then N bid 4S for reasons of his own; nothing the opponents did prevented him from stopping in 3S. Would we adjust if an opponent had invited him to dinner, and he bid 4S because he had just decided to accept the invitation and confused dinner with 4S? If his having this infraction on his mind caused him to make an equally bad bid on the next round? Damage doesn't cease to exist and then reappear again later; once it's gone it's gone, and measuring it "at Point C", or at any other point after it has already disappeared, is meaningless. > However, when this player bid 4 Spades, he had more information than other > players. Information is always good. So at this point (Point B), he was > not damaged by the infraction (assuming no damage in play). When he bid 4S, the infraction and any potential damage were fully dissipated and no longer relevant to anything. Except when applying L23 (not relevant here), that he "had more information" was as irrelevant, as Edgar would have said, than his knowing more about the battle of Waterloo. > Therefore, all of the answers from blml were correct and appropriate. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Wed Mar 12 14:07:37 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:07:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2014, at 11:34 AM, ton wrote: >>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >> >> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >> >> See the >>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>> >>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >> >> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >> assess damage at the end of the hand. As I read Bob's example: At point A, an infraction occurs. At point B, any potential damage from the infraction has fully dissipated, with equity "restored" for the NOS. At point C, the NOS claims that the infraction "distracted" them into doing something foolish. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 14:45:22 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:45:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:34:59 -0400, ton wrote: > >>>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >>> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >>> >>> See the >>>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>>> >>>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >>> >>> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >>> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >>> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >>> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >>> assess damage at the end of the hand. >> >> ton: >> >> >> I have the habit to try to understand what is going on, since it is not >> impossible that it might affect the laws and gives us a suggestion for >> improvement. To do so I need to know what is going on. Here I have no >> clue. >> What was the reason to come up with time A,B and C? I am willing to >> accept >> that the choice for these letters means that time B occurs between A and >> C. >> To be honest I thought that these damage laws well reasonably clear. >> >> > Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter > the auction. > > Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because > they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is > going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering > the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. Sorry, but I can't agree. The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the opponents' action. The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. Best regards Alain From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Mar 12 17:49:42 2014 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:49:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:34:59 -0400, ton wrote: >> >>>>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >>>> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >>>> >>>> See the >>>>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>>>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>>>> >>>>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>>>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>>>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >>>> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >>>> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >>>> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. >>> ton: >>> >>> >>> I have the habit to try to understand what is going on, since it is not >>> impossible that it might affect the laws and gives us a suggestion for >>> improvement. To do so I need to know what is going on. Here I have no >>> clue. >>> What was the reason to come up with time A,B and C? I am willing to >>> accept >>> that the choice for these letters means that time B occurs between A and >>> C. >>> To be honest I thought that these damage laws well reasonably clear. >>> >>> >> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >> the auction. >> >> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because >> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. > Sorry, but I can't agree. > > The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and > wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the > opponents' action. > > The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was > injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been > there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his > injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case > the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. > > But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there been no use of UI? In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go wrong that other pairs did not face? --bp From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 12 17:58:02 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:58:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:45:22 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:34:59 -0400, ton >> wrote: >> >>>>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >>>> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >>>> >>>> See the >>>>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>>>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>>>> >>>>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>>>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>>>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >>>> >>>> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >>>> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >>>> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. >>> >>> ton: >>> >>> >>> I have the habit to try to understand what is going on, since it is not >>> impossible that it might affect the laws and gives us a suggestion for >>> improvement. To do so I need to know what is going on. Here I have no >>> clue. >>> What was the reason to come up with time A,B and C? I am willing to >>> accept >>> that the choice for these letters means that time B occurs between A >>> and >>> C. >>> To be honest I thought that these damage laws well reasonably clear. >>> >>> >> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >> the auction. >> >> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. >> Because >> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. > Sorry, but I can't agree. > > The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and > wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the > opponents' action. > > The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was > injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been > there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his > injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case > the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. Suppose someone said, "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." You are saying that it's more complicated than this? That the offending side is not necessarily responsible? ("the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsibility") From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 12 18:00:40 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:00:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:07:37 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 10, 2014, at 11:34 AM, ton wrote: > >>>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >>> >>> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >>> >>> See the >>>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>>> >>>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >>> >>> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >>> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >>> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >>> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >>> assess damage at the end of the hand. > > As I read Bob's example: > > At point A, an infraction occurs. > > At point B, any potential damage from the infraction has fully > dissipated, with equity "restored" for the NOS. > > At point C, the NOS claims that the infraction "distracted" them into > doing something foolish. No, the NOS claim that they received a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. (There was no mention in the original problem that they were distracted or did something foolish.) From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Wed Mar 12 18:17:29 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:17:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> On Mar 12, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >>> the auction. >>> >>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because >>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. No. Because responder chose to bid 4S, E-W ended up in 4S. E-W could just as easily have chosen to stop at 3S whether N-S entered the auction or not. >> Sorry, but I can't agree. >> >> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and >> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >> opponents' action. >> >> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his >> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. > > But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone > either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there > been no use of UI? No. Responder's decision was whether his hand was worth an invitation or a unilteral game bid. He would have had the same decision absent the UI infraction. > In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go > wrong that other pairs did not face? No. The other pairs had to decide whether responder is worth an invitation or a unilateral game bid too. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Mar 12 18:40:35 2014 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:40:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> Message-ID: <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> On 3/12/14, 6:17 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 12, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >>>> the auction. >>>> >>>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because >>>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >>>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >>>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. > No. Because responder chose to bid 4S, E-W ended up in 4S. E-W could just as easily have chosen to stop at 3S whether N-S entered the auction or not. > >>> Sorry, but I can't agree. >>> >>> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and >>> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >>> opponents' action. >>> >>> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >>> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >>> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his >>> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >>> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. >> But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone >> either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there >> been no use of UI? > No. Responder's decision was whether his hand was worth an invitation or a unilteral game bid. He would have had the same decision absent the UI infraction. > >> In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go >> wrong that other pairs did not face? > No. The other pairs had to decide whether responder is worth an invitation or a unilateral game bid too. > > OK, I think I get it. But now suppose all this action took place one level higher...i.e., the choice was between passing (or doubling) opponents' UI-based bid or bidding 5S. Now the decision to accept a push/sacrifice seems to have a different coloration, since the NOS would not have bid 5S voluntarily w/o being pushed, as they were already in in game. So I guess you are saying there was no pushing in the base example. Do you know this for sure? If so, how? --bp From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 12 18:48:51 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:48:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 57A In-Reply-To: <002401cf3c4d$573170c0$05945240$@online.no> References: <531A7EDD.5080600@nhcc.net> <36D72D36A7A5471C8193BD2EC5903685@erdos> <531B2E3F.60103@nhcc.net> <500B5910939E4D47AB761110AEAE22C8@erdos> <531CD1C9.3080208@nhcc.net> <002401cf3c4d$573170c0$05945240$@online.no> Message-ID: <53209E03.8040603@nhcc.net> On 2014-03-10 6:41 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I don't see how "mind reading" enters the issue in any way with Law 57? Sorry to be a bit late responding to this. I agree once you are in L57, there's no mind reading. Even getting there will seldom involve mind reading because there will be at least one other card played to the trick. Where the mind reading comes in is with other cases of exposed cards. The Director has to decide whether the faced card was a lead, a play, or accidentally dropped. There will generally be some external evidence, which the players will testify to, but mind reading is what the Director really needs. As I wrote earlier, nobody but me objects to that, so I accept it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 12 22:42:44 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:40:35 -0400, Robert Park wrote: > On 3/12/14, 6:17 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Mar 12, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to >>>>> enter >>>>> the auction. >>>>> >>>>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. >>>>> Because >>>>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades >>>>> is >>>>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents >>>>> entering >>>>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. >> No. Because responder chose to bid 4S, E-W ended up in 4S. E-W could >> just as easily have chosen to stop at 3S whether N-S entered the >> auction or not. >> >>>> Sorry, but I can't agree. >>>> >>>> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, >>>> and >>>> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >>>> opponents' action. >>>> >>>> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >>>> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >>>> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of >>>> his >>>> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >>>> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. >>> But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone >>> either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there >>> been no use of UI? >> No. Responder's decision was whether his hand was worth an invitation >> or a unilteral game bid. He would have had the same decision absent >> the UI infraction. >> >>> In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go >>> wrong that other pairs did not face? >> No. The other pairs had to decide whether responder is worth an >> invitation or a unilateral game bid too. >> >> > OK, I think I get it. But now suppose all this action took place one > level higher...i.e., the choice was between passing (or doubling) > opponents' UI-based bid or bidding 5S. Now the decision to accept a > push/sacrifice seems to have a different coloration, since the NOS would > not have bid 5S voluntarily w/o being pushed, as they were already in in > game. > > So I guess you are saying there was no pushing in the base example. Do > you know this for sure? If so, how? There was no sign of pushing. The opponents competed to 2 Hearts. The NOS went to 4S because the infraction gave them information they otherwise would not have had. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 13 09:34:03 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:34:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> Message-ID: <53216D7B.6080209@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: >> >> So I guess you are saying there was no pushing in the base example. Do >> you know this for sure? If so, how? > > There was no sign of pushing. The opponents competed to 2 Hearts. The NOS > went to 4S because the infraction gave them information they otherwise > would not have had. Now, if the information that was given was correct (otherwise we might be in illegal deception territory), there is no damage. However, we assume that there was an infraction. Ergo, one opponent made a call which he would only be allowed to make if his hand was worth it. And therefore the information was wrong - by definition. Allow me to explain: - East hesitates and passes - this is UI, and North and South are allowed to use both this information, and the fact that this will limit West's actions. - West does call, however. If his call is acceptable, he needs a certain type of hand (a bit stronger than he actually is). North and South are authorized to use the information that West has this type of hand. When it turns out he does not have it, that may well constitute MI. - North or South make a call, based on this information, which turns out badly. At first sight, a simple case of MI. At second sight however, the MI is that the opponents are stronger than they actually are. That does not suggest bidding on, so when they do bid on, there seems to be no reason to adjust. If OTOH North-South fail to bid a makeable game, we are bound to change. At third sight, bridge is never easy - sometimes the stronger opponents appear to be, the more likely your higher contract is to make. (There are but 40 points in the pack, so if they appear stronger, there must be compensatory shape, which means we also have more shape). All this is bridge-technnical, not law-technical, though. Herman. From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Mar 13 09:49:14 2014 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:49:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5321710A.7040401@comcast.net> On 3/12/14, 10:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:40:35 -0400, Robert Park > wrote: > >> On 3/12/14, 6:17 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >>> On Mar 12, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to >>>>>> enter >>>>>> the auction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. >>>>>> Because >>>>>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades >>>>>> is >>>>>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents >>>>>> entering >>>>>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. >>> No. Because responder chose to bid 4S, E-W ended up in 4S. E-W could >>> just as easily have chosen to stop at 3S whether N-S entered the >>> auction or not. >>> >>>>> Sorry, but I can't agree. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, >>>>> and >>>>> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >>>>> opponents' action. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >>>>> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >>>>> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of >>>>> his >>>>> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >>>>> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. >>>> But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone >>>> either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there >>>> been no use of UI? >>> No. Responder's decision was whether his hand was worth an invitation >>> or a unilteral game bid. He would have had the same decision absent >>> the UI infraction. >>> >>>> In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go >>>> wrong that other pairs did not face? >>> No. The other pairs had to decide whether responder is worth an >>> invitation or a unilateral game bid too. >>> >>> >> OK, I think I get it. But now suppose all this action took place one >> level higher...i.e., the choice was between passing (or doubling) >> opponents' UI-based bid or bidding 5S. Now the decision to accept a >> push/sacrifice seems to have a different coloration, since the NOS would >> not have bid 5S voluntarily w/o being pushed, as they were already in in >> game. >> >> So I guess you are saying there was no pushing in the base example. Do >> you know this for sure? If so, how? > There was no sign of pushing. The opponents competed to 2 Hearts. The NOS > went to 4S because the infraction gave them information they otherwise > would not have had. > _______________________________________________ > Sorry. I lost sight of the original auction. Thought there had been a 4H bid. --bp From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 13 13:49:32 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:49:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5321A95C.5020707@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/03/2014 17:49, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:34:59 -0400, ton wrote: >>> >>>>>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >>>>> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >>>>> >>>>> See the >>>>>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>>>>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>>>>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>>>>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >>>>> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >>>>> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >>>>> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >>>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >>>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. >>>> ton: >>>> >>>> >>>> I have the habit to try to understand what is going on, since it is not >>>> impossible that it might affect the laws and gives us a suggestion for >>>> improvement. To do so I need to know what is going on. Here I have no >>>> clue. >>>> What was the reason to come up with time A,B and C? I am willing to >>>> accept >>>> that the choice for these letters means that time B occurs between A and >>>> C. >>>> To be honest I thought that these damage laws well reasonably clear. >>>> >>>> >>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >>> the auction. >>> >>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because >>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. >> Sorry, but I can't agree. >> >> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and >> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >> opponents' action. >> >> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his >> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. >> >> > But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone > either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there > been no use of UI? The question, to go to 4S with commbined power not guaranteeing it, or to keep quiet, was the same as at the other table. What did UI change ? (apart perhaps from telling reponder that spades might be ill-placed, which should have helped him) Of course, it's different if the sequence preempts his side, e.g. if n?2 bids 3H and now you can't make a limit raise. > > In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go > wrong that other pairs did not face? As said above, it's probably the contrary. They were helped by the information of possible irregular patterns. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 13 13:51:30 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:51:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/03/2014 17:58, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:45:22 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:34:59 -0400, ton >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> The Rules explicitly ask us not to consider those later effects. >>>>> Usually? Not in the presenting problem, right? >>>>> >>>>> See the >>>>>> case of a dropped card which becomes compulsory lead and beats the >>>>>> contract. Also the "cut link" provisio. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where should we stop ? A revoke gave NS a cold top ; they pressed on, >>>>>> hopng to win the tournament, but miscalculated their position and >>>>>> lost a tournament which was theirs. Did the revoke damage them ? >>>>> That's the problem. Where should we stop? I suggest the following. >>>>> There is an infraction at time A. The end of the hand is time C. If we >>>>> can identify a point B where there was no damage, then we do not >>>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. If there is no such point B, we >>>>> assess damage at the end of the hand. >>>> ton: >>>> >>>> >>>> I have the habit to try to understand what is going on, since it is not >>>> impossible that it might affect the laws and gives us a suggestion for >>>> improvement. To do so I need to know what is going on. Here I have no >>>> clue. >>>> What was the reason to come up with time A,B and C? I am willing to >>>> accept >>>> that the choice for these letters means that time B occurs between A >>>> and >>>> C. >>>> To be honest I thought that these damage laws well reasonably clear. >>>> >>>> >>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >>> the auction. >>> >>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. >>> Because >>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. >> Sorry, but I can't agree. >> >> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and >> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >> opponents' action. >> >> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his >> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. > Suppose someone said, "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been > the expectation had the infraction not occurred." > > You are saying that it's more complicated than this? That the offending > side is not necessarily responsible? Indeed. Did you hear about "wild, gambling actions" which cut the link between the infraction and the damage, as mentioned in TFLB ? IMHO 4S was such. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 13 13:52:59 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:52:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5321AA2B.5050602@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/03/2014 18:40, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 3/12/14, 6:17 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Mar 12, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >>>>> the auction. >>>>> >>>>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because >>>>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >>>>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >>>>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. >> No. Because responder chose to bid 4S, E-W ended up in 4S. E-W could just as easily have chosen to stop at 3S whether N-S entered the auction or not. >> >>>> Sorry, but I can't agree. >>>> >>>> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and >>>> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >>>> opponents' action. >>>> >>>> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >>>> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >>>> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his >>>> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >>>> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. >>> But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone >>> either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there >>> been no use of UI? >> No. Responder's decision was whether his hand was worth an invitation or a unilteral game bid. He would have had the same decision absent the UI infraction. >> >>> In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go >>> wrong that other pairs did not face? >> No. The other pairs had to decide whether responder is worth an invitation or a unilateral game bid too. >> >> > OK, I think I get it. But now suppose all this action took place one > level higher...i.e., the choice was between passing (or doubling) > opponents' UI-based bid or bidding 5S. Now the decision to accept a > push/sacrifice seems to have a different coloration, since the NOS would > not have bid 5S voluntarily w/o being pushed, as they were already in in > game. > > So I guess you are saying there was no pushing in the base example. Do > you know this for sure? If so, how? > > Mainly from the fact that all spade raises which would have been available after 1S-1NT-2C were still available, plus one bonus (3H). From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 13 13:58:16 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:58:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53216D7B.6080209@skynet.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> <53216D7B.6080209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5321AB68.7070907@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/03/2014 9:34, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Robert Frick schreef: >>> So I guess you are saying there was no pushing in the base example. Do >>> you know this for sure? If so, how? >> There was no sign of pushing. The opponents competed to 2 Hearts. The NOS >> went to 4S because the infraction gave them information they otherwise >> would not have had. > Now, if the information that was given was correct (otherwise we might > be in illegal deception territory), there is no damage. > However, we assume that there was an infraction. > Ergo, one opponent made > a call which he would only be allowed to make if his hand was worth it. > And therefore the information was wrong - by definition. > > Allow me to explain: > - East hesitates and passes - this is UI, and North and South are > allowed to use both this information, and the fact that this will limit > West's actions. > - West does call, however. If his call is acceptable, he needs a certain > type of hand (a bit stronger than he actually is). AG : not sure. He had a spade void, true ? Who would pass ? > > At first sight, a simple case of MI. > At second sight however, the MI is that the opponents are stronger than > they actually are. AG ... or at least that there are foul distributions. > That does not suggest bidding on, so when they do bid > on, there seems to be no reason to adjust. If OTOH North-South fail to > bid a makeable game, we are bound to change. > At third sight, bridge is never easy - sometimes the stronger opponents > appear to be, the more likely your higher contract is to make. (There > are but 40 points in the pack, so if they appear stronger, there must be > compensatory shape, which means we also have more shape). AG : don't agree We see our shape. This is an invariant quantity (not dependent from their actions). The fact that they bid aggressively means that they, not us, have more shape than we can expect on seeing our cards. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Mar 13 14:17:25 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:17:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> On 2014-03-13 8:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Did you hear about "wild, gambling actions" which cut the link > between the infraction and the damage, as mentioned in TFLB ? If this is the case, we still adjust the OS score, right? I'm no longer sure of the original circumstances, but I thought the NOS bidding was by hypothesis nowhere near "SEWG" (L12C1b). From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 13 14:50:49 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:50:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5321B7B9.2020402@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/03/2014 14:17, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2014-03-13 8:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Did you hear about "wild, gambling actions" which cut the link >> between the infraction and the damage, as mentioned in TFLB ? > If this is the case, we still adjust the OS score, right? > > I'm no longer sure of the original circumstances, but I thought the NOS > bidding was by hypothesis nowhere near "SEWG" (L12C1b). Issuing a game invitation and bidding game over the negative response could perhaps be said wild. But I was answering your general question : yes, there are cases where the NOS is responsible for the damage and the OS innocent. About this case, my main point is other : what made 4S such a bad contract is the foul break in spades. The NOS (assuming there was an offence) should have been more aware of this possibility than in the absence of opponent bidding.Whence UI use did in fact help them ; only they decided not to be helped. Their problem. Best regards Alain From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Thu Mar 13 14:04:48 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:04:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <53209026.7020302@comcast.net> <6A1D6054-568C-4997-B81F-6167D1DE7982@verizon.net> <53209C13.1090902@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Mar 12, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 3/12/14, 6:17 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Mar 12, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> On 3/12/14, 2:45 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Le 11/03/2014 5:17, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi ton. On the hand in question, It was a given that NS used UI to enter >>>>> the auction. >>>>> >>>>> Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played in 3 Spades. Because >>>>> they entered the auction, EW ended up in 4 Spades. As even 3 Spades is >>>>> going down (spades break 5-0), EW were damaged by the opponents entering >>>>> the auction. This conclusion follows the laws. >> >> No. Because responder chose to bid 4S, E-W ended up in 4S. E-W could just as easily have chosen to stop at 3S whether N-S entered the auction or not. >> >>>> Sorry, but I can't agree. >>>> >>>> The fact that EW were damaged after opponents entering the auction, and >>>> wouldn't have been else, doesn't prove that they were damaged by the >>>> opponents' action. >>>> >>>> The fact that I was there on the street in my car, that Mr. Smith was >>>> injured upon hitting me, and that he wouldn't have been had I not been >>>> there, doesn't mean I'm responsible for his injuries. The source of his >>>> injuries might have been his own perilous behaviour, and in this case >>>> the fact that I was there is irrelevant in assessing responsability. >>> But wasn't the NOS forced to make a decision here (that could have gone >>> either way)...a decision that they would not have had to make had there >>> been no use of UI? >> >> No. Responder's decision was whether his hand was worth an invitation or a unilteral game bid. He would have had the same decision absent the UI infraction. >> >>> In short, weren't they faced (through UI) with an opportunity to go >>> wrong that other pairs did not face? >> >> No. The other pairs had to decide whether responder is worth an invitation or a unilateral game bid too. > > OK, I think I get it. But now suppose all this action took place one > level higher...i.e., the choice was between passing (or doubling) > opponents' UI-based bid or bidding 5S. Now the decision to accept a > push/sacrifice seems to have a different coloration, since the NOS would > not have bid 5S voluntarily w/o being pushed, as they were already in in > game. > > So I guess you are saying there was no pushing in the base example. Do > you know this for sure? If so, how? From the fact that responder could have passed 3S and played there. At that point there was no "push/sacrifice" to "accept". In the original case the choice was *not* between passing or doubling the oponents' bid or bidding on; it was between playing 3S or bidding 4S. If *that* action took place one level higher, NOS would have freely raised 4S to 5S after their opponents bid 4H, and would get the same no protection. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 19 01:55:24 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:55:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws Message-ID: While any situation has complications, the core seems to be this. Because of an infraction, the player had extra information when deciding between 3S and 4S. Extra information is good. So he wasn't damaged by the extra good information. Everyone on blml agrees that he should not receive protection. To me, this is right, wise, correct, and a sophisticated way of calculating damage. However, the lawbook has a more simplistic version, one that works most of the time but not here. "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." Is there any way to interpret the lawbook to justify the agreed upon lack of damage? From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 19 07:50:10 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:50:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? Message-ID: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> Yesterday I directed a tournament with lots of very mediocre players. This one beat everything I've encountered before. A board was (apparently) misentered. North had 16 cards, South only 10. This one has happened before, no doubt. Neither North or South counted their cards - which they both told me they always do! Neither North nor South remarked their strange distribution. North held a 5-4-4-3. The bidding went normally, and the lead. 10 cards were put down in dummy. Neither East nor West (nor North) remarked that dummy was incomplete. NINE tricks were played. Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they noticed that something was amiss. I was feeling generous and kept the result to 40%-60%. A world record? Herman. From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 19 09:03:08 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:03:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cf4349$aaa99db0$fffcd910$@online.no> How much had these players consumed in the bar before this incident? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 19. mars 2014 07:50 > Til: blml > Emne: [BLML] A world record? > > Yesterday I directed a tournament with lots of very mediocre players. > This one beat everything I've encountered before. > > A board was (apparently) misentered. > North had 16 cards, South only 10. > This one has happened before, no doubt. > Neither North or South counted their cards - which they both told me they > always do! > Neither North nor South remarked their strange distribution. North held a 5-4- > 4-3. > The bidding went normally, and the lead. > 10 cards were put down in dummy. > Neither East nor West (nor North) remarked that dummy was incomplete. > NINE tricks were played. > Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they noticed that > something was amiss. > I was feeling generous and kept the result to 40%-60%. > > A world record? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Mar 19 09:03:41 2014 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:03:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53294F5D.7080300@comcast.net> On 3/19/14, 1:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > While any situation has complications, the core seems to be this. Because > of an infraction, the player had extra information when deciding between > 3S and 4S. Extra information is good. So he wasn't damaged by the extra > good information. > > Everyone on blml agrees that he should not receive protection. To me, this > is right, wise, correct, and a sophisticated way of calculating damage. > > However, the lawbook has a more simplistic version, one that works most of > the time but not here. "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been > the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." > > Is there any way to interpret the lawbook to justify the agreed upon lack > of damage? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Is it possible the "post hoc" fallacy is at work here? While "because of" implies "subsequent to," the converse is not true...merely suggestive at best. --bp From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 19 09:11:20 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:11:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> This post makes no sense. Is the player in question innocent in the irregularity? You state that he wasn't damaged and then discuss if he should or should not receive protection - from what? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 19. mars 2014 01:55 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] Damage & the laws > > While any situation has complications, the core seems to be this. Because of an > infraction, the player had extra information when deciding between 3S and 4S. > Extra information is good. So he wasn't damaged by the extra good > information. > > Everyone on blml agrees that he should not receive protection. To me, this is > right, wise, correct, and a sophisticated way of calculating damage. > > However, the lawbook has a more simplistic version, one that works most of > the time but not here. "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the > expectation had the infraction not occurred..." > > Is there any way to interpret the lawbook to justify the agreed upon lack of > damage? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 19 14:34:32 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:34:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53299CE8.4050002@nhcc.net> On 2014-03-18 8:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side... The key words are "because of an infraction." This requires a direct causal link between the infraction and the damage. As far as I can tell, it is a very terse statement of Kaplan's distinction between "subsequent" and "consequent." I agree that the meaning is less than plain on casual reading. I think Robert's formulation -- asking whether there is a point in time between the infraction and the final result where the expectation of damage is zero -- probably works, but I'm not certain. It doesn't cover "serious error/wild or gambling" (L12C1b) cases. From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 19 15:00:18 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:00:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: <53299CE8.4050002@nhcc.net> References: <53299CE8.4050002@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002401cf437b$8fe45ce0$afad16a0$@online.no> Steve Willner [...] > I think Robert's formulation -- asking whether there is a point in time between > the infraction and the final result where the expectation of damage is zero -- > probably works, but I'm not certain. It doesn't cover "serious error/wild or > gambling" (L12C1b) cases. [Sven Pran] There most certainly is. If for instance misinformation during the auction is corrected before an opponent has made a subsequent call, or so that the opponent can change his affected call according to the correct information (Law 21B) then the expectation of damage is obviously reduced to zero. From arbhuston at aol.com Wed Mar 19 18:19:10 2014 From: arbhuston at aol.com (,) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D111AE7A1FF729-2424-37E4C@webmail-m223.sysops.aol.com> It might not set the record. A few years ago in Wichita, Kansas, the director was summoned at the end of trick eleven. Both defenders had run out of cards. Declarer, who had consumed a few drinks, still had six. The director started to explain to the players that what had occurred was not a hand of bridge when Declarer picked up all seventeen of his original cards, fanned them out, and said, "I don't care about that; how would you bid a monster like this??" Michael Huston -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: blml Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 1:51 am Subject: [BLML] A world record? Yesterday I directed a tournament with lots of very mediocre players. This one beat everything I've encountered before. A board was (apparently) misentered. North had 16 cards, South only 10. This one has happened before, no doubt. Neither North or South counted their cards - which they both told me they always do! Neither North nor South remarked their strange distribution. North held a 5-4-4-3. The bidding went normally, and the lead. 10 cards were put down in dummy. Neither East nor West (nor North) remarked that dummy was incomplete. NINE tricks were played. Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they noticed that something was amiss. I was feeling generous and kept the result to 40%-60%. A world record? 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/20140319/e02f0aae/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 20 03:04:33 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:04:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: <53299CE8.4050002@nhcc.net> References: <53299CE8.4050002@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:34:32 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-03-18 8:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an >> innocent side... > > The key words are "because of an infraction." This requires a direct > causal link between the infraction and the damage. As far as I can > tell, it is a very terse statement of Kaplan's distinction between > "subsequent" and "consequent." I agree that the meaning is less than > plain on casual reading. > > I think Robert's formulation -- asking whether there is a point in time > between the infraction and the final result where the expectation of > damage is zero -- probably works, but I'm not certain. It doesn't cover > "serious error/wild or gambling" (L12C1b) cases. It was not intended to cover L12C1b cases. So, can I rule that L12 does not apply whenever the casual connection is cut? And knowledgeable people will agree with me? From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 20 03:10:50 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:10:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> References: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:11:20 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > This post makes no sense. > Is the player in question innocent in the irregularity? > You state that he wasn't damaged and then discuss if he should or should > not > receive protection - from what? South used UI to enter the auction. Had NS not entered the auction, EW would have played 3 Spades. Because (can I use that word?) NS entered the auction, EW decided to play in 4 Spades rather than 3. This was an unfortunate choice, because 4 Spades went down. Do we use L16 and L12 to rectify? No one on blml said yes. You can read the critical details in the first post on "damage". > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 19. mars 2014 01:55 >> Til: blml at rtflb.org >> Emne: [BLML] Damage & the laws >> >> While any situation has complications, the core seems to be this. >> Because > of an >> infraction, the player had extra information when deciding between 3S >> and > 4S. >> Extra information is good. So he wasn't damaged by the extra good >> information. >> >> Everyone on blml agrees that he should not receive protection. To me, >> this > is >> right, wise, correct, and a sophisticated way of calculating damage. >> >> However, the lawbook has a more simplistic version, one that works most >> of >> the time but not here. "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an >> innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been > the >> expectation had the infraction not occurred..." >> >> Is there any way to interpret the lawbook to justify the agreed upon >> lack > of >> damage? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 20 08:18:47 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:18:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: <8D111AE7A1FF729-2424-37E4C@webmail-m223.sysops.aol.com> References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> <8D111AE7A1FF729-2424-37E4C@webmail-m223.