From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 1 05:43:08 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 03:43:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Strange opinions, put an end to the matter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A80353@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran, "Explaining agreements" thread, April 2014: I thought there is consensus that giving UI is not itself an infraction of law, using UI always is? Jeff Easterson, January 2010: Do I understand Herman's closing comment correctly? Herman is the authority that decides what is "black" and what is "white". (And thus who confuses them.) He also decides who is deluded; in this case apparently almost everyone aside from Herman. Ciao, JE Herman De Wael, January 2010: No, the WBFLC has done that. By saying in L20F5b that one must not -in any manner- reveal that a mistake has been made (black). And then by issuing the Beijing interpretation stating that one must reveal that a mistake has been made (white). You may exchange the two colours, but it is the WBFLC who have said that black is white (or the reverse). Grattan Endicott, January 2010: +=+ The WBFLC has merely reiterated its long-standing interpretation of the law, rejecting the interpretation put upon it by Herman. The latter persists in his self-conceit that he is better qualified to interpret the law than those who are appointed to do so. The Beijing minute provides a point of reference for any who are confused by Herman's pretensions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael, January 2010: How can this be a long-standing interpretation? Have you any prior reference? Have I not been saying this for many years - did you not hear and read my comments? Has anything been said by the WBFLC prior to Beijing? No, I don't think so. Grattan Endicott, January 2010 (++ by RH): +=+ It is right to say that no minute on this quite as explicit as the Beijing minute has been published previously. However, the subject has been discussed in the WBFLC. When the committee referred to ++"strange opinions"++ in its minute item 6 of 24 August 1998 it was "Herman's Heresy" that was the principal stimulus for the discussion. There was also an inference to be drawn from minute item 3 of the meeting of 30 August 1998. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 30th August 1998, item 3: In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction" in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. However, it is recognised that in practical play players would frequently ask about the significance of one particular call; this marginal infringement of the laws [no longer an infraction in the 2007 Laws] should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances. Grattan Endicott, January 2010: However, at that time the committee was dismissive of the need to give the subject the credence of a minute to reject the heresy. Instead the matter was covered in guidance given to TDs at seminars. In Beijing recognition that despite counter-statements issued by more than one of the committee from time to time Herman continues to preach his revisionist sermons, led to a decision to ++put an end to the matter++ by recording a formal minute encapsulating the orthodox view of the subject. The minute was unanimously agreed, of course, by the committee. ~ 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/20140501/f5712fb4/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 1 09:24:03 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 09:24:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> Message-ID: <5361F693.8060005@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > I thought there is consensus that giving UI is not itself an infraction of > law, using UI always is? > There may be a consensus amongst yourselves, but I don't agree with that. Or rather, yes, that's true, but it does not prove anything. Why is giving UI "in itself" not an infraction - because there is no general law that says so; and why is there no such law - because such a law would be impossible, since it would ban thinking and misexplaining, two things that are vital to the game. So no, there is no such law, but still, the giving of UI is an infraction. Or what else do you call a ban on partner to make a specific call or play? As a director, you are almost never called on the giving of UI, only on the use of it. Which is why you don't call the giving of UI an infraction. But once in a while, you are called at a table immediately after some piece of UI has been given (most often a break in tempo, but there can be other examples). As director, you carefully explain to the recipient of the UI what his restrictions are. Suppose that person follows that explanation and makes a call not based on the UI. You rule that he has not committed the infraction of using UI. And yet, the pair are "damaged" because they were, together, not able to reach the best contract. What other than a ruling of "illegal sending of UI" have you given? So if the sending of UI is not an "infraction", why did you rule? You should also realize that if you want to enforce your views, you create a new infraction, one which is certainly not in the lawbook, the infraction of "not giving UI". How are you going to rule against a player who (willingly or inadvertantly) breaks the so-called obligation to give a "correct" explanation? Herman. >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Herman De Wael >> Sendt: 30. april 2014 17:28 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> besides which, Richard's quote is about South's duties, having heard > North's >> misexplanation. There is nothing South can do about misexplaining, it's a > sad >> consequence of forgetting one's system sometimes. >> The problem Alain is talking about is the next one: South, having heard > North's >> "correct" explanation of his own bid (which is of course inconsistent with > his >> intentions) now also has UI. >> This for of UI is not unavoidable. North can avoid it by giving the > consistent >> explanation. >> Richard wants to force North into giving UI to partner, then force South > into not >> hearing that same UI. Unplayable. >> And no-one has yet answered the next question: WHat does director Richard > do >> whan North does not give the UI: rule Missing UI? >> Herman. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner schreef: >>> Le 28/04/2014 3:20, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : >>> >>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>> Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly un- >>>> playable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the >>>> illogical explanation. >>> Richard Hills: >>> Not utterly unplayable; rather a simple requirement of Law 75A: >>> ?Whether or not North?s explanation is a correct statement of >>> partnership agreement, South, having heard North?s explanation, knows >>> that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is >>> ?unauthorized information? (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to >>> avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law >>> 73C). >>> * >>> >>> AG : Perfectly right. But it is so difficult to do, and so difficult >>> to ascertain that that has been done, that there is a very high >>> probability that an adjusted score will be needed, and quite often not >>> the right one. This is one of the most intricated situations in the > game. >>> IOW, we fail at "saving the board". * >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 1 09:36:09 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 09:36:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Strange opinions, put an end to the matter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A80353@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A80353@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5361F969.9070302@skynet.be> I will shut up after this last post. I agree that the WBFLC have issued statements that tell the world that the DWS is wrong. I don't agree that this issue should be the final one. I intend to prove, to the world and to the WBFLC, that this position is BAD for the game of bridge. For two reasons: One, because it creates an internal inconsistency. At some tables, a misunderstanding will remain undetected by the opponents, and the director will tell the players to accept that situation, because it's what the laws say. And at another table, with basically the same situation (except a follow-up question), the director will tell the pair who have had a misunderstanding that they are obliged to reveal this to their opponents. Two, because there is, at present, no way of dealing with people who, despite the WBFLC minute, act as in DWS. This creates a situation in which "good" players are at a disadvantage against "bad" ones, surely not something the WBF would want. The WBF might try to remedy that situation by creating a mechanism by which the missing UI is dealt with regardless of it being received. Such a law would be a very contrived thing, and bad for the game, as it would give opponents who know about the mechanism a way of getting some advantage: asking a follow-up question, whether one needs to know the (real) answer or not. This would lead to an excess of questions (not something we want) and ultimately to a situation is which L20F5 is dead letter. A law which the WBFLC have reiterated (in the same minutes of 2008) that they wish to retain. This is just a warning about what might happen if the WBFLC do not change their opinion on this matter. I invite the WBFLC to invite me to discuss this even further, allowing me to explain why their current position is bad for bridge and ultimately untenable. And that means everything on this topic is said. Herman. Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Sven Pran, ?Explaining agreements? thread, April 2014: > I thought there is consensus that giving UI is not itself an infraction of > law, using UI always is? > Jeff Easterson, January 2010: > Do I understand Herman?s closing comment correctly? Herman is the > authority that decides what is ?black? and what is ?white?. (And thus > who confuses them.) He also decides who is deluded; in this case > apparently almost everyone aside from Herman. Ciao, JE > Herman De Wael, January 2010: > No, the WBFLC has done that. > By saying in L20F5b that one must not -in any > manner- reveal that a mistake has been made (black). > And then by issuing the Beijing interpretation stating > that one must reveal that a mistake has been made (white). > You may exchange the two colours, but it is the WBFLC > who have said that black is white (or the reverse). > Grattan Endicott, January 2010: > +=+ The WBFLC has merely reiterated its long-standing > interpretation of the law, rejecting the interpretation put > upon it by Herman. The latter persists in his self-conceit > that he is better qualified to interpret the law than those > who are appointed to do so. The Beijing minute provides > a point of reference for any who are confused by Herman?s > pretensions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman De Wael, January 2010: > How can this be a long-standing interpretation? > Have you any prior reference? > Have I not been saying this for many years - did you not > hear and read my comments? Has anything been said by > the WBFLC prior to Beijing? > No, I don?t think so. > Grattan Endicott, January 2010 (++ by RH): > +=+ It is right to say that no minute on this quite as explicit > as the Beijing minute has been published previously. > However, the subject has been discussed in the WBFLC. > When the committee referred to ++?strange opinions?++ in > its minute item 6 of 24 August 1998 it was ?Herman?s Heresy? > that was the principal stimulus for the discussion. There was > also an inference to be drawn from minute item 3 of the > meeting of 30 August 1998. > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 30th August 1998, item 3: > In relation to the phrase ?a full explanation of the opponents? > auction? in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to > an explanation of the whole auction. However, it is recognised > that in practical play players would frequently ask about the > significance of one particular call; this marginal infringement > of the laws [no longer an infraction in the 2007 Laws] should > not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the > increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that > it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances. > Grattan Endicott, January 2010: > However, at that time the committee was dismissive of the > need to give the subject the credence of a minute to reject the > heresy. Instead the matter was covered in guidance given to > TDs at seminars. > In Beijing recognition that despite counter-statements > issued by more than one of the committee from time to > time Herman continues to preach his revisionist sermons, > led to a decision to ++put an end to the matter++ by recording > a formal minute encapsulating the orthodox view of the > subject. The minute was unanimously agreed, of course, > by the committee. > ~ 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu May 1 10:09:29 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 10:09:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Strange opinions, put an end to the matter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5361F969.9070302@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A80353@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5361F969.9070302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01cf6514$adce6650$096b32f0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Emne: Re: [BLML] Strange opinions, put an end to the matter > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I will shut up after this last post. [Sven Pran] Thanks! From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 1 23:33:42 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 17:33:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> I'm just as worried as everyone else about the "quick dummy" forcing declarer to accept an OLOOT. Where I differ from at least some others is that I'm equally worried about allowing dummy to call attention to an OLOOT. As Robert pointed out, that allows dummy to influence declarer to accept or reject the lead. I don't like that, and the only way I see to avoid it is what I've proposed: if there's an OLOOT, dummy waits a due time to see if anyone calls attention, then faces his cards if no one does. If dummy takes either too much time or too little, there's an irregularity, and L23 applies. That's the same principle as requiring calls and plays to be "in tempo" and redressing any damage that results when they are not. On 2014-04-29 9:04 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I find it perfectly consistent with the actual Laws text as written. > The argument isn't that an OLOOT triggers some sort of unwritten > exception to L43, but rather that once an OLOOT triggers L54 > ... there is no dummy* While that is a logical interpretation (though suffering from the problem mentioned above), I still don't see how it is consistent with the Laws text. In Definitions, we read: "Play period ? commences when the opening lead on a board is faced" Nothing there about the lead being in turn. In L41C we read: "Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy?s hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn)." In L54A, to which the above refers us, we read: After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. ... Dummy becomes declarer. This tells us that declarer and dummy switch identities, not that these identities didn't exist. What am I missing? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 2 01:08:07 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 23:08:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A81CF6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 9A3: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43). Steve Willner: >..... >the only way I see to avoid it [Law 9A3] is what I've proposed: if there's >an OLOOT, dummy waits a due time to see if anyone calls attention, then >faces his cards if no one does. >.... Richard Hills: Not the only way to resolve a paradox. The WBF LC could rule (either in a 2014 interpretation, or in the 2015 Laws) that dummy facing cards after an OLOOT is a Law 43A(c) infraction; and that Law 43A(c) takes precedence over Law 9A3. After all, the WBF LC has similarly ruled that truthful explanations under Law 20F1 are an "overriding requirement" trumping Law 20F5. Steve Willner: >In L54A, to which the above refers us, we read: >After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; >he becomes dummy. ... Dummy becomes declarer. > >This tells us that declarer and dummy switch identities, not that these >identities didn't exist. > >What am I missing? Richard Hills: Missing nothing. On this issue I agree with Steve and I disagree with Eric. Declarer and dummy are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, so one cannot exist without the other according to the Definitions: Dummy - 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. 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/20140501/93870854/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri May 2 15:27:15 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 09:27:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On May 1, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > I'm just as worried as everyone else about the "quick dummy" forcing > declarer to accept an OLOOT. Where I differ from at least some others > is that I'm equally worried about allowing dummy to call attention to an > OLOOT. As Robert pointed out, that allows dummy to influence declarer > to accept or reject the lead. I don't like that, and the only way I see > to avoid it is what I've proposed: if there's an OLOOT, dummy waits a > due time to see if anyone calls attention, then faces his cards if no > one does. If dummy takes either too much time or too little, there's an > irregularity, and L23 applies. That's the same principle as requiring > calls and plays to be "in tempo" and redressing any damage that results > when they are not. > > On 2014-04-29 9:04 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I find it perfectly consistent with the actual Laws text as written. >> The argument isn't that an OLOOT triggers some sort of unwritten >> exception to L43, but rather that once an OLOOT triggers L54 >> ... there is no dummy* > > While that is a logical interpretation (though suffering from the > problem mentioned above), I still don't see how it is consistent with > the Laws text. > > In Definitions, we read: > "Play period ? commences when the opening lead on a board is faced" > > Nothing there about the lead being in turn. L41A: "...the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead". So the card played OOT by the defender on declarer's right is not "the opening lead" unless and until it becomes so by the exercise of one of the options in L54. If declarer chooses to reject the card played OOT (and make it a penalty card) per L54D, the card led by the defender on presumed declarer's left becomes the opening lead, so I would argue that until L54 is applied, there is no "opening" lead (there can't be two of them), just as there is no dummy. > In L41C we read: > "Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the > play period begins irrevocably, and dummy?s hand is spread (but see Law > 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn)." "(but see...)" is used throughout TFLB to indicate an exception to the statement immediately preceding it, which seems to be the only way it makes sense here. "Dummy's hand is spread" *unless* one needs to "see Law 54A" first. Moreover, L54B would seem to make an infraction out of "[spreading the dummy] in accordance with L41" unless and until "declarer [accepts] the irregular lead as provided in L53". > In L54A, to which the above refers us, we read: > After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he > becomes dummy. ... Dummy becomes declarer. > > This tells us that declarer and dummy switch identities, not that these > identities didn't exist. > > What am I missing? The terminological inconsistency with L41, which specifies conditions for opening leads in general, and is careful to use the terms "presumed declarer" and "presumed dummy". It seems far more likely that TPTB failed to realize that omitting the word "presumed" in L54A would give rise to an unintended interpretation than that "presumed" snuck into L41 in three places due to a cut-and-paste error. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 2 16:22:17 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 16:22:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> Message-ID: <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/04/2014 18:31, Sven Pran a ?crit : > I thought there is consensus that giving UI is not itself an infraction of > law, using UI always is? There is. But that's not the problem. The problem is that there will be a high probability, even if UI isn't used, that the deal will be fouled. Take this example, in which my partner, also a TD, did what he had to do ; I also did ; but the consequences were big, and not for us ... The settings : Belgian Cup 2003(?), round 2, which is a 7-round Swiss with about 20 teams involved and 6 qualifiers. We were 4th before the last match and were playing the team placed 7th. Hand are uncertain due to time, but the idea is there. S W N E A10xxxx KJxx AKJ xx Qxx Kxx x Jxxx 1NT 2D* 2H** 2S 3S 4S Our opponents were playing old-fashioned Blue Club : 1NT meant either plain 15-17, or down to 13 with (332)5. Pitch bid 2D, taking 1NT as strong and showing one 6-card major. I took 1NT as possibly weak, and treated 2D as a transfer. I alerted, a question was asked and I answered "Transfer". (why, oh why, did they ask ? North with a 3-suited 3-count and South nothing to write home about ...) Partener did what he had to do : he alerted, explained (upon being asked) 2H as "pass or correct", and bid 2S. This of course created UI, and I was bound to react as if partner had transferred to hearts and bid 2S, which would of course mean a rather strong 46 hand (a 45 would bid 2C, Landy in both defenses).. Constructing a hand ike : AQxx-AQxxxx-x-Kx (NB : not the best one facing mine), I bid the obvious 4S (at teams, vulnerable !). Some might argue that I could miss slam, as partner could as well hold AQxx-AQJxxx-Ax-x. The TD was called, and judged that I had used UI that partner held 6 spades. The contract was pulled back to 2S. Perhaps we should have appealed. We lost 8 IMPs on the deal (EW +500 at the other table), and the match by 5 IMPs. That didn't change anything for us - we merely ended 4th in lieu of 3rd-, but *the opponents took 6th place in lieu of 7th. * If you were on the team ranked 7th, what would you have thought of that mess ? Now use Herman's principle : partner doesn't alert my "completion of transfer", bids 2S over my theoretically P/C bid, and I bid 4S the same way. North is too weak to act. Before the lead, partner calls the TD and explains the problem, and very probably the TD decides there has been no damage and perhaps gives us a 3 IMP penalty, which could affect our ranking, but not opponents ! What do you prefer ? Verily, it's that deal which made me a Herman follower. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Herman De Wael >> Sendt: 30. april 2014 17:28 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> besides which, Richard's quote is about South's duties, having heard > North's >> misexplanation. There is nothing South can do about misexplaining, it's a > sad >> consequence of forgetting one's system sometimes. >> The problem Alain is talking about is the next one: South, having heard > North's >> "correct" explanation of his own bid (which is of course inconsistent with > his >> intentions) now also has UI. >> This for of UI is not unavoidable. North can avoid it by giving the > consistent >> explanation. >> Richard wants to force North into giving UI to partner, then force South > into not >> hearing that same UI. Unplayable. >> And no-one has yet answered the next question: WHat does director Richard > do >> whan North does not give the UI: rule Missing UI? >> Herman. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner schreef: >>> Le 28/04/2014 3:20, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : >>> >>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>> Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly un- >>>> playable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the >>>> illogical explanation. >>> Richard Hills: >>> Not utterly unplayable; rather a simple requirement of Law 75A: >>> "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of >>> partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows >>> that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is >>> "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to >>> avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law >>> 73C). >>> * >>> >>> AG : Perfectly right. But it is so difficult to do, and so difficult >>> to ascertain that that has been done, that there is a very high >>> probability that an adjusted score will be needed, and quite often not >>> the right one. This is one of the most intricated situations in the > game. >>> IOW, we fail at "saving the board". * >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140502/d0d8af47/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri May 2 17:08:44 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:08:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> I don't think you have missed anything. Until the OLOOT indeed becomes the opening lead (after proper application of Law 54) it is legally a card exposed during the auction period. At this time presumed dummy has not yet reached his status as Dummy, so he has his full rights to call attention to irregularities (Law 9A1). Analyze this situation further and you will find no inconsistencies in the relevant laws. (An aesthetic improvement in Law 54 would have been to use the term "presumed declarer" rather than just "declarer" on the player executing his rights under this law.) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Eric > Landau > Sendt: 2. mai 2014 15:27 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Three incidents > > On May 1, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > > I'm just as worried as everyone else about the "quick dummy" forcing > > declarer to accept an OLOOT. Where I differ from at least some others > > is that I'm equally worried about allowing dummy to call attention to > > an OLOOT. As Robert pointed out, that allows dummy to influence > > declarer to accept or reject the lead. I don't like that, and the > > only way I see to avoid it is what I've proposed: if there's an OLOOT, > > dummy waits a due time to see if anyone calls attention, then faces > > his cards if no one does. If dummy takes either too much time or too > > little, there's an irregularity, and L23 applies. That's the same > > principle as requiring calls and plays to be "in tempo" and redressing > > any damage that results when they are not. > > > > On 2014-04-29 9:04 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> I find it perfectly consistent with the actual Laws text as written. > >> The argument isn't that an OLOOT triggers some sort of unwritten > >> exception to L43, but rather that once an OLOOT triggers L54 ... > >> there is no dummy* > > > > While that is a logical interpretation (though suffering from the > > problem mentioned above), I still don't see how it is consistent with > > the Laws text. > > > > In Definitions, we read: > > "Play period ? commences when the opening lead on a board is faced" > > > > Nothing there about the lead being in turn. > > L41A: "...the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead". So > the card played OOT by the defender on declarer's right is not "the opening > lead" unless and until it becomes so by the exercise of one of the options in L54. > If declarer chooses to reject the card played OOT (and make it a penalty card) > per L54D, the card led by the defender on presumed declarer's left becomes > the opening lead, so I would argue that until L54 is applied, there is no > "opening" lead (there can't be two of them), just as there is no dummy. > > > In L41C we read: > > "Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the > > play period begins irrevocably, and dummy?s hand is spread (but see > > Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn)." > > "(but see...)" is used throughout TFLB to indicate an exception to the > statement immediately preceding it, which seems to be the only way it makes > sense here. "Dummy's hand is spread" *unless* one needs to "see Law 54A" > first. > > Moreover, L54B would seem to make an infraction out of "[spreading the > dummy] in accordance with L41" unless and until "declarer [accepts] the > irregular lead as provided in L53". > > > In L54A, to which the above refers us, we read: > > After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; > > he becomes dummy. ... Dummy becomes declarer. > > > > This tells us that declarer and dummy switch identities, not that > > these identities didn't exist. > > > > What am I missing? > > The terminological inconsistency with L41, which specifies conditions for > opening leads in general, and is careful to use the terms "presumed declarer" > and "presumed dummy". It seems far more likely that TPTB failed to realize > that omitting the word "presumed" in L54A would give rise to an unintended > interpretation than that "presumed" snuck into L41 in three places due to a > cut-and-paste error. > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri May 2 17:21:05 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:21:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001a01cf661a$234b1620$69e14260$@online.no> There is a well-established rule that irregularities at one table shall be resolved without any considerations on the possible effects at other tables in the event. I don?t really see how misinformation as such can lead to a board becoming fouled, and I have full confidence in any qualified director being able to sort out how to rectify incidents like the one you refer to below fair and square. May I remind you of the proverb: ?One swallow does not make summer?? The fact that you can show one case where the rectification lead to what you allege was an unfair result for a third party does not in any way reduce the probability that HdW school will lead to even worse consequences both at the affected table and for third party. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Alain Gottcheiner Sendt: 2. mai 2014 16:22 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Le 30/04/2014 18:31, Sven Pran a ?crit : I thought there is consensus that giving UI is not itself an infraction of law, using UI always is? There is. But that's not the problem. The problem is that there will be a high probability, even if UI isn't used, that the deal will be fouled. Take this example, in which my partner, also a TD, did what he had to do ; I also did ; but the consequences were big, and not for us ... The settings : Belgian Cup 2003(?), round 2, which is a 7-round Swiss with about 20 teams involved and 6 qualifiers. We were 4th before the last match and were playing the team placed 7th. Hand are uncertain due to time, but the idea is there. S W N E A10xxxx KJxx AKJ xx Qxx Kxx x Jxxx 1NT 2D* 2H** 2S 3S 4S Our opponents were playing old-fashioned Blue Club : 1NT meant either plain 15-17, or down to 13 with (332)5. Pitch bid 2D, taking 1NT as strong and showing one 6-card major. I took 1NT as possibly weak, and treated 2D as a transfer. I alerted, a question was asked and I answered "Transfer". (why, oh why, did they ask ? North with a 3-suited 3-count and South nothing to write home about ...) Partener did what he had to do : he alerted, explained (upon being asked) 2H as "pass or correct", and bid 2S. This of course created UI, and I was bound to react as if partner had transferred to hearts and bid 2S, which would of course mean a rather strong 46 hand (a 45 would bid 2C, Landy in both defenses).. Constructing a hand ike : AQxx-AQxxxx-x-Kx (NB : not the best one facing mine), I bid the obvious 4S (at teams, vulnerable !). Some might argue that I could miss slam, as partner could as well hold AQxx-AQJxxx-Ax-x. The TD was called, and judged that I had used UI that partner held 6 spades. The contract was pulled back to 2S. Perhaps we should have appealed. We lost 8 IMPs on the deal (EW +500 at the other table), and the match by 5 IMPs. That didn't change anything for us - we merely ended 4th in lieu of 3rd-, but the opponents took 6th place in lieu of 7th. If you were on the team ranked 7th, what would you have thought of that mess ? Now use Herman's principle : partner doesn't alert my "completion of transfer", bids 2S over my theoretically P/C bid, and I bid 4S the same way. North is too weak to act. Before the lead, partner calls the TD and explains the problem, and very probably the TD decides there has been no damage and perhaps gives us a 3 IMP penalty, which could affect our ranking, but not opponents ! What do you prefer ? Verily, it's that deal which made me a Herman follower. -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael Sendt: 30. april 2014 17:28 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] besides which, Richard's quote is about South's duties, having heard North's misexplanation. There is nothing South can do about misexplaining, it's a sad consequence of forgetting one's system sometimes. The problem Alain is talking about is the next one: South, having heard North's "correct" explanation of his own bid (which is of course inconsistent with his intentions) now also has UI. This for of UI is not unavoidable. North can avoid it by giving the consistent explanation. Richard wants to force North into giving UI to partner, then force South into not hearing that same UI. Unplayable. And no-one has yet answered the next question: WHat does director Richard do whan North does not give the UI: rule Missing UI? Herman. Alain Gottcheiner schreef: Le 28/04/2014 3:20, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : Alain Gottcheiner: Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly un- playable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the illogical explanation. Richard Hills: Not utterly unplayable; rather a simple requirement of Law 75A: ?Whether or not North?s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North?s explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is ?unauthorized information? (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). * AG : Perfectly right. But it is so difficult to do, and so difficult to ascertain that that has been done, that there is a very high probability that an adjusted score will be needed, and quite often not the right one. This is one of the most intricated situations in the game. IOW, we fail at "saving the board". * _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140502/49c68dca/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 3 02:41:28 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 20:41:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> Message-ID: Perhaps ironically, after an OLOOT today the dummy said "I accept the lead." One could treat this as UI, but it would be... cruel?... to give declarer an option she basically cannot take (for example, putting her hand down as dummy. I think the better option was to simply not allow her to accept the spade lead (and for the same reason. It's debatable whether she should be allowed to insist on a spade lead. Or take her aside and basically combine the above. A more common problem -- what do you do when dummy clarifies that declarer is allowed to put down her hand as dummy? I just take that option away. From svenpran at online.no Sat May 3 08:44:15 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 08:44:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> Message-ID: <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> Well, there is a difference between "clarifying" an option and "suggesting" an option. The former may be allowed but the latter may certainly not. I am tempted to use the following approach when (presumed) dummy directly or indirectly suggests a particular option: Do not prohibit (presumed) declarer any of his five options, but if I judge that declaring side has gained from selecting an option so suggested then: Either adjust the result to a likely result had (presumed) declarer selected a different option, or impose a PP that at least takes the gain away from declaring side. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 3. mai 2014 02:41 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Three incidents > > Perhaps ironically, after an OLOOT today the dummy said "I accept the lead." > > One could treat this as UI, but it would be... cruel?... to give declarer an option > she basically cannot take (for example, putting her hand down as dummy. > > I think the better option was to simply not allow her to accept the spade lead > (and for the same reason. It's debatable whether she should be allowed to > insist on a spade lead. > > Or take her aside and basically combine the above. > > > > A more common problem -- what do you do when dummy clarifies that declarer > is allowed to put down her hand as dummy? I just take that option away. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 3 16:21:33 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 10:21:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5364FB6D.80305@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-02 9:27 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > L41A: "...the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening > lead". So the card played OOT by the defender on declarer's right is > not "the opening lead" unless and until it becomes so by the exercise > of one of the options in L54. If declarer chooses to reject the card > played OOT (and make it a penalty card) per L54D, the card led by the > defender on presumed declarer's left becomes the opening lead, so I > would argue that until L54 is applied, there is no "opening" lead > (there can't be two of them), just as there is no dummy. Thanks for the clear explanation. I don't personally find it convincing, but I can't say it must be wrong. BTW, we have in the Definitions: "Opening Lead ? the card led to the first trick." but you could say it applies only after L54 is given effect. > Moreover, L54B would seem to make an infraction out of "[spreading > the dummy] in accordance with L41" unless and until "declarer > [accepts] the irregular lead as provided in L53". I'm afraid I don't see this at all. > It seems far more likely that TPTB failed to realize that omitting > the word "presumed" in L54A would give rise to an unintended > interpretation than that "presumed" snuck into L41 in three places > due to a cut-and-paste error. I don't think any of the instances of "presumed" in L41 is an error. The error, if there is one, is failing to put something like "if the lead is in turn" in L41C. The "but see" may have been intended to serve that purpose, but I'm afraid I don't find it obvious if no one has drawn attention to the LOOT. On 2014-05-02 11:08 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Until the OLOOT indeed becomes the opening lead (after proper > application of Law 54) it is legally a card exposed during the > auction period. At this time presumed dummy has not yet reached his > status as Dummy, so he has his full rights to call attention to > irregularities (Law 9A1). The reason I'm troubled by this, aside from not thinking it's consistent with the text, is that it allows dummy to influence declarer's choice of option. For example, if dummy likes the LOOT, he just sits there. If he dislikes it, he says "That's out of turn," then loudly, "Director, please." Are you happy with that? It wouldn't be a terrible way to play, but if it's intended, it ought to be widely publicized so every pair can take full advantage of their legal options. On 2014-05-01 11:14 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > Isn?t the law clear: If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. > Once the OL is faced there is a dummy [the AuctionDummy (Ad)] That's my view but not Sven's or Eric's. > that must sit on his hands and zip his lips until... If there's a dummy, he is supposed to face his cards (after reasonable time for someone to draw attention to the LOOT). If there's not, the player ("Ad") can draw attention to the LOOT or not, as he chooses. From svenpran at online.no Sat May 3 18:38:58 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:38:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5364FB6D.80305@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <5364FB6D.80305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000401cf66ee$2f6e4880$8e4ad980$@online.no> Steve Willner [...] > On 2014-05-02 11:08 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Until the OLOOT indeed becomes the opening lead (after proper > > application of Law 54) it is legally a card exposed during the auction > > period. At this time presumed dummy has not yet reached his status as > > Dummy, so he has his full rights to call attention to irregularities > > (Law 9A1). > > The reason I'm troubled by this, aside from not thinking it's consistent with the > text, is that it allows dummy to influence declarer's choice of option. For > example, if dummy likes the LOOT, he just sits there. If he dislikes it, he says > "That's out of turn," then loudly, "Director, please." Are you happy with that? > It wouldn't be a terrible way to play, but if it's intended, it ought to be widely > publicized so every pair can take full advantage of their legal options. [Sven Pran] To show why my understanding of OLOOT for a while actually being a card exposed during the auction period consider how you will treat RHO accidentally (beyond any doubt) dropping a single card below the rank of an honour just after the closing pass. I sincerely hope you agree that Law 24A applies? There is still room for clarifying questions, and if misinformation during the auction by presumed declaring side is revealed then there is a possibility for Law 21B to appy. Thus there is even the possibility that the presumed declaring side eventually becomes the defending side! Now let us go one step further: The accidentally exposed card is of honour rank. Now Law 24B (rather than 24A) applies. But as Law 24B begins: If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led ... So why shall not Law 24B also initially apply on an OLOOT? Sure in this case we go pretty straight to Law 54, but until presumed declarer has made his choice whether to accept the OLOOT as the opening lead or to treat it as a penalty card no opening lead has yet been made, presumed declarer is not yet declarer and no player has yet become dummy. Therefore presumed dummy must be allowed to call attention to any irregularity at this time! Your worry about presumed dummy's possibility to influence his partner's choice is of course real, but (improper) actions in this respect falls into the class of UI and should be handled separately by the director. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Sun May 4 01:04:06 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 19:04:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] clarifying 43A and 54C Message-ID: <417B093A-54A0-443F-BE3F-9F479A1AB3D3@wesleyan.edu> One strand of the interminable ?Three incidents? thread is a futile search for clear answers to two questions: ? Is the presumed dummy allowed to draw attention to an OLOOT? ? Is the presumed dummy preempting the presumed declarer?s decision on an OLOOT by tabling his hand an irregularity subject to law 23? The thread has certainly shown that the current laws don?t provide sufficiently clear answers. I hope the Laws Commission will add a couple sentences to laws 43A and 54C to make it clear that: ? The presumed dummy isn?t the dummy until he tables his hand, and he is allowed to draw attention to an OLOOT. ? The presumed dummy starting to table his hand before the presumed declarer has decided what to do about an OLOOT is an irregularity subject to laws 54C and 23. Tim From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 4 03:15:08 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 21:15:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 May 2014 02:44:15 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Well, there is a difference between "clarifying" an option and > "suggesting" > an option. > > The former may be allowed but the latter may certainly not. > > I am tempted to use the following approach when (presumed) dummy > directly or > indirectly suggests a particular option: > > Do not prohibit (presumed) declarer any of his five options, but if I > judge > that declaring side has gained from selecting an option so suggested > then: > > Either adjust the result to a likely result had (presumed) declarer > selected > a different option, Think about this. You are telling declarer "you may accept the lead", but you are planning that if this is turns out to be a good choice, you don't let declarer keep it -- declarer gets to keep the choice only if it doesn't work. You are not doing declarer any favors! > or impose a PP that at least takes the gain away from declaring side. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 3. mai 2014 02:41 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Three incidents >> >> Perhaps ironically, after an OLOOT today the dummy said "I accept the > lead." >> >> One could treat this as UI, but it would be... cruel?... to give >> declarer > an option >> she basically cannot take (for example, putting her hand down as dummy. >> >> I think the better option was to simply not allow her to accept the >> spade > lead >> (and for the same reason. It's debatable whether she should be allowed >> to >> insist on a spade lead. >> >> Or take her aside and basically combine the above. >> >> >> >> A more common problem -- what do you do when dummy clarifies that >> declarer >> is allowed to put down her hand as dummy? I just take that option away. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Sun May 4 04:37:38 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 21:37:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <5364FB6D.80305@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <5364FB6D.80305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve Willner" Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 09:21 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Three incidents > On 2014-05-02 9:27 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> L41A: "...the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening >> lead". So the card played OOT by the defender on declarer's right is >> not "the opening lead" unless and until it becomes so by the exercise >> of one of the options in L54. If declarer chooses to reject the card >> played OOT (and make it a penalty card) per L54D, the card led by the >> defender on presumed declarer's left becomes the opening lead, so I >> would argue that until L54 is applied, there is no "opening" lead >> (there can't be two of them), just as there is no dummy. > > Thanks for the clear explanation. I don't personally find it > convincing, but I can't say it must be wrong. BTW, we have in the > Definitions: > "Opening Lead ? the card led to the first trick." > but you could say it applies only after L54 is given effect. > >> Moreover, L54B would seem to make an infraction out of "[spreading >> the dummy] in accordance with L41" unless and until "declarer >> [accepts] the irregular lead as provided in L53". > > I'm afraid I don't see this at all. > >> It seems far more likely that TPTB failed to realize that omitting >> the word "presumed" in L54A would give rise to an unintended >> interpretation than that "presumed" snuck into L41 in three places >> due to a cut-and-paste error. > > I don't think any of the instances of "presumed" in L41 is an error. > The error, if there is one, is failing to put something like "if the > lead is in turn" in L41C. The "but see" may have been intended to serve > that purpose, but I'm afraid I don't find it obvious if no one has drawn > attention to the LOOT. > > On 2014-05-02 11:08 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Until the OLOOT indeed becomes the opening lead (after proper >> application of Law 54) it is legally a card exposed during the >> auction period. At this time presumed dummy has not yet reached his >> status as Dummy, so he has his full rights to call attention to >> irregularities (Law 9A1). > > The reason I'm troubled by this, aside from not thinking it's consistent > with the text, is that it allows dummy to influence declarer's choice of > option. For example, if dummy likes the LOOT, he just sits there. If > he dislikes it, he says "That's out of turn," then loudly, "Director, > please." Are you happy with that? It wouldn't be a terrible way to > play, but if it's intended, it ought to be widely publicized so every > pair can take full advantage of their legal options. > > On 2014-05-01 11:14 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: >> Isn?t the law clear: > > If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. > >> Once the OL is faced there is a dummy [the AuctionDummy (Ad)] > > That's my view but not Sven's or Eric's. > >> that must sit on his hands and zip his lips until... > > If there's a dummy, he is supposed to face his cards (after reasonable > time for someone to draw attention to the LOOT). If there's not, the > player ("Ad") can draw attention to the LOOT or not, as he chooses. When I commented to Steve I had neglected the effect of L41D so some amendment is in order. When an OLOOT is faced thereby making Ad Dummy, L41C sends control of spreading dummy to L54A. At the same time L41D instructs [Ad] to spread dummy after the OL[OOT] is faced- there being no "but" as L41C contains. As such, Ad is skewered by Morton?s Fork- at the minimum he violates L41C or he violates L41D. Should he spread dummy as instructed by L41D he becomes subject to PP for infracting L43A1c given the ?temporary? halt of spreading dummy by L54A**. If he doesn?t spread dummy he violates L41D. Which is reminiscent of 1937 when the US Congress enacted legislation where Congress?s intent was to prosecute and convict individuals of a felony for attempting to pay legal taxes. ** The 'premature' spreading of dummy is dealt with by various sections of L54. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Sun May 4 10:19:11 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 10:19:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> Message-ID: <000001cf6771$87d607f0$978217d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > Well, there is a difference between "clarifying" an option and > > "suggesting" > > an option. > > > > The former may be allowed but the latter may certainly not. [...] > Think about this. You are telling declarer "you may accept the lead", but you > are planning that if this is turns out to be a good choice, you don't let declarer > keep it -- declarer gets to keep the choice only if it doesn't work. You are not > doing declarer any favors! [Sven Pran] What is the problem? Law 42A1 (Dummy's Absolute Rights) says explicitly: Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law. And Law 76C1 (Spectators) says: A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director. The funny thing is that I have not found any similar law applicable to the other players, but it is obvious from the context that they also have the right to give information, at least in the Director's presence, as to fact or law. So just leave your worries to the Director for him to sort out. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 4 15:36:34 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 09:36:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <000001cf6771$87d607f0$978217d0$@online.no> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> <000001cf6771$87d607f0$978217d0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 May 2014 04:19:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Well, there is a difference between "clarifying" an option and >> > "suggesting" >> > an option. >> > >> > The former may be allowed but the latter may certainly not. > [...] >> Think about this. You are telling declarer "you may accept the lead", >> but > you >> are planning that if this is turns out to be a good choice, you don't >> let > declarer >> keep it -- declarer gets to keep the choice only if it doesn't work. You > are not >> doing declarer any favors! > > [Sven Pran] > What is the problem? > > Law 42A1 (Dummy's Absolute Rights) says explicitly: Dummy is entitled to > give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law. I can't figure out what you are responding to here, but.... If a player makes sure that just one of the options is clear to partner, the player probably wants that option. For example, if you are sitting there saying "I hope partner doesn't accept the opening lead" you are not going to worry that the director went over that option too quickly. If you want partner to accept the opening lead, it doesn't hurt to double-check that partner has heard and understood that option. > > And Law 76C1 (Spectators) says: A spectator may speak as to fact or law > within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director. > > The funny thing is that I have not found any similar law applicable to > the > other players, but it is obvious from the context that they also have the > right to give information, at least in the Director's presence, as to > fact > or law. > > So just leave your worries to the Director for him to sort out. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 4 16:39:29 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 10:39:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <5321B7B9.2020402@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> <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> <5321B7B9.2020402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Last night, a defender explained that her partner had not alerted her bid. Of course, this gave her partner UI. It also gave the defender AI. Suppose he went down 1 in his contract. If he had misunderstood her bid, he might have chosen an inferior line of play and, luckily, made his contract. Or, he might have chosen an inferior line of play that didn't work, then gotten protection. With the protection, perhaps he would have been given that he made the contract. Imagine that there are two reasonable lines of play to make the contract given the correct information, one of which works. Of course, I did not look to see if either of these "damages" had occurred. Again, there was no immediate damage (he was given good information) Or the causal chain of damage was broken, or the damage was a subsequent consequence (however you prefer to view this situation). From svenpran at online.no Sun May 4 18:40:02 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 18:40:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> <000001cf6771$87d607f0$978217d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000e01cf67b7$7f80d760$7e828620$@online.no> If the information was given by presumed dummy with the Director present at the table (as is required by law) then the director will see to it that presumed declarer does not get any advantage by this information. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 4. mai 2014 15:37 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Three incidents > > On Sun, 04 May 2014 04:19:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > Well, there is a difference between "clarifying" an option and > >> > "suggesting" > >> > an option. > >> > > >> > The former may be allowed but the latter may certainly not. > > [...] > >> Think about this. You are telling declarer "you may accept the lead", > >> but > > you > >> are planning that if this is turns out to be a good choice, you don't > >> let > > declarer > >> keep it -- declarer gets to keep the choice only if it doesn't work. > >> You > > are not > >> doing declarer any favors! > > > > [Sven Pran] > > What is the problem? > > > > Law 42A1 (Dummy's Absolute Rights) says explicitly: Dummy is entitled > > to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law. > > I can't figure out what you are responding to here, but.... > > If a player makes sure that just one of the options is clear to partner, the player > probably wants that option. For example, if you are sitting there saying "I hope > partner doesn't accept the opening lead" you are not going to worry that the > director went over that option too quickly. If you want partner to accept the > opening lead, it doesn't hurt to double-check that partner has heard and > understood that option. > > > > > > > And Law 76C1 (Spectators) says: A spectator may speak as to fact or > > law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director. > > > > The funny thing is that I have not found any similar law applicable to > > the other players, but it is obvious from the context that they also > > have the right to give information, at least in the Director's > > presence, as to fact or law. > > > > So just leave your worries to the Director for him to sort out. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun May 4 18:42:49 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 18:42:49 +0200 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$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> <5321B7B9.2020402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01cf67b7$e2b591e0$a820b5a0$@online.no> A defender is not allowed to correct misinformation from his partner until play is ended. Any damage by the misinformation shall be rectified by the Director afterwards as shall damage to declaring side caused by UI passed on defending side. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 4. mai 2014 16:39 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] damage > > Last night, a defender explained that her partner had not alerted her bid. > Of course, this gave her partner UI. > > > It also gave the defender AI. Suppose he went down 1 in his contract. If he had > misunderstood her bid, he might have chosen an inferior line of play and, luckily, > made his contract. > > Or, he might have chosen an inferior line of play that didn't work, then gotten > protection. With the protection, perhaps he would have been given that he > made the contract. Imagine that there are two reasonable lines of play to make > the contract given the correct information, one of which works. > > > Of course, I did not look to see if either of these "damages" had occurred. > Again, there was no immediate damage (he was given good > information) > > Or the causal chain of damage was broken, or the damage was a subsequent > consequence (however you prefer to view this situation). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 4 19:13:18 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:13:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <000e01cf67b7$7f80d760$7e828620$@online.no> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> <000001cf6771$87d607f0$978217d0$@online.no> <000e01cf67b7$7f80d760$7e828620$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 May 2014 12:40:02 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > If the information was given by presumed dummy with the Director present > at > the table (as is required by law) then the director will see to it that > presumed declarer does not get any advantage by this information. Are you saying that if the dummy asks to have one of the options clarified, following an OLOOT, that the director will make sure that the declarer does not get any advantage by this information? > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 4. mai 2014 15:37 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Three incidents >> >> On Sun, 04 May 2014 04:19:11 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> > [Sven Pran] >> >> > Well, there is a difference between "clarifying" an option and >> >> > "suggesting" >> >> > an option. >> >> > >> >> > The former may be allowed but the latter may certainly not. >> > [...] >> >> Think about this. You are telling declarer "you may accept the lead", >> >> but >> > you >> >> are planning that if this is turns out to be a good choice, you don't >> >> let >> > declarer >> >> keep it -- declarer gets to keep the choice only if it doesn't work. >> >> You >> > are not >> >> doing declarer any favors! >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > What is the problem? >> > >> > Law 42A1 (Dummy's Absolute Rights) says explicitly: Dummy is entitled >> > to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law. >> >> I can't figure out what you are responding to here, but.... >> >> If a player makes sure that just one of the options is clear to partner, > the player >> probably wants that option. For example, if you are sitting there saying > "I hope >> partner doesn't accept the opening lead" you are not going to worry that > the >> director went over that option too quickly. If you want partner to >> accept > the >> opening lead, it doesn't hurt to double-check that partner has heard and >> understood that option. >> >> >> >> > >> > And Law 76C1 (Spectators) says: A spectator may speak as to fact or >> > law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the > Director. >> > >> > The funny thing is that I have not found any similar law applicable to >> > the other players, but it is obvious from the context that they also >> > have the right to give information, at least in the Director's >> > presence, as to fact or law. >> > >> > So just leave your worries to the Director for him to sort out. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> -- >> ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 4 19:14:46 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:14:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] damage In-Reply-To: <000f01cf67b7$e2b591e0$a820b5a0$@online.no> References: <531201D0.4020006@verizon.net> <5314A668.7030601@verizon.net> <5319FB86.6060503@ulb.ac.be> <531DBF18.10307@ulb.ac.be> <00b801cf3c76$4c19f210$e44dd630$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> <5321B7B9.2020402@ulb.ac.be> <000f01cf67b7$e2b591e0$a820b5a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 May 2014 12:42:49 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > A defender is not allowed to correct misinformation from his partner > until > play is ended. Any damage by the misinformation shall be rectified by the > Director afterwards as shall damage to declaring side caused by UI > passed on > defending side. So you rectify for possible damage caused by the accurate AI given to declarer? That does not seem like good advice to give directors. (Of course, we rectify for UI given to partner, that obviously is not the issue) > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 4. mai 2014 16:39 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] damage >> >> Last night, a defender explained that her partner had not alerted her >> bid. >> Of course, this gave her partner UI. >> >> >> It also gave the defender AI. Suppose he went down 1 in his contract. If > he had >> misunderstood her bid, he might have chosen an inferior line of play >> and, > luckily, >> made his contract. >> >> Or, he might have chosen an inferior line of play that didn't work, then > gotten >> protection. With the protection, perhaps he would have been given that >> he >> made the contract. Imagine that there are two reasonable lines of play >> to > make >> the contract given the correct information, one of which works. >> >> >> Of course, I did not look to see if either of these "damages" had > occurred. >> Again, there was no immediate damage (he was given good >> information) >> >> Or the causal chain of damage was broken, or the damage was a subsequent >> consequence (however you prefer to view this situation). >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 svenpran at online.no Sun May 4 20:02:00 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:02:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <001901cf6618$6a80fc00$3f82f400$@online.no> <000401cf669b$1b93f880$52bbe980$@online.no> <000001cf6771$87d607f0$978217d0$@online.no> <000e01cf67b7$7f80d760$7e828620$@online.no> Message-ID: <001001cf67c2$f2b92510$d82b6f30$@online.no> Correct: With the director present it is his duty to make sure presumed declarer gets a complete description on all his options with no emphasis effectively recommending one option over another. Why do you seem to have such great difficulties understanding the laws? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 4. mai 2014 19:13 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Three incidents > > On Sun, 04 May 2014 12:40:02 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > If the information was given by presumed dummy with the Director > > present at the table (as is required by law) then the director will > > see to it that presumed declarer does not get any advantage by this > > information. > > Are you saying that if the dummy asks to have one of the options clarified, > following an OLOOT, that the director will make sure that the declarer does not > get any advantage by this information? > > > > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Robert Frick > >> Sendt: 4. mai 2014 15:37 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Three incidents > >> > >> On Sun, 04 May 2014 04:19:11 -0400, Sven Pran > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Robert Frick > >> >> > [Sven Pran] > >> >> > Well, there is a difference between "clarifying" an option and > >> >> > "suggesting" > >> >> > an option. > >> >> > > >> >> > The former may be allowed but the latter may certainly not. > >> > [...] > >> >> Think about this. You are telling declarer "you may accept the > >> >> lead", but > >> > you > >> >> are planning that if this is turns out to be a good choice, you > >> >> don't let > >> > declarer > >> >> keep it -- declarer gets to keep the choice only if it doesn't work. > >> >> You > >> > are not > >> >> doing declarer any favors! > >> > > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > What is the problem? > >> > > >> > Law 42A1 (Dummy's Absolute Rights) says explicitly: Dummy is > >> > entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law. > >> > >> I can't figure out what you are responding to here, but.... > >> > >> If a player makes sure that just one of the options is clear to > >> partner, > > the player > >> probably wants that option. For example, if you are sitting there > >> saying > > "I hope > >> partner doesn't accept the opening lead" you are not going to worry > >> that > > the > >> director went over that option too quickly. If you want partner to > >> accept > > the > >> opening lead, it doesn't hurt to double-check that partner has heard > >> and understood that option. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > And Law 76C1 (Spectators) says: A spectator may speak as to fact or > >> > law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the > > Director. > >> > > >> > The funny thing is that I have not found any similar law applicable > >> > to the other players, but it is obvious from the context that they > >> > also have the right to give information, at least in the Director's > >> > presence, as to fact or law. > >> > > >> > So just leave your worries to the Director for him to sort out. > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Blml mailing list > >> > Blml at rtflb.org > >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun May 4 20:05:20 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:05:20 +0200 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$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> <5321B7B9.2020402@ulb.ac.be> <000f01cf67b7$e2b591e0$a820b5a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001101cf67c3$69dd7b00$3d987100$@online.no> No, but the AI given to declarer is simultaneously UI to the other defender. If declaring side is damaged by this UI then it is the Director's duty to adjust for that damage. This is basic education for directors, have you never received such education? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 4. mai 2014 19:15 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] damage > > On Sun, 04 May 2014 12:42:49 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > A defender is not allowed to correct misinformation from his partner > > until play is ended. Any damage by the misinformation shall be > > rectified by the Director afterwards as shall damage to declaring side > > caused by UI passed on defending side. > > So you rectify for possible damage caused by the accurate AI given to declarer? > > That does not seem like good advice to give directors. > > (Of course, we rectify for UI given to partner, that obviously is not the > issue) > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Robert Frick > >> Sendt: 4. mai 2014 16:39 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] damage > >> > >> Last night, a defender explained that her partner had not alerted her > >> bid. > >> Of course, this gave her partner UI. > >> > >> > >> It also gave the defender AI. Suppose he went down 1 in his contract. > >> If > > he had > >> misunderstood her bid, he might have chosen an inferior line of play > >> and, > > luckily, > >> made his contract. > >> > >> Or, he might have chosen an inferior line of play that didn't work, > >> then > > gotten > >> protection. With the protection, perhaps he would have been given > >> that he made the contract. Imagine that there are two reasonable > >> lines of play to > > make > >> the contract given the correct information, one of which works. > >> > >> > >> Of course, I did not look to see if either of these "damages" had > > occurred. > >> Again, there was no immediate damage (he was given good > >> information) > >> > >> Or the causal chain of damage was broken, or the damage was a > >> subsequent consequence (however you prefer to view this situation). > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sun May 4 21:47:52 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 15:47:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <000401cf66ee$2f6e4880$8e4ad980$@online.no> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <5364FB6D.80305@nhcc.net> <000401cf66ee$2f6e4880$8e4ad980$@online.no> Message-ID: <53669968.6090306@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-03 12:38 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > So why shall not Law 24B also initially apply on an OLOOT? There are many cases where we distinguish between a dropped card and one prematurely led. (I don't like such Laws, but nobody else seems to object.) If you want to apply _only_ L24B to an OLOOT, you'd have to explain why none of the other relevant ones (L41C, 41D) applies. > Your worry about presumed dummy's possibility to influence his > partner's choice is of course real, but (improper) actions in this > respect falls into the class of UI and should be handled separately > by the director. Why do you say it's improper? I agree that's so by custom and practice, but if you think an OLOOT does not make presumed dummy into the actual dummy, then the player has every right to call attention to an irregularity or not, as he chooses. On 2014-05-03 10:37 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > L41D instructs ["dummy"] to spread ["his hand"] after the OL[OOT] is faced- > there being no "but" as L41C contains. and nothing about the opening lead being in turn. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun May 4 21:54:36 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 15:54:36 -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> <532064F2.8050909@ulb.ac.be> <5321A9D2.3090502@ulb.ac.be> <5321AFE5.1080104@nhcc.net> <5321B7B9.2020402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <53669AFC.8040709@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-04 10:39 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Last night, a defender explained that her partner had not alerted her bid. > Of course, this gave her partner UI. Right. Straightforward to deal with in principle, often complicated in practice. > It also gave the [declarer] AI. ... If > he had misunderstood her bid, he might have chosen an inferior line of > play and, luckily, made his contract. L23 is what you're looking for. If the defender "could have been aware" (etc.), then adjust the score. Otherwise don't; declarer was no worse off than a declarer who received accurate information in the first place. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun May 4 22:01:53 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 16:01:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] clarifying 43A and 54C In-Reply-To: <417B093A-54A0-443F-BE3F-9F479A1AB3D3@wesleyan.edu> References: <417B093A-54A0-443F-BE3F-9F479A1AB3D3@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <53669CB1.7020007@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-03 7:04 PM, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > I hope the Laws Commission will add a couple sentences to laws 43A > and 54C to make it clear that: > > ? The presumed dummy isn?t the dummy until he tables his hand, and he > is allowed to draw attention to an OLOOT. If you take this approach and want presumed dummy to have no part in declarer's decision, you better _require_ him to draw attention to the OLOOT. That has its own downsides, which presumably is why the Laws don't in general require anyone to draw attention to any irregularity. (Yes, I know of at least one exception.) From svenpran at online.no Sun May 4 23:52:47 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 23:52:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <53669968.6090306@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> <5362BDB6.40802@nhcc.net> <5364FB6D.80305@nhcc.net> <000401cf66ee$2f6e4880$8e4ad980$@online.no> <53669968.6090306@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001201cf67e3$2fd921f0$8f8b65d0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-05-03 12:38 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > So why shall not Law 24B also initially apply on an OLOOT? > > There are many cases where we distinguish between a dropped card and one > prematurely led. (I don't like such Laws, but nobody else seems to object.) > > If you want to apply _only_ L24B to an OLOOT, you'd have to explain why none > of the other relevant ones (L41C, 41D) applies. [Sven Pran] Of course not - I never wrote that _only_ Law 24B should apply to OLOOT and I really do not understand how you can have got that impression. My point is that presumed dummy does not automatically become dummy because of an undisputable case of RHO dropping a card whether it is of honour rank or lower. So why shall he become Dummy when RHO exposes a card during the auction when the Director judges that it was exposed in an act of playing the card? > > Your worry about presumed dummy's possibility to influence his > > partner's choice is of course real, but (improper) actions in this > > respect falls into the class of UI and should be handled separately by > > the director. > > Why do you say it's improper? [Sven Pran] Because an action that is not improper is no irregularity and therefore no cause for any reaction by the Director. I agree that's so by custom and practice, but if > you think an OLOOT does not make presumed dummy into the actual dummy, > then the player has every right to call attention to an irregularity or not, as he > chooses. [Sven Pran] Absolutely. > > On 2014-05-03 10:37 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > L41D instructs ["dummy"] to spread ["his hand"] after the OL[OOT] is > > faced- there being no "but" as L41C contains. > > and nothing about the opening lead being in turn. [Sven Pran] But if L41D shall apply unconditionally also after an OLOOT then that effectively disqualifies for instance Law 54 because presumed declarer now has seen dummy's cards at the time L54 otherwise offers him his five options. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 5 04:32:11 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 02:32:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] clarifying 43A and 54C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A85443@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >If you take this approach and want presumed dummy to have no >part in declarer's decision, you better _require_ him to draw >attention to the OLOOT. That has its own downsides, which >presumably is why the Laws don't in general require anyone to >draw attention to any irregularity. >(Yes, I know of at least one exception.) Richard Hills: Three-and-a-half exceptions: Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Law 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Richard Hills: In the above three exceptions immediate attention must be drawn to one's own irregularity. The extra half-an-exception, Law 20F5, requires delayed attention to be drawn to partner's irregularity. But one can always choose to avoid drawing attention to an ++opponent's++ irregularity, as demonstrated below. Steve Willner: >>West is dealer and is studying his cards intently. East puts a >>pass card on the table. South picks up the pass card and gives >>it back to East. East is relieved, North is indifferent, and West >>is oblivious. Law 9A1: "Unless prohibited by Law, any player ++may++ draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call." Introduction: "Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong)," 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/20140505/6e5321d0/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 5 14:55:12 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 14:55:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01cf661a$234b1620$69e14260$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> <001a01cf661a$234b1620$69e14260$@online.no> Message-ID: <53678A30.5080102@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/05/2014 17:21, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > There is a well-established rule that irregularities at one table > shall be resolved without any considerations on the possible effects > at other tables in the event. > And that's why rules that minimize such impact when irragularities are handled are good, and those that increase it are bad. That was in fact my point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140505/d4c3aa9a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 6 04:54:01 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 02:54:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Frail elderly lady (FEL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A874E6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, January 2010 (earlier post): +=+ As it happened, in a remote parochial bridge club, a certain innocent FEL was prevented from playing five or six boards of a 26 board session The Director was to blame. Upon advice the Director decided to award the dear lady her own average (about 54%) on the missed boards. When she was told this the FEL said "Oh no, you can't do that, it is against the law". She found a law book and showed the Director Law 12C2(a); "It says here", she said, "that you must give me at least 60% on each board." Wriggle as he might, the Director could find no authority in the laws for doing anything else and I have found nothing legal to counter the frail elderly lady's protest. Any thoughts? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Definitions: Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Grattan Endicott, January 2010 (later post): +=+ It appears to me that it constitutes an irregularity as [the Definition] says. I am toying with the thought that the session must be aborted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ted Ying, January 2010: It seems to me that it is often forgotten on this list that the laws were made for both tournaments and club games. At a club, the thought that a director would abort the session when there was a possibility of the players continuing to play, even under poor conditions of contest would incite a riot. Most players want to "get their money's worth" and play cards. And over the years, I have had many very difficult movements where I have spent most of the evening working out patterns to allow players to continue playing and then trying to provide what equity I can to the players. I agree with Eric that aborting the session may be appropriate for high-level major events, Richard Hills, May 2014: I almost agree with Ted and Eric. In my opinion world class tournaments (such as the infamous 1998 World Pairs at Lille) should also have world class regulations which specifically state under what circumstances a session may be aborted and/or have Ave+ scores reduced. Indeed, in Aussie national butler pairs events, their regulations under Law 78D have reduced Ave+ from +3 imps to +2 imps. Ted Ying, January 2010: but I do not think that it would be at all appropriate for the vast majority of bridge that is covered by the laws. In the case in point, I feel strongly that the players in question, are entitled by law to their 60% on all boards that they were unable to play through the director's irregularity. This pair was not allowed to compete fairly on a deal through no fault of their own. Law 12C2(a) is pretty clear that they are entitled to 60%. There are no clauses that give the director the leeway to award a different artificial assigned score except as a penalty and in this case, the FEL was a non-offending party and not subject to any penalties. There are no laws to "protect the field" which is what those lobbying for a lesser artificial assigned score seem to favor. ..... Richard Hills, May 2014: Yes, "protect the field" is the Harrison Bergeron fallacy. If your cleverness or an opponent's idiocy or a Director's Error gives you a good score, then the Laws permit you to keep it. Kurt Vonnegut, "Harrison Bergeron" (1961), first paragraph: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper-General. 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/20140506/38fc3007/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 8 20:56:00 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 14:56:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <536BD340.3040609@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-02 10:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Verily, it's that deal which made me a Herman follower. An even better idea is Jeff Rubens' suggestion. It sounds dreadful when one first sees it, and I admit it took me about a year to realize how much sense it makes. It isn't perfect, but it solves an awful lot of problems and more important improves (in my opinion) how the game is played. The suggestion, in case anyone hasn't seen it, is to make _correct_ explanations of partnership agreements AI. Expected alerts already are AI; this is a much larger step in the same direction. _Incorrect_ explanations would remain UI, as they are now. I have no hope this will be adopted in 2017, but maybe in 2027. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri May 9 00:40:01 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 18:40:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L31B Message-ID: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> Text of L31B reads: "When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. "**Later calls at LHO?s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies." Does this mean: a) if the BOOT is the player's _first_ action in the auction, partner is barred, and L26 may apply? b) if the player has already made a call prior to the BOOT, then b1) if it was LHO's turn, L25 applies? b2) if it was partner's turn, the call is withdrawn, is UI to partner, AI to the NOS, and L26 lead penalties may apply (and L23 in rare cases I suppose)? Was this a change in effect in 2007? The ACBL version omits the first comma (between "call" and "or"). I don't think that makes a difference (and is clearer), but am I missing something there? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 9 02:17:45 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 00:17:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8C443@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL 2007 Law 31B: "When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. **Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies." Steve Willner: >Does this mean: >a) if the BOOT is the player's _first_ action in the auction, >partner is barred, and L26 may apply? Richard Hills: Yes. (Plus Law 23 may apply also.) Steve Willner: >b) if the player has already made a call prior to the BOOT, then > b1) if it was LHO's turn, L25 applies? Richard Hills: Yes. Steve Willner: > b2) if it was partner's turn, the call is withdrawn, is UI to >partner, AI to the NOS, and L26 lead penalties may apply (and >L23 in rare cases I suppose)? Richard Hills: Not necessarily. Law 25A1 might apply. An unintended call may be replaced by an intended call without pause for thought if partner has not yet called. "Partner's turn to call" = "partner has not yet called". (If partner had called, then it would be RHO's turn to call.) Steve Willner: >Was this a change in effect in 2007? > >The ACBL version omits the first comma (between "call" and >"or"). I don't think that makes a difference (and is clearer), but >am I missing something there? Richard Hills: The 1997 Law 31B retained the first comma (between "call" and "or", but omitted the second comma (between "call" and "if"). http://ipdraughts.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/hanged-on-a-comma-drafting-can-be-a-matter-of-life-and-death/ ..... The English version on the official UK legislation website includes the following key text: "...if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King's Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere ..." However, in the version under discussion in R v Casement, the final comma in the above text (after the third "Realm") was not included - see the report of the case linked above. IP Draughts surmises that the comma was added to the official version after the Casement trial. Sir Roger's counsel, Serjeant Sullivan KC, argued that these quoted words created two offences, namely: 1. levying war against the King in his realm 2. adhering to the King's enemies in his realm and that the words "giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere" were by way of explanation of how assistance (adherence) might be given to the King's enemies. In other words, the assistance had to be given in the King's realm, but the effect of that assistance could be to aid and comfort the King's enemies wherever those enemies were located. ..... 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/20140509/74366460/attachment-0001.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri May 9 04:58:48 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 21:58:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8C443@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8C443@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard James HILLS" Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 19:17 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > UNOFFICIAL > > 2007 Law 31B: > > "When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his > LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, > offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see > Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead > restrictions of Law 26 may apply. > **Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, > and Law 25 applies." > > Steve Willner: > >>Does this mean: >>a) if the BOOT is the player's _first_ action in the auction, >>partner is barred, and L26 may apply? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes. (Plus Law 23 may apply also.) I think I've got it. Say W deals and E makes the first call; when the second call is made by S, he has BOOT. regards roger pewick > Steve Willner: > >>b) if the player has already made a call prior to the BOOT, then >> b1) if it was LHO's turn, L25 applies? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes. > > Steve Willner: > >> b2) if it was partner's turn, the call is withdrawn, is UI to >>partner, AI to the NOS, and L26 lead penalties may apply (and >>L23 in rare cases I suppose)? > > Richard Hills: > > Not necessarily. Law 25A1 might apply. An unintended call may > be replaced by an intended call without pause for thought if > partner has not yet called. "Partner's turn to call" = "partner has > not yet called". (If partner had called, then it would be RHO's > turn to call.) > > Steve Willner: > >>Was this a change in effect in 2007? >> >>The ACBL version omits the first comma (between "call" and >>"or"). I don't think that makes a difference (and is clearer), but >>am I missing something there? > > Richard Hills: > > The 1997 Law 31B retained the first comma (between "call" and > "or", but omitted the second comma (between "call" and "if"). > > http://ipdraughts.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/hanged-on-a-comma-drafting-can-be-a-matter-of-life-and-death/ > > ..... The English version on the official UK legislation website > includes the following key text: > > "...if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, > or be adherent to the King's Enemies in his Realm, giving to them > Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere ..." > > However, in the version under discussion in R v Casement, the > final comma in the above text (after the third "Realm") was not > included - see the report of the case linked above. IP Draughts > surmises that the comma was added to the official version after > the Casement trial. > > Sir Roger's counsel, Serjeant Sullivan KC, argued that these > quoted words created two offences, namely: > > 1. levying war against the King in his realm > 2. adhering to the King's enemies in his realm > > and that the words "giving to them Aid and Comfort in the > Realm or elsewhere" were by way of explanation of how > assistance (adherence) might be given to the King's enemies. > > In other words, the assistance had to be given in the King's > realm, but the effect of that assistance could be to aid and > comfort the King's enemies wherever those enemies were > located. ..... From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 9 05:48:22 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 03:48:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8C4E0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL George Orwell, "1984": If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever. Steve Willner: >>>Does this mean: >>>a) if the BOOT is the player's _first_ action in the auction, >>>partner is barred, and L26 may apply? Richard Hills: >>Yes. (Plus Law 23 may apply also.) Roger Pewick: >I think I've got it. Say W deals and E makes the first call; >when the second call is made by S, he has BOOT. Richard Hills: Nice try. While stamping with a BOOT is not correct procedure (hence an infraction), an acceptance of RHO's BOOT is not itself a BOOT, but is instead very correct procedure sanctioned by Law 29A: "Following a call out of rotation offender's LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140509/5bea9479/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Fri May 9 08:14:47 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 08:14:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> References: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004d01cf6b4d$fdeb8c00$f9c2a400$@t-online.de> The initial sentence of Law 31b (in combination with the footnote and the rest of the clause) has to be read this way: a) When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, offender's partner must pass whenever ... b) When the offender has bid at his LHO's turn to call [and] if the offender has not previously called, offender's partner must ... c) When the offender has bid at his LHO's turn to call [and] if the offender has previously called, Law 25 applies. von Steve Willner > Text of L31B reads: > > "When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn > to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender's partner must > pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the > non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. > > "**Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 > applies." > > Does this mean: > a) if the BOOT is the player's _first_ action in the auction, partner is barred, > and L26 may apply? > > b) if the player has already made a call prior to the BOOT, then > b1) if it was LHO's turn, L25 applies? > b2) if it was partner's turn, the call is withdrawn, is UI to partner, AI to the > NOS, and L26 lead penalties may apply (and L23 in rare cases I suppose)? > > Was this a change in effect in 2007? > > The ACBL version omits the first comma (between "call" and "or"). I don't > think that makes a difference (and is clearer), but am I missing something > there? From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 9 08:27:03 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 08:27:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <536BD340.3040609@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> <536BD340.3040609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <536C7537.7010401@skynet.be> I'm sorry Steve, but this does not solve the problem. A correct explanation of a correctly intended bid, should indeed be considered AI. This is commonly done, but there is nothing in the laws that suggests that it is true. We all know the warm feeling we get when partner correctly explains our bid, it encourages us to continue the sequence, where a wrong explanation would induce caution. That is use of UI, but no-one ever decides to rule on that (and I don't blame them). However, a correct explanation of a misbid contains not just something which might well be considered AI, but also a piece of information which is decidedly UI: the fact that you have misbid. And I doubt if anyone wishes to change that. And in the case at hand, there's even a third piece of information: "partner, what you thought I meant with my bid was actually a mistake". Surely calling this AI is not what we want, not even in 2027. Herman. Steve Willner schreef: > On 2014-05-02 10:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Verily, it's that deal which made me a Herman follower. > > An even better idea is Jeff Rubens' suggestion. It sounds dreadful when > one first sees it, and I admit it took me about a year to realize how > much sense it makes. It isn't perfect, but it solves an awful lot of > problems and more important improves (in my opinion) how the game is played. > > The suggestion, in case anyone hasn't seen it, is to make _correct_ > explanations of partnership agreements AI. Expected alerts already are > AI; this is a much larger step in the same direction. _Incorrect_ > explanations would remain UI, as they are now. > > I have no hope this will be adopted in 2017, but maybe in 2027. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Fri May 9 08:28:03 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 08:28:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> References: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000f01cf6b4f$d5be2330$813a6990$@online.no> Steve Willner > Text of L31B reads: > > "When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to > call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender's partner must pass > whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non- > offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. > > "**Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 > applies." > > Does this mean: > a) if the BOOT is the player's _first_ action in the auction, partner is barred, and > L26 may apply? > > b) if the player has already made a call prior to the BOOT, then > b1) if it was LHO's turn, L25 applies? > b2) if it was partner's turn, the call is withdrawn, is UI to partner, AI to the > NOS, and L26 lead penalties may apply (and L23 in rare cases I suppose)? [Sven Pran] Your cases a and b2 are identical: The offender has bid out of turn and his bid is not an attempt to change his last previous call. B1 is the exception that when a player bids out of turn after having made another call (i.e. at his LHO's turn to call), then it is considered a change of call and not a bid out of turn. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 9 14:27:32 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 14:27:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Explaining_agreements_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <536C7537.7010401@skynet.be> References: "\"<240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be>" <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no>" <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> <536BD340.3040609@nhcc.net> <536C7537.7010401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1c2fc988a90735700f6ef4e8b1053e57@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.05.2014 08:27, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > I'm sorry Steve, but this does not solve the problem. > > A correct explanation of a correctly intended bid, should indeed be > considered AI. This is commonly done, but there is nothing in the laws > that suggests that it is true. We all know the warm feeling we get > when > partner correctly explains our bid, it encourages us to continue the > sequence, where a wrong explanation would induce caution. That is use > of > UI, but no-one ever decides to rule on that (and I don't blame them). > > Yes, it proves remarkably difficult not to take this into acocunt. After the last exchange on this forum, I spoke about your well-known theories with a good Belgian player and he put forward an interesting point : when partner explains something else than you meant, it is well possible that there is no MI yet. He might be right ! In this case, following the Laws and explaining according to your theory will create MI, and explaining according to his explanation, leaving aside UI considerations, will not. And who is always right ? Of course, you're still bound to bid according to your theory, but that's a different matter. Best regards, Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri May 9 14:45:40 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 07:45:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8C4E0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8C4E0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard James HILLS" Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 22:48 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > UNOFFICIAL > > George Orwell, "1984": > > If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on > a human face - for ever. > > Steve Willner: > >>>>Does this mean: >>>>a) if the BOOT is the player's _first_ action in the auction, >>>>partner is barred, and L26 may apply? > > Richard Hills: > >>>Yes. (Plus Law 23 may apply also.) > > Roger Pewick: > >>I think I've got it. Say W deals and E makes the first call; >>when the second call is made by S, he has BOOT. > > Richard Hills: > > Nice try. While stamping with a BOOT is not correct > procedure (hence an infraction), an acceptance of RHO's > BOOT is not itself a BOOT, but is instead very correct > procedure sanctioned by Law 29A: > > "Following a call out of rotation offender's LHO may elect > to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification." Well, true. However, I was speaking of S's first call occuring at N's turn. regards roger pewick From jeff.ford at gmail.com Fri May 9 17:58:26 2014 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 08:58:26 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <536C7537.7010401@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> <536BD340.3040609@nhcc.net> <536C7537.7010401@skynet.be> Message-ID: I don't think Steve is confused that this is a very different rule than what we have now. It *does* solve the problem by redefining what is and isn't legal. The whole point of the change is to make your own system AI, no matter how you get reminded of it. You may not like this solution, but that doesn't make it not a solution. Jeff On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I'm sorry Steve, but this does not solve the problem. > > A correct explanation of a correctly intended bid, should indeed be > considered AI. This is commonly done, but there is nothing in the laws > that suggests that it is true. We all know the warm feeling we get when > partner correctly explains our bid, it encourages us to continue the > sequence, where a wrong explanation would induce caution. That is use of > UI, but no-one ever decides to rule on that (and I don't blame them). > > However, a correct explanation of a misbid contains not just something > which might well be considered AI, but also a piece of information which > is decidedly UI: the fact that you have misbid. And I doubt if anyone > wishes to change that. > > And in the case at hand, there's even a third piece of information: > "partner, what you thought I meant with my bid was actually a mistake". > Surely calling this AI is not what we want, not even in 2027. > > Herman. > > Steve Willner schreef: > > On 2014-05-02 10:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Verily, it's that deal which made me a Herman follower. > > > > An even better idea is Jeff Rubens' suggestion. It sounds dreadful when > > one first sees it, and I admit it took me about a year to realize how > > much sense it makes. It isn't perfect, but it solves an awful lot of > > problems and more important improves (in my opinion) how the game is > played. > > > > The suggestion, in case anyone hasn't seen it, is to make _correct_ > > explanations of partnership agreements AI. Expected alerts already are > > AI; this is a much larger step in the same direction. _Incorrect_ > > explanations would remain UI, as they are now. > > > > I have no hope this will be adopted in 2017, but maybe in 2027. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140509/01753757/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 10 03:32:46 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 21:32:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Stray comment, possible damage Message-ID: Dummy came down. Declarer launched into a criticism of dummy's bidding, including that they were going to get a zero on this board. I don't know about you, but that comment would take the edge off of my defense. Anyway, the defender (third hand) made the wrong choice at trick 1. The contract, 3NT, made, while everyone else was going down one in 4 Hearts. If the defender makes the right choice, 3NT goes down a bunch. I asked two people, and they both thought I should adjust. I'm guessing no one ever adjusted for a stray comment by declarer. I mean, I posted on this problem, but I was being theoretical. Never adjust? Always adjust? Depends on something? I guess it has to be at least somewhat plausible that the defender could have found the right defense. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 10 04:05:12 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 22:05:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Stray comment, possible damage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13D817B7FB3E41F38C79889EBE7F5B1F@erdos> Could the defenders have drawn an incorrect inference from the remark? That is the standard for an adjustment. If the wrong defense was based on an assumption that declarer was minimum for his bidding and dummy had overbid, an adjustment may be in order. (From the details you gave, it sounds like dummy neglected to show his heart length, and they wound up in NT rather than hearts, but 4H happened to go down one; in this case, the comment may not have been misleading.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:32 PM Subject: [BLML] Stray comment, possible damage > Dummy came down. Declarer launched into a criticism of dummy's bidding, > including that they were going to get a zero on this board. > > I don't know about you, but that comment would take the edge off of my > defense. > > Anyway, the defender (third hand) made the wrong choice at trick 1. The > contract, 3NT, made, while everyone else was going down one in 4 Hearts. > If the defender makes the right choice, 3NT goes down a bunch. > > I asked two people, and they both thought I should adjust. I'm guessing no > one ever adjusted for a stray comment by declarer. I mean, I posted on > this problem, but I was being theoretical. > > Never adjust? Always adjust? Depends on something? I guess it has to be at > least somewhat plausible that the defender could have found the right > defense. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 10 17:44:55 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 11:44:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Stray comment, possible damage In-Reply-To: <13D817B7FB3E41F38C79889EBE7F5B1F@erdos> References: <13D817B7FB3E41F38C79889EBE7F5B1F@erdos> Message-ID: On Fri, 09 May 2014 22:05:12 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > Could the defenders have drawn an incorrect inference from the remark? Yes. If I was defender, I would assume declarer is getting a zero and all I have to do is an ordinary mindless defense. They would presumably assume the same. > That is > the standard for an adjustment. If the wrong defense was based on an > assumption > that declarer was minimum for his bidding and dummy had overbid, an > adjustment > may be in order. (From the details you gave, it sounds like dummy > neglected to > show his heart length, and they wound up in NT rather than hearts, but 4H > happened to go down one; in this case, the comment may not have been > misleading.) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:32 PM > Subject: [BLML] Stray comment, possible damage > > >> Dummy came down. Declarer launched into a criticism of dummy's bidding, >> including that they were going to get a zero on this board. >> >> I don't know about you, but that comment would take the edge off of my >> defense. >> >> Anyway, the defender (third hand) made the wrong choice at trick 1. The >> contract, 3NT, made, while everyone else was going down one in 4 Hearts. >> If the defender makes the right choice, 3NT goes down a bunch. >> >> I asked two people, and they both thought I should adjust. I'm guessing >> no >> one ever adjusted for a stray comment by declarer. I mean, I posted on >> this problem, but I was being theoretical. >> >> Never adjust? Always adjust? Depends on something? I guess it has to be >> at >> least somewhat plausible that the defender could have found the right >> defense. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 10 17:48:05 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 11:48:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws Message-ID: I had an unusual thing happen yesterday, Declarer revoked (common) and claimed when dummy was good, no one else showing their cards (typical). But then, at the next table, they discovered the revoke! The opponents asked about the hand, and (I am guessing) expressed surprise at how few tricks the defenders had taken. From svenpran at online.no Sat May 10 18:31:08 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 18:31:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws > > I had an unusual thing happen yesterday, Declarer revoked (common) and > claimed when dummy was good, no one else showing their cards (typical). > > But then, at the next table, they discovered the revoke! The opponents asked > about the hand, and (I am guessing) expressed surprise at how few tricks the > defenders had taken. [Sven Pran] I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility themselves) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 10 18:46:31 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 12:46:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:31:08 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in >> the > next laws >> >> I had an unusual thing happen yesterday, Declarer revoked (common) and >> claimed when dummy was good, no one else showing their cards (typical). >> >> But then, at the next table, they discovered the revoke! The opponents > asked >> about the hand, and (I am guessing) expressed surprise at how few tricks > the >> defenders had taken. > > [Sven Pran] > I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? > What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands following a claim or concession. Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? > > (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility > themselves) What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 10 20:00:22 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 14:00:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Stray comment, possible damage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <536E6936.1010402@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-09 9:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Dummy came down. Declarer launched into a criticism of dummy's bidding, > including that they were going to get a zero on this board. I'd be thinking about L23 and also (as David mentioned) L73F. Before adjusting the score, you also have to find damage. If defenders were never going to defend correctly no matter what, they weren't damaged by the remarks, and there's no need for an AS. You could give a PP or DP if the remarks were especially obnoxious. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 10 20:22:52 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 14:22:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <004d01cf6b4d$fdeb8c00$f9c2a400$@t-online.de> References: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> <004d01cf6b4d$fdeb8c00$f9c2a400$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <536E6E7C.2060607@nhcc.net> Thanks, everyone, for comments. There seems to be disagreement unless I've misunderstood the responses. Ton or Grattan, if you are monitoring: the text here needs some attention, I think. On 2014-05-09 2:14 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > a) When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, offender's > partner must pass whenever ... How do you find that if the offender has already called? For example, South is dealer and opens 1S. West bids 2H. South then bids 2S before North can act. Why must North pass? Or have I misunderstood you? > b) When the offender has bid at his LHO's turn to call [and] if the offender > has not previously called, offender's partner must ... > c) When the offender has bid at his LHO's turn to call [and] if the offender > has previously called, Law 25 applies. I'm with you on these two. On 2014-05-09 2:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Your cases a and b2 are identical: They aren't identical. Did you mean to write that the result is the same? In a) the BOOT is offender's first action, e.g., West or North is dealer and South bids. I think we are all in agreement on this case; partner is barred. In b2), the offender has bid legally earlier but now bids at partner's turn. See the example above to Peter. I don't see why North is barred in this situation. From svenpran at online.no Sat May 10 22:26:31 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 22:26:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <536E6E7C.2060607@nhcc.net> References: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> <004d01cf6b4d$fdeb8c00$f9c2a400$@t-online.de> <536E6E7C.2060607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000801cf6c8e$21fda2e0$65f8e8a0$@online.no> Steve Willner [...] > On 2014-05-09 2:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Your cases a and b2 are identical: > > They aren't identical. Did you mean to write that the result is the same? [Sven Pran] They are identical because both cases are call out of turn at offender's partner's turn to call. Whether or not offender has legally bid earlier in this auction is completely immaterial. The condition "if the offender has not previously called" relates only to when it is LHO's turn to call. > In a) the BOOT is offender's first action, e.g., West or North is dealer and South > bids. I think we are all in agreement on this case; partner is barred. > > In b2), the offender has bid legally earlier but now bids at partner's turn. See > the example above to Peter. I don't see why North is barred in this situation. [Sven Pran] It appears to me that an important prerequisite for understanding the laws is the ability to understand grammar and syntax? Law 31B contains two (alternative) conditions, the first is "at his partner's turn to call", the second is "at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called". From svenpran at online.no Sat May 10 22:34:05 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 22:34:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? > > What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? > > For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands following a > claim or concession. > > Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? [Sven Pran] Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored like today when claims are accepted without questions. > > > > (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility > > themselves) > > What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? > Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. [Sven Pran] Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your signature? Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and agree with the claim? If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your question, but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of responsibility that is expected from you. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 10 22:54:31 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:54:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 May 2014 16:34:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> > [Sven Pran] >> > I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? >> > What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? >> >> For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands > following a >> claim or concession. >> >> Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored > like > today when claims are accepted without questions. It seems to me that you just don't like changes in the laws. If this was in the law, I can't imagine you arguing that we should take it out. > >> > >> > (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility >> > themselves) >> >> What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? >> Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. > > [Sven Pran] > Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your > signature? > > Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and > agree > with the claim? > > If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your > question, > but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of responsibility that > is > expected from you. Do you ever click on "I agee" without first checking with a lawyer? And what if you want to see the cards and the opponents don't want to show it to you? Make a fuss and accuse them of revoking? The reality seems to be that you think players should always see their opponents cards following a concession or claim. In other words, that's proper procedure. If it's proper procedure, it should be in the laws. If we like it that players don't show their cards following a claim or concession, we should leave the laws the way they are. It's a zero-sum game so no harm is done by letting declarer get away with her revoke. In this particular case, everyone would like that she got an even higher score. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sat May 10 23:25:04 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 17:25:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> On 05/10/2014 04:34 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >>> [Sven Pran] >>> I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? >>> What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? >> >> For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands > following a >> claim or concession. >> >> Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored like > today when claims are accepted without questions. > >>> >>> (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility >>> themselves) >> >> What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? >> Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. > > [Sven Pran] > Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your > signature? > > Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and agree > with the claim? > > If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your question, > but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of responsibility that is > expected from you. > May I ask you a question too, Sven? How long is it since you last directed a club tournament where the movement largely consisted of beginners and/or weak players? By that I mean players who can barely count the hand if they see all the cards. What you seem to be saying is that it's a player's responsibility to completely count out the hand *without* seeing all the cards in order to check for revokes. It's quite a while since I last wore a TD's hat at a offline club game, but it was at a club where the standard was much like it seems to be at Robert's club. Some players do revoke, frequently, and many of their opponents just aren't capable of realising it without they see all the hands. Yes, it might be ignored in strong(er) games, but I can't see that a requirement to face your hand when claiming is "impractical", and there are certainly games where it *is* "necessary". The Laws are supposed to cover all standards of game, impossible though that task might be. Brian. From svenpran at online.no Sun May 11 08:14:44 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 08:14:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000401cf6ce0$4de1c6f0$e9a554d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > >> For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands > > following a > >> claim or concession. > >> > >> Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored > > like today when claims are accepted without questions. > > It seems to me that you just don't like changes in the laws. If this was in the > law, I can't imagine you arguing that we should take it out. [Sven Pran] "If it ain't wrong then don't fix it". I don't like changes where the sole purpose is to change. And as all players are entitled to see all cards when play has ended I see no other purpose for your suggestion. > >> > (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of > >> > responsibility > >> > themselves) > >> > >> What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? > >> Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your > > signature? > > > > Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and > > agree with the claim? > > > > If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your > > question, but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of > > responsibility that is expected from you. > > Do you ever click on "I agee" without first checking with a lawyer? [Sven Pran] Yes, when I know, understand and accept what I agree to. > > And what if you want to see the cards and the opponents don't want to show it > to you? Make a fuss and accuse them of revoking? > > The reality seems to be that you think players should always see their > opponents cards following a concession or claim. In other words, that's proper > procedure. If it's proper procedure, it should be in the laws. > > If we like it that players don't show their cards following a claim or concession, > we should leave the laws the way they are. It's a zero-sum game so no harm is > done by letting declarer get away with her revoke. In this particular case, > everyone would like that she got an even higher score. [Sven Pran] You appear completely unaware of Law 66D? From svenpran at online.no Sun May 11 08:20:16 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 08:20:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501cf6ce1$133b79a0$39b26ce0$@online.no> Brian > May I ask you a question too, Sven? How long is it since you last directed a club > tournament where the movement largely consisted of beginners and/or weak > players? By that I mean players who can barely count the hand if they see all > the cards. What you seem to be saying is that it's a player's responsibility to > completely count out the hand *without* seeing all the cards in order to check > for revokes. [Sven Pran] 4 days ago, a regular event every Thursday during the season. > It's quite a while since I last wore a TD's hat at a offline club game, but it was at > a club where the standard was much like it seems to be at Robert's club. Some > players do revoke, frequently, and many of their opponents just aren't capable > of realising it without they see all the hands. > > Yes, it might be ignored in strong(er) games, but I can't see that a requirement > to face your hand when claiming is "impractical", and there are certainly games > where it *is* "necessary". The Laws are supposed to cover all standards of > game, impossible though that task might be. [Sven Pran] You too might want to familiarize yourself with Law 66D. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun May 11 09:16:19 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 17:16:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <000401cf6ce0$4de1c6f0$e9a554d0$@online.no> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <000401cf6ce0$4de1c6f0$e9a554d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000401cf6ce8$e8800430$b9800c90$@optusnet.com.au> [tony] Is it possible that in US people claim by closing their hand and returning it to the board? I'd like to see that! Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2014 4:15 PM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully > fixed in the next laws > > > Robert Frick > > >> For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands > > > following a > > >> claim or concession. > > >> > > >> Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? > > > > > > [Sven Pran] > > > Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored > > > like today when claims are accepted without questions. > > > > It seems to me that you just don't like changes in the laws. If this was > in the > > law, I can't imagine you arguing that we should take it out. > > [Sven Pran] > "If it ain't wrong then don't fix it". > I don't like changes where the sole purpose is to change. And as all players > are entitled to see all cards when play has ended I see no other purpose for > your suggestion. > > > >> > (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of > > >> > responsibility > > >> > themselves) > > >> > > >> What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? > > >> Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. > > > > > > [Sven Pran] > > > Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your > > > signature? > > > > > > Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and > > > agree with the claim? > > > > > > If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your > > > question, but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of > > > responsibility that is expected from you. > > > > Do you ever click on "I agee" without first checking with a lawyer? > [Sven Pran] > Yes, when I know, understand and accept what I agree to. > > > > > And what if you want to see the cards and the opponents don't want to > show > it > > to you? Make a fuss and accuse them of revoking? > > > > The reality seems to be that you think players should always see their > > opponents cards following a concession or claim. In other words, that's > proper > > procedure. If it's proper procedure, it should be in the laws. > > > > If we like it that players don't show their cards following a claim or > concession, > > we should leave the laws the way they are. It's a zero-sum game so no > harm > is > > done by letting declarer get away with her revoke. In this particular > case, > > everyone would like that she got an even higher score. > > [Sven Pran] You appear completely unaware of Law 66D? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun May 11 14:37:18 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 08:37:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <000501cf6ce1$133b79a0$39b26ce0$@online.no> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> <000501cf6ce1$133b79a0$39b26ce0$@online.no> Message-ID: <536F6EFE.5070908@gmail.com> On 05/11/2014 02:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Brian >> May I ask you a question too, Sven? How long is it since you last directed > a club >> tournament where the movement largely consisted of beginners and/or weak >> players? By that I mean players who can barely count the hand if they see > all >> the cards. What you seem to be saying is that it's a player's > responsibility to >> completely count out the hand *without* seeing all the cards in order to > check >> for revokes. > > [Sven Pran] > 4 days ago, a regular event every Thursday during the season. > >> It's quite a while since I last wore a TD's hat at a offline club game, > but it was at >> a club where the standard was much like it seems to be at Robert's club. > Some >> players do revoke, frequently, and many of their opponents just aren't > capable >> of realising it without they see all the hands. >> >> Yes, it might be ignored in strong(er) games, but I can't see that a > requirement >> to face your hand when claiming is "impractical", and there are certainly > games >> where it *is* "necessary". The Laws are supposed to cover all standards of >> game, impossible though that task might be. > > [Sven Pran] > You too might want to familiarize yourself with Law 66D. > I'm aware of it. I just think it would make for much smoother running of the game and, I have to say it, less ill-feeling "Why, do you think I can't follow suit?" if the opportunity for inspection was automatic, rather than an opponent having to ask. The timid players have rights, too, even if they wouldn't dream of exercising some of them. Brian. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun May 11 16:48:44 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 16:48:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <536F8DCC.4000505@aol.com> See below: Am 10.05.2014 22:54, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sat, 10 May 2014 16:34:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? >>>> What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? >>> For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands >> following a >>> claim or concession. >>> >>> Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? >> [Sven Pran] >> Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored >> like >> today when claims are accepted without questions. > It seems to me that you just don't like changes in the laws. If this was > in the law, I can't imagine you arguing that we should take it out. Non sequitor? > > >>>> (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility >>>> themselves) >>> What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? >>> Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. >> [Sven Pran] >> Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your >> signature? >> >> Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and >> agree >> with the claim? >> >> If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your >> question, >> but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of responsibility that >> is >> expected from you. > Do you ever click on "I agee" without first checking with a lawyer? > > And what if you want to see the cards and the opponents don't want to show > it to you? Make a fuss and accuse them of revoking? Has never happened to me in 60 years as a player and TD. But, if it were to happen and I was a player I'd call the TD. If I were TD I'd tell them to show their cards. If this doesn't work for you, you would seem to be in the wrong job. > > The reality seems to be that you think players should always see their > opponents cards following a concession or claim. In other words, that's > proper procedure. If it's proper procedure, it should be in the laws. > > If we like it that players don't show their cards following a claim or > concession, we should leave the laws the way they are. It's a zero-sum > game so no harm is done by letting declarer get away with her revoke. In > this particular case, everyone would like that she got an even higher > score. Seems silly reasoning to me. If you agree with the claim there is no need to demand to see the cards of the opponents. If you want to see them it is your right and I know of no TD aside from you who has a problem with this. No need to change the laws that I can perceive. Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > 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 petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun May 11 18:47:39 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:47:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <000401cf6ce8$e8800430$b9800c90$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <000401cf6ce0$4de1c6f0$e9a554d0$@online.no> <000401cf6ce8$e8800430$b9800c90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Am 11.05.2014, 09:16 Uhr, schrieb Tony Musgrove : > [tony] Is it possible that in US people claim > by closing their hand and returning it to the > board? > I'd like to see that! now surely that would be a concession - 68B1: "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand." Petrus From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 11 20:04:29 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 14:04:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <000401cf6ce8$e8800430$b9800c90$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <000401cf6ce0$4de1c6f0$e9a554d0$@online.no> <000401cf6ce8$e8800430$b9800c90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 May 2014 03:16:19 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > [tony] Is it possible that in US people claim > by closing their hand and returning it to the > board? > I'd like to see that! No, but that is common for a concession. A player over-ruffed dummy, setting our slam. Then he folded up his cards and both opponents conceded the rest -- the dummy was obviously good. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 11 20:11:41 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 14:11:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <536F8DCC.4000505@aol.com> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536F8DCC.4000505@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 May 2014 10:48:44 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > See below: > > Am 10.05.2014 22:54, schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Sat, 10 May 2014 16:34:05 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>>> Robert Frick >>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>> I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? >>>>> What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? >>>> For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands >>> following a >>>> claim or concession. >>>> >>>> Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored >>> like >>> today when claims are accepted without questions. >> It seems to me that you just don't like changes in the laws. If this was >> in the law, I can't imagine you arguing that we should take it out. > Non sequitor? >> >> >>>>> (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility >>>>> themselves) >>>> What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? >>>> Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your >>> signature? >>> >>> Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and >>> agree >>> with the claim? >>> >>> If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your >>> question, >>> but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of responsibility that >>> is >>> expected from you. >> Do you ever click on "I agee" without first checking with a lawyer? >> >> And what if you want to see the cards and the opponents don't want to >> show >> it to you? Make a fuss and accuse them of revoking? > Has never happened to me in 60 years as a player and TD. But, if it > were to happen and I was a player I'd call the TD. If I were TD I'd > tell them to show their cards. If this doesn't work for you, you would > seem to be in the wrong job. So, what you seem to be saying is that, if players are asked to show their cards following a claim or concession, they should. In other words, it's proper procedure. But you don't want the laws to say that players to have that right or responsibility. It seems that you benefit from players not knowing the law. Try publicizing that you don't have to show the opponents your hand (with exceptions, but the director can sort them out.) Anyway, that's not the problem. The problem is that players can hide a revoke or mistaken explanation by hiding their cards. >> >> The reality seems to be that you think players should always see their >> opponents cards following a concession or claim. In other words, that's >> proper procedure. If it's proper procedure, it should be in the laws. >> >> If we like it that players don't show their cards following a claim or >> concession, we should leave the laws the way they are. It's a zero-sum >> game so no harm is done by letting declarer get away with her revoke. In >> this particular case, everyone would like that she got an even higher >> score. > Seems silly reasoning to me. If you agree with the claim there is no > need to demand to see the cards of the opponents. If you want to see > them it is your right and I know of no TD aside from you who has a > problem with this. No need to change the laws that I can perceive. Ah, sorry for not being clear, that's not the problem. The players agreed completely with the claim. The dummy was good and everyone knew it. They saw no need to call the director. However, had they seen declarer's hand, they would have called the director. They almost certainly would have noticed that declarer revoked. Is this still not a problem for you? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 11 20:15:24 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 14:15:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 May 2014 17:25:04 -0400, Brian wrote: > On 05/10/2014 04:34 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Robert Frick >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> I assume that you are aware of Laws 64B4, 64B5, 64C, 69B and 71? >>>> What is there to be "fixed" in the next laws? >>> >>> For the next laws: Players should be required to show their hands >> following a >>> claim or concession. >>> >>> Does anyone disagree with this proposed change? >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Yes, it is unnecessary, impractical and will probably often be ignored >> like >> today when claims are accepted without questions. >> >>>> >>>> (Players are expected to exercise a certain amount of responsibility >>>> themselves) >>> >>> What is the certain amount of responsibility you are talking about? >>> Everyone was behaving normally and following the existing rules. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Do you often sign papers without verifying what you agree to with your >> signature? >> >> Do you often accept claims without verifying that you understand and >> agree >> with the claim? >> >> If you answer "yes" to either of these questions I understand your >> question, >> but I do not think that you exercise the minimum of responsibility that >> is >> expected from you. >> > > May I ask you a question too, Sven? How long is it since you last > directed a club tournament where the movement largely consisted of > beginners and/or weak players? By that I mean players who can barely > count the hand if they see all the cards. What you seem to be saying > is that it's a player's responsibility to completely count out the > hand *without* seeing all the cards in order to check for revokes. > > It's quite a while since I last wore a TD's hat at a offline club > game, but it was at a club where the standard was much like it seems > to be at Robert's club. Some players do revoke, frequently, and many > of their opponents just aren't capable of realising it without they > see all the hands. > > Yes, it might be ignored in strong(er) games, but I can't see that a > requirement to face your hand when claiming is "impractical", and > there are certainly games where it *is* "necessary". The Laws are > supposed to cover all standards of game, impossible though that task > might be. Hi Brian. In a high-level game, do player's ever put their hands back in the board without showing it to everyone? Or do they always voluntarily show their cards, or they always demand to see the opponents hand if it is not shown to them? From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun May 11 22:03:54 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 16:03:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <536FD7AA.4080501@gmail.com> On 05/11/2014 02:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: <...> >> May I ask you a question too, Sven? How long is it since you last >> directed a club tournament where the movement largely consisted of >> beginners and/or weak players? By that I mean players who can barely >> count the hand if they see all the cards. What you seem to be saying >> is that it's a player's responsibility to completely count out the >> hand *without* seeing all the cards in order to check for revokes. >> >> It's quite a while since I last wore a TD's hat at a offline club >> game, but it was at a club where the standard was much like it seems >> to be at Robert's club. Some players do revoke, frequently, and many >> of their opponents just aren't capable of realising it without they >> see all the hands. >> >> Yes, it might be ignored in strong(er) games, but I can't see that a >> requirement to face your hand when claiming is "impractical", and >> there are certainly games where it *is* "necessary". The Laws are >> supposed to cover all standards of game, impossible though that task >> might be. > > > Hi Brian. In a high-level game, do player's ever put their hands back in > the board without showing it to everyone? Or do they always voluntarily > show their cards, or they always demand to see the opponents hand if it is > not shown to them? I've not played at anything above English county level, Robert, nor worn a TD's hat above club level, so I'm not any kind of an authority on high-level games. In my personal experience at my sort of level, the answers to your questions are frequently, no and no, in that order. Brian. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun May 11 22:39:09 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 15:39:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <536FD7AA.4080501@gmail.com> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> <536FD7AA.4080501@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Brian wrote: > > On 05/11/2014 02:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > > > Hi Brian. In a high-level game, do player's ever put their hands back in > > the board without showing it to everyone? Or do they always voluntarily > > show their cards, or they always demand to see the opponents hand if it is > > not shown to them? > > I've not played at anything above English county level, Robert, nor > worn a TD's hat above club level, so I'm not any kind of an authority > on high-level games. In my personal experience at my sort of level, > the answers to your questions are frequently, no and no, in that order. > That's two answers, but there were three questions, so I don't immediately understand your answers. (The last sentence has two questions. The first question contains the word "ever.") Jerry Fusselman From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun May 11 22:47:00 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 16:47:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> <536FD7AA.4080501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <536FE1C4.6030604@gmail.com> On 05/11/2014 04:39 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Brian wrote: >> >> On 05/11/2014 02:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Brian. In a high-level game, do player's ever put their hands back in >>> the board without showing it to everyone? Or do they always voluntarily >>> show their cards, or they always demand to see the opponents hand if it is >>> not shown to them? >> >> I've not played at anything above English county level, Robert, nor >> worn a TD's hat above club level, so I'm not any kind of an authority >> on high-level games. In my personal experience at my sort of level, >> the answers to your questions are frequently, no and no, in that order. >> > > That's two answers, but there were three questions, so I don't > immediately understand your answers. (The last sentence has two > questions. The first question contains the word "ever.") > How you get "frequently, no and no, in that order" to be only two answers is beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid. Perhaps you missed the comma between "frequently" and "no"? Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 11 23:04:29 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 17:04:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: <536FE1C4.6030604@gmail.com> References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> <536FD7AA.4080501@gmail.com> <536FE1C4.6030604@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 May 2014 16:47:00 -0400, Brian wrote: > On 05/11/2014 04:39 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Brian wrote: >>> >>> On 05/11/2014 02:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Brian. In a high-level game, do player's ever put their hands back >>>> in >>>> the board without showing it to everyone? Or do they always >>>> voluntarily >>>> show their cards, or they always demand to see the opponents hand if >>>> it is >>>> not shown to them? >>> >>> I've not played at anything above English county level, Robert, nor >>> worn a TD's hat above club level, so I'm not any kind of an authority >>> on high-level games. In my personal experience at my sort of level, >>> the answers to your questions are frequently, no and no, in that order. >>> >> >> That's two answers, but there were three questions, so I don't >> immediately understand your answers. (The last sentence has two >> questions. The first question contains the word "ever.") >> > > How you get "frequently, no and no, in that order" to be only two > answers is beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid. Perhaps you missed the > comma between "frequently" and "no"? Apologies for the confusing question. My understanding is that if dummy is obviously good, players will "frequently" just put their cards back in the board and less frequently display them without any request. When defenders concede, same thing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 12 02:51:46 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 00:51:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8F919@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >A correct explanation of a correctly intended bid, should indeed be >considered AI. This is commonly done, but there is nothing in the laws >that suggests that it is true. >..... Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." Richard Hills: So a partnership's bidding methods created before the session, or in between boards, are normally AI. But the "preclude" caveat applies to one player temporarily forgetting her methods, then being reminded of her methods by her pard's unexpected explanation (Law 75A), or by her pard's unexpected alert or failure to alert (Law 73C). I Remember It Well (1958), Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe, Duet by Honore and Mamita H: We met at nine M: We met at eight H: I was on time M: No, you were late H: Ah, yes, I remember it well We dined with friends M: We dined alone H: A tenor sang M: A baritone H: Ah, yes, I remember it well 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/20140512/14326389/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 12 06:43:04 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 04:43:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A8FA52@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >An even better idea is Jeff Rubens? suggestion. It sounds dreadful when >one first sees it, and I admit it took me about a year to realize how >much sense it makes. It isn?t perfect, but it solves an awful lot of >problems and more important improves (in my opinion) how the game >is played. > >The suggestion, in case anyone hasn?t seen it, is to make _correct_ >explanations of partnership agreements AI. Expected alerts already are >AI; this is a much larger step in the same direction. _Incorrect_ >explanations would remain UI, as they are now. > >I have no hope this will be adopted in 2017, but maybe in 2027. Richard Hills: Jeff Rubens? suggestion may ++already++ be implemented pursuant to the current 2007 Lawbook if a Regulating Authority so chooses. Such a Rubens Regulation already applies at the Canberra Bridge Club?s supervised play sessions for freshly minted beginners. Law 40B2(b): ?++Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise++ a player may not consult his own system card after the auction period commences until the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period.? Law 40C3(a): ?++Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority++ a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique.? 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/20140512/a39dc0a3/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon May 12 17:05:31 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:05:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] showing hands following claim or concession, hopefully fixed in the next laws In-Reply-To: References: <000701cf6c6d$3f930af0$beb920d0$@online.no> <000901cf6c8f$30f576f0$92e064d0$@online.no> <536E9930.5050405@gmail.com> <536FD7AA.4080501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5370E33B.6050902@aol.com> Two answers? 1. Frequently 2. No 3. No Which of these did you not notice or not consider an answer? JE Am 11.05.2014 22:39, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Brian wrote: >> On 05/11/2014 02:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Hi Brian. In a high-level game, do player's ever put their hands back in >>> the board without showing it to everyone? Or do they always voluntarily >>> show their cards, or they always demand to see the opponents hand if it is >>> not shown to them? >> I've not played at anything above English county level, Robert, nor >> worn a TD's hat above club level, so I'm not any kind of an authority >> on high-level games. In my personal experience at my sort of level, >> the answers to your questions are frequently, no and no, in that order. >> > That's two answers, but there were three questions, so I don't > immediately understand your answers. (The last sentence has two > questions. The first question contains the word "ever.") > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > 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 swillner at nhcc.net Tue May 13 04:02:04 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 22:02:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <000801cf6c8e$21fda2e0$65f8e8a0$@online.no> References: <536C07C1.2080704@nhcc.net> <004d01cf6b4d$fdeb8c00$f9c2a400$@t-online.de> <536E6E7C.2060607@nhcc.net> <000801cf6c8e$21fda2e0$65f8e8a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <53717D1C.6020708@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-10 4:26 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > They are identical because both cases are call out of turn at offender's > partner's turn to call. But different because in only one case has offender previously called. > Whether or not offender has legally bid earlier in this auction is > completely immaterial. > The condition "if the offender has not previously called" relates only to > when it is LHO's turn to call. Are you reading the 2007 English version? I've been told there is a translation error in the Danish version. Does the same error appear in the Norwegian translation? Or are you reading the 1997 version? The 2007 WBF version is "When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called, ..." The 1997 version was "When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s turn to call if the offender has not previously called, ..." That version, with the comma missing from the second clause, indeed would have the effect you say. The 2008 ACBL version is "When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call or at his LHO?s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called, ..." This is also unambiguous but with the opposite effect than the 1997 version. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 13 05:33:21 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 03:33:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >>They are identical because both cases are call out of turn at offender's >>partner's turn to call. Steve Willner: >But different because in only one case has offender previously called. Sven Pran: >>Whether or not offender has legally bid earlier in this auction is >>completely immaterial. >>The condition "if the offender has not previously called" relates only >>to when it is LHO's turn to call. Steve Willner: >Are you reading the 2007 English version? I've been told there is a >translation error in the Danish version. Does the same error appear in >the Norwegian translation? Or are you reading the 1997 version? > >The 2007 WBF version is >"When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his >LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called, ..." > >The 1997 version was >"When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his >LHO's turn to call if the offender has not previously called, ..." > >That version, with the comma missing from the second clause, >indeed would have the effect you say. >..... Richard Hills: I semi-officially assisted Grattan Endicott during the drafting of the 2007 WBF Lawbook. On checking my records, I can confirm that the second comma (between "call" and "if") was an intentional addition by the 2007 Drafting Committee. British comedian and dyslexic Marcus Brigstocke: "If you struggle at school, maybe you learn to be funny. But it goes deeper than that. When I look at a word written down, it breaks down different shapes for me. I don't just see 'disease', I see 'dis' 'ease'. If you are creating comedy you've already got a different way of looking at things." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140513/c1c92566/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue May 13 07:28:27 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:28:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> 1: I am always using the original and current English text for my comments in this forum. 2: I have been involved in the Norwegian translation and we follow the original text as accurate as possible. 3: I looked up the Danish version and they have translated Law 31B as if it were written: If the offender has bid out of turn, and it was LHO?s turn to call, and the offender has not earlier called, or it was the offender?s partner turn to call, then .. This is obviously not an exact word for word translation, but it is at least unambiguous. 4: Law 31B reads: When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, .. **Later calls at LHO?s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. This footnote attached to the last if clause makes it clear (at least to me) that this if clause shall only apply when it was LHO?s turn to call, not when it was partner?s turn to call. Otherwise there would be no rectification at all in the case when offender?s LHO deals and calls, immediately followed by offender making a bid out of turn. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard James HILLS Sendt: 13. mai 2014 05:33 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >>They are identical because both cases are call out of turn at offender?s >>partner?s turn to call. Steve Willner: >But different because in only one case has offender previously called. Sven Pran: >>Whether or not offender has legally bid earlier in this auction is >>completely immaterial. >>The condition ?if the offender has not previously called? relates only >>to when it is LHO?s turn to call. Steve Willner: >Are you reading the 2007 English version? I?ve been told there is a >translation error in the Danish version. Does the same error appear in >the Norwegian translation? Or are you reading the 1997 version? > >The 2007 WBF version is >?When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his >LHO?s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called, ...? > >The 1997 version was >?When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his >LHO?