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <532A9657.9070902@skynet.be> Well, at least the defenders did nothing wrong there - they all had as many cards as dummy! , schreef: > It might not set the record. > A few years ago in Wichita, Kansas, the director was summoned at the end > of trick eleven. Both defenders had run out of cards. Declarer, who > had consumed a few drinks, still had six. The director started to > explain to the players that what had occurred was not a hand of bridge > when Declarer picked up all seventeen of his original cards, fanned them > out, and said, "I don't care about that; how would you bid a monster > like this??" > Michael Huston > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: blml > Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 1:51 am > Subject: [BLML] A world record? > > Yesterday I directed a tournament with lots of very mediocre players. > This one beat everything I've encountered before. > > A board was (apparently) misentered. > North had 16 cards, South only 10. > This one has happened before, no doubt. > Neither North or South counted their cards - which they both told me > they always do! > Neither North nor South remarked their strange distribution. North held > a 5-4-4-3. > The bidding went normally, and the lead. > 10 cards were put down in dummy. > Neither East nor West (nor North) remarked that dummy was incomplete. > NINE tricks were played. > Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they > noticed that something was amiss. > I was feeling generous and kept the result to 40%-60%. > > A world record? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Thu Mar 20 13:51:02 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:51:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <65F6994F-BFDE-451D-B305-35CBBE3ACAD2@verizon.net> On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:11:20 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >> This post makes no sense. >> Is the player in question innocent in the irregularity? >> You state that he wasn't damaged and then discuss if he should or should >> not >> receive protection - from what? > > South used UI to enter the auction. Had NS not entered the auction, EW > would have played 3 Spades. Because (can I use that word?) NS entered the > auction, EW decided to play in 4 Spades rather than 3. This was an > unfortunate choice, because 4 Spades went down. Do we use L16 and L12 to > rectify? > > No one on blml said yes. You can read the critical details in the first > post on "damage". The simple answer is no, you cannot properly use the word "because" above. AHD: "Because: For the reason that, since. See usage note... Usage: Because is the most specific of the conjuntions used to express cause or reason and *always* indicates an *unequivocal* causal relationship." [emphasis mine] Thus E-W reached 4S *because* "EW decided to play in 4 spades rather than 3", not "because" of the irregularity. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 21 04:11:18 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 03:11:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A world record? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A3A161@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Humbert Wolfe, 1930 epigram, also apposite this century: You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to. Eddie Kantar: http://www.kantarbridge.com/humor.htm I give a lesson on preemptive bidding and then call off a hand. The class divides the cards. The South hand is supposed to have seven hearts, but North winds up with the 7 hearts and 20 cards and South winds up with no hearts and 6 cards. South calls me over and says: "Mr. Kantar, I have never seen a hand like this before." But she is happy because she likes to count points for short suits. North, on the other hand, is having trouble holding on to all 20 cards and they are falling over the place. But North is even happier than South because North likes to count extra points for long suits. 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/20140321/1fd43fa8/attachment.html From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Sat Mar 22 21:33:40 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 07:33:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 2014 Mar 19, at 17:50, Herman De Wael wrote: > ... Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they > noticed that something was amiss. ... A world record? Maybe. I can?t beat it. Here are a couple similar, uh, feats that might not be world records but are certainly personal bests: Card found on floor. Board missing the card found four tables away (having been played three to five times with 51 cards and nobody noticing). One hand from wrong board. Discovered at trick five. Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4889 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140322/8af19fb4/attachment.bin From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 22 22:03:17 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 22:03:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cf4612$267bb1b0$73731510$@online.no> Beat this one if anybody can: Howell movement with travelling slips in each board. When afterwards scoring the slips I found that the same board had been played three(!) times by the same pair (in three different rounds and against different opponents). They had sit twice in one direction and once in the other. Their three results on the board were all different. Don't ask me how this could happen without anybody complaining about seats being occupied etc. I have no idea. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Timothy N. Hill > Sendt: 22. mars 2014 21:34 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] A world record? > > On 2014 Mar 19, at 17:50, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > ... Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they > > noticed that something was amiss. ... A world record? > > Maybe. I can?t beat it. > > Here are a couple similar, uh, feats that might not be world records but are > certainly personal bests: > > Card found on floor. Board missing the card found four tables away (having > been played three to five times with 51 cards and nobody noticing). > > One hand from wrong board. Discovered at trick five. > > Tim > > -- > Timothy N. Hill > mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 > 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director > American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: > +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 23 01:42:15 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:42:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: <65F6994F-BFDE-451D-B305-35CBBE3ACAD2@verizon.net> References: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> <65F6994F-BFDE-451D-B305-35CBBE3ACAD2@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:51:02 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:11:20 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>> This post makes no sense. >>> Is the player in question innocent in the irregularity? >>> You state that he wasn't damaged and then discuss if he should or >>> should >>> not >>> receive protection - from what? >> >> South used UI to enter the auction. Had NS not entered the auction, EW >> would have played 3 Spades. Because (can I use that word?) NS entered >> the >> auction, EW decided to play in 4 Spades rather than 3. This was an >> unfortunate choice, because 4 Spades went down. Do we use L16 and L12 to >> rectify? >> >> No one on blml said yes. You can read the critical details in the first >> post on "damage". > > The simple answer is no, you cannot properly use the word "because" > above. > > AHD: "Because: For the reason that, since. See usage note... Usage: > Because is the most specific of the conjuntions used to express cause or > reason and *always* indicates an *unequivocal* causal relationship." > [emphasis mine] > > Thus E-W reached 4S *because* "EW decided to play in 4 spades rather > than 3", not "because" of the irregularity. The causal chain is intact. There was an infraction. The infraction caused West to have more information. The more information caused West to decide to bid 4 Spades rather than linger in 3 Spades. The decision to bid 4 Spades instead of lingering in 3 Spades caused EW to get a worse score. If you don't use "because" in this situation, you are never going to use it. As used in L12, it will never apply and we will never have damage. But of course, everyone does use it. Let me try one example. The player decides to bid 4 Spades. That decision causes him to execute the bid of 4 Spades. We know this sometimes fails. Anyway, the actual bid of 4 Spades is what caused EW to read 4 Spades. Can we say that that the decision to bid 4 Spades caused the contract to be 4 Spades? Yes. Eric did, right? At least "E-W reached 4S *because* "EW decided to play in 4 spades.' If I am not portraying your position correctly, Eric, I would love to hear further description of it. Can we say that the chain of damage is broken? Or the chain of indemnity? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 23 01:46:46 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:46:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: <53299CE8.4050002@nhcc.net> References: <53299CE8.4050002@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:34:32 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-03-18 8:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an >> innocent side... > > The key words are "because of an infraction." This requires a direct > causal link between the infraction and the damage. As far as I can > tell, it is a very terse statement of Kaplan's distinction between > "subsequent" and "consequent." I agree that the meaning is less than > plain on casual reading. Kaplan never defined either subsequent or consequent. Correct? Can you provide a definition (that is not based on first deciding how to rule)? People easily and naturally extract a meaning from examples. However, they do not necessarily extract the same meaning, and in fact there are usually differences. There is a particular danger when the examples are narrow, as they are in Kaplan's article. > > I think Robert's formulation -- asking whether there is a point in time > between the infraction and the final result where the expectation of > damage is zero -- probably works, but I'm not certain. It doesn't cover > "serious error/wild or gambling" (L12C1b) cases. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Mar 23 17:59:59 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:59:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: <000601cf4612$267bb1b0$73731510$@online.no> References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> <000601cf4612$267bb1b0$73731510$@online.no> Message-ID: <532F130F.5000408@aol.com> I had a similar experience many years ago in a club tournament. A NS pair did not transfer the right boards to the next table (twice) and this was only discovered after they played one hand for the third time. (They played the others twice - can't recall any more if they were playing 2 board or 3 board sets.) After the belated discovery and having played the hand for the third time, I was called to the table. All three results were different and each was worse for NS than the preceding one(s). Ciao, JE Am 22.03.2014 22:03, schrieb Sven Pran: > Beat this one if anybody can: > Howell movement with travelling slips in each board. > When afterwards scoring the slips I found that the same board had been > played three(!) times by the same pair (in three different rounds and > against different opponents). They had sit twice in one direction and once > in the other. Their three results on the board were all different. > > Don't ask me how this could happen without anybody complaining about seats > being occupied etc. I have no idea. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Timothy N. Hill >> Sendt: 22. mars 2014 21:34 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] A world record? >> >> On 2014 Mar 19, at 17:50, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> ... Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they >>> noticed that something was amiss. ... A world record? >> Maybe. I can?t beat it. >> >> Here are a couple similar, uh, feats that might not be world records but > are >> certainly personal bests: >> >> Card found on floor. Board missing the card found four tables away (having >> been played three to five times with 51 cards and nobody noticing). >> >> One hand from wrong board. Discovered at trick five. >> >> Tim >> >> -- >> Timothy N. Hill >> mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 >> 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge > Director >> American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: >> +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Mar 23 22:38:44 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:38:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A3A6D4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 12B1, second sentence: "Damage exists when, ++because++ of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." Posting from a parallel thread: >The causal chain is intact. There was an infraction. The >infraction caused West to have more information. The >more information caused West to decide to bid 4 Spades >rather than linger in 3 Spades. The decision to bid 4 >Spades instead of lingering in 3 Spades caused EW to >get a worse score. > >If you don't use "because" in this situation, you are never >going to use it. >..... Richard Hills: Yes and No. I do not use "because" in this situation, but I rule "because" applies in many other situations. In the above hypothetical it was not the infraction which "caused" West to be unlucky. Rather, North-South created Authorised Information (AI) for East-West which West could use at her own risk. Sometimes use of AI is unlucky. C'est la vie. The Wizard of Oz (1939 film): "If ever, oh ever a wiz there was, The Wizard of Oz is one because. Because, because, because, because, because." 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/20140323/cf356162/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 23 22:50:36 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:50:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A3A6D4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A3A6D4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:38:44 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Law 12B1, second sentence: >?Damage exists when, ++because++ of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than > would have been the expectation had the infraction not > occurred ? but see C1(b).? >Posting from a parallel thread: > >> The causal chain is intact. There was an infraction. The >> infraction caused West to have more information. The >> more information caused West to decide to bid 4 Spades >> rather than linger in 3 Spades. The decision to bid 4 >> Spades instead of lingering in 3 Spades caused EW to >> get a worse score. >> >> If you don?t use ?because? in this situation, you are never >> going to use it. >> ..... >Richard Hills: >Yes and No. I do not use ?because? in this situation, but I > rule ?because? applies in many other situations. >In the above hypothetical it was not the infraction which > ?caused? West to be unlucky. Rather, North-South created > Authorised Information (AI) for East-West which West > could use at her own risk. Sometimes use of AI is unlucky. > C?est la vie. Hi Richard. This is a sophisticated analysis of causality. I like it. Most other blmler's are doing their own sophisticated analyses and coming up with the same ruling. I was just looking in the laws and I didn't see where it said players use AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn't find it. There is a small technical problem. If someone wanted to rule otherwise, they would agree that the infraction did not cause West to be *unlucky*, but the infraction did cause West to have *a worse score*. That's kind of what I meant when I said the causal chain is intact. Something breaks down, but it isn't the causal chain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140323/7cc8a563/attachment-0001.html From arbhuston at aol.com Sun Mar 23 23:28:53 2014 From: arbhuston at aol.com (,) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D114FE68084794-1674-494DA@webmail-d286.sysops.aol.com> Bobbie Shipley (American national director told me that at a club game, she was consulted about a problem. The director was summoned and when she arrived there were two dummies faced on the table (one by each side). The players had just finished trick five. M Huston -----Original Message----- From: Timothy N. Hill To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 3:38 pm Subject: Re: [BLML] A world record? On 2014 Mar 19, at 17:50, Herman De Wael wrote: > ... Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they > noticed that something was amiss. ... A world record? Maybe. I can?t beat it. Here are a couple similar, uh, feats that might not be world records but are certainly personal bests: Card found on floor. Board missing the card found four tables away (having been played three to five times with 51 cards and nobody noticing). One hand from wrong board. Discovered at trick five. Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: _______________________________________________ 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/20140323/5253b6db/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 00:05:52 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:05:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A3A755@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >I was just looking in the Laws and I didn?t see where it said players use >AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn?t find it. >..... Law 73D1, final sentence: ?Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.? 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/20140323/54b5b08f/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Mon Mar 24 13:38:18 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:38:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> <65F6994F-BFDE-451D-B305-35CBBE3ACAD2@verizon.net> Message-ID: <5CFB60E8-5F81-42C8-84CA-EB2B672408AB@verizon.net> On Mar 22, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:51:02 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:11:20 -0400, Sven Pran >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This post makes no sense. >>>> Is the player in question innocent in the irregularity? >>>> You state that he wasn't damaged and then discuss if he should or >>>> should >>>> not >>>> receive protection - from what? >>> >>> South used UI to enter the auction. Had NS not entered the auction, EW >>> would have played 3 Spades. Because (can I use that word?) NS entered >>> the >>> auction, EW decided to play in 4 Spades rather than 3. This was an >>> unfortunate choice, because 4 Spades went down. Do we use L16 and L12 to >>> rectify? >>> >>> No one on blml said yes. You can read the critical details in the first >>> post on "damage". >> >> The simple answer is no, you cannot properly use the word "because" >> above. >> >> AHD: "Because: For the reason that, since. See usage note... Usage: >> Because is the most specific of the conjuntions used to express cause or >> reason and *always* indicates an *unequivocal* causal relationship." >> [emphasis mine] >> >> Thus E-W reached 4S *because* "EW decided to play in 4 spades rather >> than 3", not "because" of the irregularity. > > The causal chain is intact. There was an infraction. The infraction caused > West to have more information. The more information caused West to decide > to bid 4 Spades rather than linger in 3 Spades. The decision to bid 4 > Spades instead of lingering in 3 Spades caused EW to get a worse score. > > If you don't use "because" in this situation, you are never going to use > it. As used in L12, it will never apply and we will never have damage. But > of course, everyone does use it. Nonsense. In the current case, had N-S bid on to 4H, "pushing" E-W to 4S (i.e. forcing a decision over 4H), L12 would obviously apply. But E-W never faced such a decision, only the same decision -- whether to play 3S or bid 4S -- they would have faced absent the irregularity.l > Let me try one example. The player decides to bid 4 Spades. That decision > causes him to execute the bid of 4 Spades. We know this sometimes fails. > Anyway, the actual bid of 4 Spades is what caused EW to read 4 Spades. Can > we say that that the decision to bid 4 Spades caused the contract to be 4 > Spades? Yes. Eric did, right? At least "E-W reached 4S *because* "EW > decided to play in 4 spades.' > > If I am not portraying your position correctly, Eric, I would love to hear > further description of it. Can we say that the chain of damage is broken? > Or the chain of indemnity? More the latter. I'd have called it "chain of consequence". At the point E-W had reached 3S and faced a decision whether to bid on, the "chain of consequence" was not "broken" -- it never continued -- but rather exhausted, at which point damage had not yet occurred. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 25 11:53:28 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:53:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: <5CFB60E8-5F81-42C8-84CA-EB2B672408AB@verizon.net> References: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> <65F6994F-BFDE-451D-B305-35CBBE3ACAD2@verizon.net> <5CFB60E8-5F81-42C8-84CA-EB2B672408AB@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:38:18 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 22, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:51:02 -0400, Eric Landau >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:11:20 -0400, Sven Pran >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This post makes no sense. >>>>> Is the player in question innocent in the irregularity? >>>>> You state that he wasn't damaged and then discuss if he should or >>>>> should >>>>> not >>>>> receive protection - from what? >>>> >>>> South used UI to enter the auction. Had NS not entered the auction, EW >>>> would have played 3 Spades. Because (can I use that word?) NS entered >>>> the >>>> auction, EW decided to play in 4 Spades rather than 3. This was an >>>> unfortunate choice, because 4 Spades went down. Do we use L16 and L12 >>>> to >>>> rectify? >>>> >>>> No one on blml said yes. You can read the critical details in the >>>> first >>>> post on "damage". >>> >>> The simple answer is no, you cannot properly use the word "because" >>> above. >>> >>> AHD: "Because: For the reason that, since. See usage note... Usage: >>> Because is the most specific of the conjuntions used to express cause >>> or >>> reason and *always* indicates an *unequivocal* causal relationship." >>> [emphasis mine] >>> >>> Thus E-W reached 4S *because* "EW decided to play in 4 spades rather >>> than 3", not "because" of the irregularity. >> >> The causal chain is intact. There was an infraction. The infraction >> caused >> West to have more information. The more information caused West to >> decide >> to bid 4 Spades rather than linger in 3 Spades. The decision to bid 4 >> Spades instead of lingering in 3 Spades caused EW to get a worse score. >> >> If you don't use "because" in this situation, you are never going to use >> it. As used in L12, it will never apply and we will never have damage. >> But >> of course, everyone does use it. > > Nonsense. In the current case, had N-S bid on to 4H, "pushing" E-W to > 4S (i.e. forcing a decision over 4H), L12 would obviously apply. But > E-W never faced such a decision, only the same decision -- whether to > play 3S or bid 4S -- they would have faced absent the irregularity. Surely we are inclined to rectify if the player had faced the same decision but because of the irregularity the player had less information. If I may strive for a general position: If, because of an irregularity, a player has better information in making a decision, we do not rectify when that decision works out poorly. > >> Let me try one example. The player decides to bid 4 Spades. That >> decision >> causes him to execute the bid of 4 Spades. We know this sometimes fails. >> Anyway, the actual bid of 4 Spades is what caused EW to read 4 Spades. >> Can >> we say that that the decision to bid 4 Spades caused the contract to be >> 4 >> Spades? Yes. Eric did, right? At least "E-W reached 4S *because* "EW >> decided to play in 4 spades.' >> >> If I am not portraying your position correctly, Eric, I would love to >> hear >> further description of it. Can we say that the chain of damage is >> broken? >> Or the chain of indemnity? > > More the latter. I'd have called it "chain of consequence". At the > point E-W had reached 3S and faced a decision whether to bid on, the > "chain of consequence" was not "broken" -- it never continued -- but > rather exhausted, at which point damage had not yet occurred. I think the chain of consequence continued -- the player bid 4 Spades because of the extra information he was given. It was the chain of damage (or indemnity or rectification) that was broken -- there is no damage in getting better information. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 14:44:50 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:44:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <53318852.1000109@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/03/2014 21:33, Timothy N. Hill a ?crit : > On 2014 Mar 19, at 17:50, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> ... Finally, with dummy having only one card and declarer seven, they >> noticed that something was amiss. ... A world record? > Maybe. I can't beat it. > > Here are a couple similar, uh, feats that might not be world records but are certainly personal bests: > > Card found on floor. Board missing the card found four tables away (having been played three to five times with 51 cards and nobody noticing). This, at least, is not a record. Mine is six rounds without anybody noticing. The fact that the hand was a cold slam, taking some time to be bid (or missed) and therefore prompting the players to claim, could have had some impact. Then one pair bid to a more difficult slam (NT in lieu of hearts) and declarer had some trouble determine his line of play, before he understood why :-) > > One hand from wrong board. Discovered at trick five. > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140325/133bcdc9/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 14:51:32 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:51:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A world record? In-Reply-To: <000601cf4612$267bb1b0$73731510$@online.no> References: <53293E22.2020409@skynet.be> <000601cf4612$267bb1b0$73731510$@online.no> Message-ID: <533189E4.5070903@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/03/2014 22:03, Sven Pran a ?crit : > Beat this one if anybody can: > Howell movement with travelling slips in each board. > When afterwards scoring the slips I found that the same board had been > played three(!) times by the same pair (in three different rounds and > against different opponents). They had sit twice in one direction and once > in the other. Their three results on the board were all different. > > Don't ask me how this could happen without anybody complaining about seats > being occupied etc. I have no idea. > I have one. When you are late on a round and everybody but you is seated you assume that the remaining free seats are yours. And if you're late on one round you usually keep being. Another interesting "achievement" : one monday, during the bidding of a hand, I call the TD to signal that this is a hand from last monday's duplicate. His reply : "impossible. The same boards have been used on friday". And he sticked to it although I could call LHO's hand in detail (it had been mine and it was a spectacular deal). The explanation is obvious : twice in a row one had forgotten to deal the cards, and at about 11 tables (7 on friday and 4 on monday) none of the regular customers did notice. (I don't play on fridays) Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 25 16:40:41 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:40:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A3A755@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A3A755@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:05:52 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> ..... >> I was just looking in the Laws and I didn?t see where it said players >> use >> AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn?t >> find it. >> ..... >Law 73D1, final sentence: >?Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an > opponent, and at his own risk.? This refers only to variations from steady tempo and unvarying manner. So it would be useless for this case. >> UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140325/46759929/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 16:53:16 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:53:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> <65F6994F-BFDE-451D-B305-35CBBE3ACAD2@verizon.net> <5CFB60E8-5F81-42C8-84CA-EB2B672408AB@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > If I may strive for a general position: If, because of an irregularity, a > player has better information in making a decision, we do not rectify when > that decision works out poorly. > How do you define `better information'? Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 26 01:43:54 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:43:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damage & the laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf434a$d0ef2c50$72cd84f0$@online.no> <65F6994F-BFDE-451D-B305-35CBBE3ACAD2@verizon.net> <5CFB60E8-5F81-42C8-84CA-EB2B672408AB@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:53:16 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> If I may strive for a general position: If, because of an irregularity, >> a >> player has better information in making a decision, we do not rectify >> when >> that decision works out poorly. >> > > How do you define `better information'? More information. For example, knowing declarer is 5-5 in the majors is better than knowing he has 5 hearts. More precise information. For example, knowing declarer has 6 hearts is better than knowing declarer has 5 or more hearts. More relevant information. Knowing declarer actually has a 4-5-3-1 distribution is better than just knowing that is the hand pattern according to their system. I don't know if anyone else wants the long answer. In case.... Information in bridge is like money -- it's good. Everyone tries to get as much as they can. You can't claim damage from getting more money or more information. If because of an infraction, you received wrong information, or did not receive information you should have, then you can appropriately claim damage (other conditions being met). If because of an infraction, you receive more information, you are advantaged, not damaged, and the chain of damage is broken. If you use this information to make what you think is a better play, you are advantaged. If this doesn't work out... you knew that might happen. It is inappropriate for you to be protected. (That would be the ultimate double shot.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 27 02:14:48 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:14:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] no real damage but.. Message-ID: BUSINESS AS USUAL Because of the defender's irregularity, the defender thinks declarer has 3 or more clubs. With the irregularity, the defender would know that declarer might have 2 clubs. The defender chooses the best defense, assuming 3 or more, and it doesn't work. Declarer in fact has 2 clubs. You director are persuaded that he would have chosen a different defense if he had known declarer could have 2 clubs, that alternate defense would have worked, so you rectify. NO REAL DAMAGE, BUT Almost identical hand and bidding and play, except in fact declarer does have 3 clubs. So the defender got better information than he was entitled to (no damage) and was able to select the better defense (no damage). Like the first hand, the better defense didn't actually work, which happens. Are people clear what the principle here is? The worse score is subsequent but not consequent damage, or not directly causal, or however you want to explain the example I started with. Do we still use the accurate, sophisticated method of determining damage? From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 27 04:14:16 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:14:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] no real damage but.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:14:48 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > BUSINESS AS USUAL > > Because of the defender's irregularity, declarer's irregularity. Sorry the defender thinks declarer has > 3 > or more clubs. With the irregularity, the defender would know that > declarer might have 2 clubs. The defender chooses the best defense, > assuming 3 or more, and it doesn't work. Declarer in fact has 2 clubs. > You > director are persuaded that he would have chosen a different defense if > he > had known declarer could have 2 clubs, that alternate defense would have > worked, so you rectify. > > NO REAL DAMAGE, BUT > > Almost identical hand and bidding and play, except in fact declarer does > have 3 clubs. So the defender got better information than he was entitled > to (no damage) and was able to select the better defense (no damage). > Like > the first hand, the better defense didn't actually work, which happens. > > Are people clear what the principle here is? The worse score is > subsequent > but not consequent damage, or not directly causal, or however you want to > explain the example I started with. > > Do we still use the accurate, sophisticated method of determining damage? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 01:13:42 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:13:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A40E7E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>..... >>I was just looking in the Laws and I didn't see where it said players >>use AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn't >>find it. >>..... Law 73D1, final sentence: "Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." >This refers only to variations from steady tempo and unvarying manner. >So it would be useless for this case. Richard Hills: Another philosopher who believes in the uselessness of everything is the Muskrat. Tove Jansson, Comet in Moominland: "I am Muskrat. Not that it matters. But the bridge you built has destroyed my home by the river. Of course - it is insignificant for a philosopher whether he lives or dies - but having caught a cold it is un- certain what will happen to me..." Richard Hills: But in my opinion the above Law 73D1 sentence is instead a Useful indicative example guiding almost all rulings on use-of-AI Because, Because, Because the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton. Best wishes, Richard James Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140328/e3832803/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Mar 28 02:55:39 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:55:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unrelated to the infraction Message-ID: <5334D69B.4000103@nhcc.net> I don't think I've seen this discussed. Suppose NS use Hesitation Blackwood to bid a slam. This is an egregious violation, they should know better, and you will give them a PP. However... The slam is doomed on normal play, but East is so upset at the obvious violation that he drops an honor face up, and the MPC allows slam to make. (Or say East revokes.) There is no doubt the emotional reaction was caused by the NS violation. The exposed card (or revoke) is the very definition of "serious error," but is it "unrelated to the infraction" for purposes of L12C1b? I can see both sides of this question, though (as will surprise no one) I have a tentative opinion. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 28 02:56:17 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:56:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] no real damage but.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: W N E S 1NT P 2C P 2D P 3NT P P P East: "Do we play Smolen?" This is an irregularity, right? It led to North changing his lead, he thought dummy was 5-4 in the majors (which is when Smolen would apply). He would have led a spade, instead he led a club. Dummy came down with 4 hearts and less than 4 spades. He wanted to know if I would protect him (if there was damage). I said yes. But if dummy had been 5-4 in the majors, I would not have protected him (unless of course L23 applied). Philosophically speaking, the chain of causality is identical. But the chain of damage is broken when he gets correct information and uses it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 28 02:59:44 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:59:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A40E7E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A40E7E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: So, according to you, the laws say that there is rectification only when the AI is "deceptive". That's the same as "wrong". Correct? So if dummy says "I have a singleton club", and he does have a singleton club, you are saying that the laws say there is no rectification. But if the dummy says "I have a singleton club" and doesn't, then rectification might occur (other conditions being met). I really wish you were right. On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:13:42 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >>> ..... >>> I was just looking in the Laws and I didn?t see where it said players >>> use AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just >>> couldn?t >>> find it. >>> ..... >Law 73D1, final sentence: >?Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an > opponent, and at his own risk.? > >> This refers only to variations from steady tempo and unvarying manner. >> So it would be useless for this case. >Richard Hills: >Another philosopher who believes in the uselessness of everything is > the Muskrat. >Tove Jansson, Comet in Moominland: >?I am Muskrat. Not that it matters. But the bridge you built has > destroyed my home by the river. Of course - it is insignificant for a > philosopher whether he lives or dies - but having caught a cold it is un- > certain what will happen to me...? >Richard Hills: >But in my opinion the above Law 73D1 sentence is instead a Useful > indicative example guiding almost all rulings on use-of-AI >Because, Because, Because >the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI > are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also > DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton. >Best wishes, >Richard James Hills > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140328/d3676adc/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 04:05:33 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 03:05:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A40F18@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): He was taken to a room in the sprawling Department of Justice. The room was called the Kangaroo Court, in honor of ancient Anglo-Saxon judicial proceeding. Across the hall from it, also of antique derivation, was the Star Chamber. Just past that was the Court of Last Appeal. The Kangaroo Court was divided in half by a high wooden screen, for it was fundamental to Omegan justice that the accused should not see his judge nor any of the witnesses against him. Richard Hills: >>..... >>Because, Because, Because >> >>the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI >>are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also >>DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton. >So, according to you, the laws say that there is rectification only when >the AI is ?deceptive?. That?s the same as ?wrong?. Correct? >..... Richard Hills: A manifestly incorrect attempt at a rhetorical question. Unintentionally wrong does not equal intentionally deceptive. Read the fine Law book! In particular these criteria: Law 73D2?s ?attempt to mislead? and ?purposeful deviation? plus Law 73F?s ?no demonstrable bridge reason?. >So if [declarer] says ?I have a singleton club?, and he does have a >singleton club, you are saying that the laws say there is no rectification. >..... Richard Hills No, with the possible exception of trick one, declarer is required to play her singletons promptly. Declarer may not echelon her hesitations by hesitating with no problem at trick four in order to conceal a future trick six problem. Law 73D1, first sentence: ?It is desirable, though not always required [i.e. sometimes required], for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.? 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/20140328/579e8880/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Mar 28 05:01:12 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:01:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Why to impose impossible revoke penalty Message-ID: <80FFDF8FC5934F75ACDFCE9CB295EA86@erdos> Players are understandably unhappy when they lose a trick to a revoke penalty when they could not possibly have lost it. However, I have an example which illustrates why this penalty should be imposed. Contract is 5C, South has lost two tricks, West on lead 864 - AK - AKQT J3 - Q 4 QT - - 52 - 7 T4 South has the S5 in with his clubs. E-W don't know the spade distribution; they expect South to have a singleton spade based on the bidding (and South did have one during the bidding). West leads a spade which holds, then a second spade, and South faces the C4 and says, "I have trumps and good diamonds, down one," rather than the correct, "down two." E-W might well accept this claim without checking the cards carefully, as the play looks normal to both of them. If E-W don't catch this error, then South (who all agree was careless, not cheating) gets a trick he could not have won; the two-trick penalty (in which he loses a trick he could not have lost on rational play) protects E-W from being placed in an inferior position by South's mis-sorting. (I was West, and I caught the error only because I wanted to check the distribution to see how we would have done in a spade contract; I saw two spades in East's hand and realized that one was missing.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 05:57:51 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:57:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Why to impose impossible revoke penalty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A40FA5@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner, penultimate paragraph: >E-W might well accept this claim without checking the cards >carefully, as the play looks normal to both of them. If E-W don't >catch this error, then South (who all agree was careless, not >cheating) gets a trick he could not have won; the two-trick >penalty (in which he loses a trick he could not have lost on >rational play) protects E-W from being placed in an inferior >position by South's mis-sorting. Richard Hills: Note that the term "revoke penalty" no longer exists in the 2007 Lawbook; the terminological ideal is now "revoke rectification". Rhetorical question: Why should a particular observant East-West gain an excessive rectification because of what might happen at another table to a hypothetical unobservant East-West? WBF Code of Practice, page four: "No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome." Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): "You must judge," Dravivian said. "In this room you can see Earth's civilization in miniature. Tell me what you think of it." "It feels lifeless," Barrent said. Dravivian turned to Barrent and smiled. "Yes, that's a good word for it. Self-involved might perhaps be better. This is a high-status room, Barrent. A great deal of creativity has gone into the artistic improvement of ancient archetypes. My family has re-created a bit of the Spanish past, as others have re-created bits of the Mayan, Early American, or Oceanic past. And yet, the essential hollowness is obvious." 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/20140328/f1efd359/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 28 07:45:05 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:45:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] PP for UI Message-ID: <53351A71.2080006@skynet.be> Let me first tell you what happened at my table on Sunday: Opponents are investigating a spade slam, to be played by my LHO. RHO answers Blackwood with 5D. I have the Ace of diamonds, so I double. LHO bids 6S and partner doubles. He leads his singleton diamond. One down. Which does not bring us anything, since partners make 6S. 1530 and 1630 are both worth 17 IMPs. This is a large room, where 30 team matches are being played with the same boards. Several tables have found the diamond lead - it is a singleton, after all. Then the TD comes over to me to talk about a ruling. At one table, rather than doubling, my hand has asked some questions about the diamonds, before the lead, when not on play. The TD wants to rule UI, but he does see that the diamond lead stands out a mile. He has decided to rule the slam down for the NOS, but to give a PP to the offenders of exactly the gain on the board (so a 17 IMP penalty if the other table is also in slam - he never told me the exact amount he gave). Do we consider it appropriate to award a PP based on the possible gain, when that gain did not in fact materialise? Herman. From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Mar 28 08:11:08 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:11:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] PP for UI In-Reply-To: <53351A71.2080006@skynet.be> References: <53351A71.2080006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901cf4a54$e4afd2b0$ae0f7810$@t-online.de> Hi Herman, no, I don't think it is appropriate this way. A PP should IMHO be a "standard" penalty and the "amount" of it should be based on the kind of the infraction not based on the (amount of) advantage in special circumstances. On the other hand Law 12 B1 tells the TD "to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction". So, if the TD believes that the defenders here gained by the inappropriate question then he could even split the score (to 11 / 12 tricks). This is an adjusted score, not a PP. On top of that the TD might impose a PP for this man's behaviour; on top but not instead. Peter > von Herman De Wael > Let me first tell you what happened at my table on Sunday: > > Opponents are investigating a spade slam, to be played by my LHO. RHO > answers Blackwood with 5D. I have the Ace of diamonds, so I double. LHO > bids 6S and partner doubles. He leads his singleton diamond. One down. > Which does not bring us anything, since partners make 6S. 1530 and 1630 are > both worth 17 IMPs. > > This is a large room, where 30 team matches are being played with the same > boards. Several tables have found the diamond lead - it is a singleton, after > all. > > Then the TD comes over to me to talk about a ruling. At one table, rather > than doubling, my hand has asked some questions about the diamonds, > before the lead, when not on play. The TD wants to rule UI, but he does see > that the diamond lead stands out a mile. He has decided to rule the slam > down for the NOS, but to give a PP to the offenders of exactly the gain on > the board (so a 17 IMP penalty if the other table is also in slam - he never > told me the exact amount he gave). > > Do we consider it appropriate to award a PP based on the possible gain, > when that gain did not in fact materialise? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 28 16:27:29 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A40F18@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A40F18@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:05:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): >He was taken to a room in the sprawling Department of Justice. The room > was called the Kangaroo Court, in honor of ancient Anglo-Saxon judicial > proceeding. Across the hall from it, also of antique derivation, was the > Star Chamber. Just past that was the Court of Last Appeal. >The Kangaroo Court was divided in half by a high wooden screen, for it > was fundamental to Omegan justice that the accused should not see his > judge nor any of the witnesses against him. >Richard Hills: > >>> ..... >>> Because, Because, Because >>> >>> the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI >>> are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also >>> DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton. > >> So, according to you, the laws say that there is rectification only when >> the AI is ?deceptive?. That?s the same as ?wrong?. Correct? >> ..... >Richard Hills: >A manifestly incorrect attempt at a rhetorical question. Unintentionally > wrong does not equal intentionally deceptive. >Read the fine Law book! In particular these criteria: Law 73D2?s ?attempt > to mislead? and ?purposeful deviation? plus Law 73F?s ?no demonstrable > bridge reason?. > >> So if [declarer] says ?I have a singleton club?, and he does have a >> singleton club, you are saying that the laws say there is no >> rectification. >> ..... >Richard Hills >No, with the possible exception of trick one, declarer is required to > play > her singletons promptly. Declarer may not echelon her hesitations by > hesitating with no problem at trick four in order to conceal a future > trick > six problem. >Law 73D1, first sentence: >?It is desirable, though not always required [i.e. sometimes required], > for > players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.? > UNOFFICIAL What about when the AI is correct? Then is it always used at the player's own risk? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140328/21cd9e63/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Mar 29 00:39:33 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:39:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >What about when the AI is correct? >Then is it always used at the player?s own risk? Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002: +=+ Please consider this: Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. Dear Mr Krishnan, Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer explained to her screenmate, who would be the opening leader, that her response to Exclusion Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as correctly explained on the other side of the screen actually promised zero (or three) aces by partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would have defeated the contract. It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told the number of aces in declarer?s hand, so what harm was done? That reasoning may be common sense but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she holds, but bridge law requires something quite different: declarer must give her opponent an accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. She didn?t. Of course it is inevitable that a player who forgets her agreement behind a screen will break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. She will be morally blameless, since she explains in all honesty and good faith, but what the law demands of the explanation is not good faith, the law demands accuracy. Declarer?s inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough to determine the director?s ruling, since information about aces obviously might affect the decision whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee?s ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that the opening lead would have been different had the opening leader been given the accurate explanation (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was far from convinced that the one-ace explanation would have induced the singleton lead (had it been convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, ?average plus? to the innocent team. Note that the strange circumstances of this case arose only because of a screen procedure, where a player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd requirement that she give an accurate explanation of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, is the position in which you know that your partner has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. First though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be ?Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart suit?. That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership agreement, not your partner?s hand. That legal obligation remains the same when, behind screens, you must explain your own action. I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. Sincerely, Edgar Kaplan. Oct. 8th 1989. ---------------------------------------------------------- ~ 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/20140328/91227cc3/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 29 01:49:43 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:49:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Hi Richard. You argued that players use AI at their own risk. ("North-South created Authorised Information (AI) for East-West which West could use at her own risk. Sometimes use of AI is unlucky.") You cited laws; you asked me to read the laws; etc. etc. Now I ask if players use AI at their own risk, and you don't answer. And if understand the point of your post, you now want to answer no? On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:39:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> What about when the AI is correct? >> Then is it always used at the player?s own risk? >Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002: >+=+ Please consider this: >Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan, > Oct 8, 1989. >Dear Mr Krishnan, >Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling > in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer > explained to her screenmate, who would be the > opening leader, that her response to Exclusion > Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed > hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as > correctly explained on the other side of the screen > actually promised zero (or three) aces by > partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening > leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would > have defeated the contract. >It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was > wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told > the number of aces in declarer?s hand, so what harm > was done? That reasoning may be common sense > but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may > require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she > holds, but bridge law requires something quite > different: declarer must give her opponent an > accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. > She didn?t. Of course it is inevitable that a player > who forgets her agreement behind a screen will > break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. > She will be morally blameless, since she explains in > all honesty and good faith, but what the law > demands of the explanation is not good faith, the > law demands accuracy. >Declarer?s inaccurate though honest explanation > was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough > to determine the director?s ruling, since information > about aces obviously might affect the decision > whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee?s > ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely > unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that > the opening lead would have been different had the > opening leader been given the accurate explanation > (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate > explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was > far from convinced that the one-ace explanation > would have induced the singleton lead (had it been > convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six > down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a > small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the > Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, > ?average plus? to the innocent team. >Note that the strange circumstances of this case > arose only because of a screen procedure, where a > player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd > requirement that she give an accurate explanation > of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The > closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, > is the position in which you know that your partner > has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four > clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart > opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you > hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is > obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the > agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. > First though, your right-hand opponent asks about > the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be ?Strong > four hearts opening with a very good heart suit?. That > is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your > partnership agreement, not your partner?s hand. That > legal obligation remains the same when, behind > screens, you must explain your own action. >I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. >Sincerely, > Edgar Kaplan. > Oct. 8th 1989. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ~ 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140329/725fdd53/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 30 05:35:19 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:35:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad. To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that his partner was fast and loose. The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling. regards roger pewick From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Mar 30 16:32:29 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 10:32:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> "Roger Pewick" writes: > I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad. > > To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse > would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the > opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his > agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he > acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that > his partner was fast and loose. The appeal write-up, on page 9 of http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had AQ984 5 KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not expecting a psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; if East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have his bid. North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls to is likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. (And the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is what the TD and AC ruled.) > The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled > that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the > score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling. Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North picking up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 when double would give +450 or +500. But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A procedural penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what he did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be irrational absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI. Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 IMPs or 1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed even for a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Mar 30 16:44:30 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 10:44:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Dallas Appeal 3: What are "standard leads"? Message-ID: <28391B40DCC34EBFBF73A67D0BFEA625@erdos> The appeal is on page 11 of http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db9.pdf The key to this appeal is that East led the HQ, and North was told that E-W play "standard honor leads, coded 9's and 10's". Most ACBL convention cards list the queen as the standard lead from KQT9; very old cards might list the king. Have E-W met their disclosure obligations (assuming that they also have printed convention cards available which North doesn't check?) A more common example of the same problem is that many players play "standard honor leads" against suits and lead A from AK, and others lead K from AK; neither one is marked on most convention cards. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Mar 30 20:03:48 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:03:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> Message-ID: Funny, if an opponent of mine used the "justification" that "when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily bid to 4H, [I] decided that [my] partner must have psyched," then I'm thinking this is prima facie evidence of a CPU. I bit of Bayesian reasoning shows that---there are three other players at the table, distribution can be wild, people make mistakes. A 3 VP penalty seems too small to me if North is experienced. He should learn to avoid that kind of thinking. As Nigel might ask here, how many times did North get away with such things? Even with a 3 VP penalty, North is probably still ahead of the game with this ability to divine when partner has psyched, whether based on experience or mannerisms. CPU is clear. North's is not a minor offense. Jerry Fusselman On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > "Roger Pewick" writes: > >> I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad. >> >> To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse >> would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the >> opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his >> agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he >> acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that >> his partner was fast and loose. > > The appeal write-up, on page 9 of > http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf > > doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily > bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had AQ984 5 > KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not expecting a > psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; if > East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have his bid. > North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls to is > likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. (And > the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is what > the TD and AC ruled.) > >> The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled >> that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the >> score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling. > > Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I > believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust > accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North picking > up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to > psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 when > double would give +450 or +500. > > But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A procedural > penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what he > did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be irrational > absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI. > > Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 IMPs or > 1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed even for > a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Mar 30 20:23:15 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:23:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dallas Appeal 3: What are "standard leads"? In-Reply-To: <28391B40DCC34EBFBF73A67D0BFEA625@erdos> References: <28391B40DCC34EBFBF73A67D0BFEA625@erdos> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > > A more common example of the same problem is that many players play "standard > honor leads" against suits and lead A from AK, and others lead K from AK; > neither one is marked on most convention cards. > I've never seen an ACBL convention card where it wasn't marked. The K is boldfaced, implying its the king unless something else is circled. Jerry Fusselman From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 30 21:38:26 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 14:38:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Grabiner" Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 09:32 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] 1984 > "Roger Pewick" writes: > >> I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad. >> >> To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse >> would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the >> opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing >> his >> agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he >> acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that >> his partner was fast and loose. > > The appeal write-up, on page 9 of > http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf > > doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents > voluntarily > bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had > AQ984 5 > KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not > expecting a > psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; > if > East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have > his bid. > North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls > to is > likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. > (And > the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is > what > the TD and AC ruled.) > >> The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled >> that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts >> the >> score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the >> ruling. > > Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I > believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust > accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North > picking > up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to > psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 > when > double would give +450 or +500. > > But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A > procedural > penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what > he > did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be > irrational > absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI. > > Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 > IMPs or > 1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed > even for > a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood. The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not of an [discloseable] agreement. The AC ruled that NS had no relevant agreement [secret or not] as follows: "The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H." My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't, then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing. regards roger pewick From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Sun Mar 30 21:57:22 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 06:57:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Dallas Appeal 3: What are "standard leads"? In-Reply-To: <28391B40DCC34EBFBF73A67D0BFEA625@erdos> References: <28391B40DCC34EBFBF73A67D0BFEA625@erdos> Message-ID: <54DD4C74-2151-4F1C-AD81-D39CAD5668FF@wesleyan.edu> On 2014 Mar 31, at 01:44, David Grabiner wrote: > The appeal is on page 11 of http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db9.pdf > > The key to this appeal is that East led the HQ, and North was told that E-W play "standard honor leads, coded 9's and 10's". Most ACBL convention cards list the queen as the standard lead from KQT9; very old cards might list the king. *The* current standard ACBL convention card lists the Q as the standard lead from KQT9 *at notrump*, and lists the K as the standard lead from the same holding against a suit contract. > Have E-W met their disclosure obligations (assuming that they also have printed convention cards available which North doesn't check?) In this case, according to the writeup, a defender led Q from KQT5 against a suit contract. Both defenders *thought* that was standard. One of the pair?s two convention cards had that agreement circled. When asked, West failed to disclose their *non-standard* agreement that Q could be from KQT(x). > A more common example of the same problem is that many players play "standard honor leads" against suits and lead A from AK, and others lead K from AK; neither one is marked on most convention cards. If I recall correctly, the standard card identified K as the standard lead from AKx perhaps as recently as five years ago. In any case, the current standard card does not identify any standard lead from AKx. Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4889 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140330/0258c5ac/attachment-0001.bin From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Mar 30 23:19:52 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:19:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Dallas Appeal 3: What are "standard leads"? In-Reply-To: <54DD4C74-2151-4F1C-AD81-D39CAD5668FF@wesleyan.edu> References: <28391B40DCC34EBFBF73A67D0BFEA625@erdos> <54DD4C74-2151-4F1C-AD81-D39CAD5668FF@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy N. Hill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dallas Appeal 3: What are "standard leads"? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 31 00:04:51 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:04:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dallas Appeal 3: What are "standard leads"? In-Reply-To: <54DD4C74-2151-4F1C-AD81-D39CAD5668FF@wesleyan.edu> References: <28391B40DCC34EBFBF73A67D0BFEA625@erdos> <54DD4C74-2151-4F1C-AD81-D39CAD5668FF@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > If I recall correctly, the standard card identified K as the standard lead from AKx perhaps as recently as five years ago. In any case, the current standard card does not identify any standard lead from AKx. > > Tim > Thanks for the correction, Tim, I did not realize that the ACBL had recently unboldfaced the K from AKx in suit contracts. I believe that my club still uses the older cards, but I should check. Was this an announced or unannounced change? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 00:05:34 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 22:05:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A469DF@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL WBF Laws Committee, 8th October 2010, item 8: The committee agreed that if a player infers from information given that opponents have had a misunderstanding he is entitled to use that inference at his own risk. Opponents are entitled only to correct explanations of opponents? partnership agreements. A player who hears partner give an explanation that does not conform with the partnership understanding is required to offer the correct explanation at the due time stated in Law 20F5(b). However if he is uncertain as to what is the correct partnership understanding he is under no obligation to speak immediately, the matter then being one to refer for resolution to the Director at the end of the play under Law 20F6. 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/20140330/453ac1c9/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Mar 31 00:30:53 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> Message-ID: Roger Pewick writes: >"David Grabiner" writes: >> "Roger Pewick" writes: >> >>> I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad. >>> >>> To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse >>> would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the >>> opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing >>> his >>> agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he >>> acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that >>> his partner was fast and loose. >> >> The appeal write-up, on page 9 of >> http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf >> >> doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents >> voluntarily >> bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." > The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not > of an [discloseable] agreement. > > The AC ruled that NS had no relevant agreement [secret or not] as follows: > > "The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H > since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H." The knowledge that West needs is not the fact that South psyched, but exactly what South psyched on. The auction was (1D)-1H-(1S)-4H-AP. West knew that N-S had 15 HCP, and had nine spades and two hearts between them. West needed to play a club suit of T32 in hand opposite KQ95 in dummy for one loser, or to lose two clubs but no diamonds on an endplay. North led a club on the first round, and the CK held. Declarer eliminated spades (West played the SA, leaving only 11 HCP for South, who had a doubleton heart) then led another club from hand, losing the C9 to South's doubleton jack; he would have made if he had played the CQ instead. If South has a doubleton club and the DK, it doesn't matter what West does; if South's doubleton club wins the second round of the suit, South is endplayed. If South has a doubleton club and no DK, or if South has three clubs, West has to guess whether South has the ace or the jack. The strongest hands South can have at this point are QTxx xx KJTxx Ax (which is still a bit light for most players) or Qxx xx KJTxx AJx (also a bit light unless the CJ was mixed in with the spades), and if South has either of those hands, West will make whether he plays the CQ or C9 on this trick because South is endplayed. If South doesn't have that, then he can't have a legitimate opening; Qxx xx KJTxx Axx is the strongest hand South can have on which the play matters. Therefore, West could play under the assumption that South has psyched, with or without evidence of a CPU. I wouldn't dismiss West's allegation out of hand, as it isn't a serious error to play an opponent to have overbid by 2 HCP on a hand otherwise consistent with the auction. West has to decide whether it is more likely that South miscounted his points with a 10-count, or that South psyched (with either Jxx of clubs, or Jx of clubs and no DK; presumably, South would not psyche in first seat with the CA on the side). > My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW > assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would > maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being > told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't, > then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing. And the analysis above shows that the two claims may be independent. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 31 08:03:12 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:03:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> Message-ID: <53390520.2080406@skynet.be> I agree with the sentiments expressed by David below, especially regarding the level of the penalty. OK, we may conclude that North fielded the psyche. But I've read the Lawbook again and again, and I've never seen those words in there. There can be many reasons why a player fields a psyche: 1) he sees in his hand that someone has severely overbid. He knows the psyching tendencies of partner, and perhaps of opponents. He acts accordingly. Nothing is wrong, except the the psyching frequency of partner may not have been communicated to opponents. 2) he guesses that partner has psyched, and is prepared to be proven wrong. Nothing is wrong again, except perhaps the psyching frequency which may be higher than normal, making it more likely that opponents are misinformed. 3) he sees from partners demeanour that he has psyched. This is use of UI. It is up to the TD and AC to determine which one it is. My guess is this was a case 1, so no PP ought to have been given. Herman. David Grabiner schreef: > "Roger Pewick" writes: > >> I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad. >> >> To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse >> would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the >> opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his >> agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he >> acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that >> his partner was fast and loose. > > The appeal write-up, on page 9 of > http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf > > doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily > bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had AQ984 5 > KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not expecting a > psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; if > East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have his bid. > North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls to is > likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. (And > the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is what > the TD and AC ruled.) > >> The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled >> that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the >> score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling. > > Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I > believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust > accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North picking > up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to > psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 when > double would give +450 or +500. > > But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A procedural > penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what he > did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be irrational > absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI. > > Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 IMPs or > 1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed even for > a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From du.breuil.laval at gmail.com Mon Mar 31 12:31:37 2014 From: du.breuil.laval at gmail.com (Laval Du Breuil) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 06:31:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: <53390520.2080406@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> <53390520.2080406@skynet.be> Message-ID: Laval DuBreuil is dead March 10. Wife. Nathalie Lachance Le lundi 31 mars 2014, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I agree with the sentiments expressed by David below, especially > regarding the level of the penalty. > OK, we may conclude that North fielded the psyche. But I've read the > Lawbook again and again, and I've never seen those words in there. > There can be many reasons why a player fields a psyche: > 1) he sees in his hand that someone has severely overbid. He knows the > psyching tendencies of partner, and perhaps of opponents. He acts > accordingly. Nothing is wrong, except the the psyching frequency of > partner may not have been communicated to opponents. > 2) he guesses that partner has psyched, and is prepared to be proven > wrong. Nothing is wrong again, except perhaps the psyching frequency > which may be higher than normal, making it more likely that opponents > are misinformed. > 3) he sees from partners demeanour that he has psyched. This is use of UI. > It is up to the TD and AC to determine which one it is. My guess is this > was a case 1, so no PP ought to have been given. > Herman. > > David Grabiner schreef: > > "Roger Pewick" > writes: > > > >> I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad. > >> > >> To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse > >> would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after > the > >> opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing > his > >> agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he > >> acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] > that > >> his partner was fast and loose. > > > > The appeal write-up, on page 9 of > > http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf > > > > doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents > voluntarily > > bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had > AQ984 5 > > KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not > expecting a > > psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart > fit; if > > East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have > his bid. > > North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he > pulls to is > > likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. > (And > > the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which > is what > > the TD and AC ruled.) > > > >> The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled > >> that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts > the > >> score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the > ruling. > > > > Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, > I > > believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust > > accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North > picking > > up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to > > psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 > when > > double would give +450 or +500. > > > > But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A > procedural > > penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that > what he > > did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be > irrational > > absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI. > > > > Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 > IMPs or > > 1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed > even for > > a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140331/e56f423f/attachment.html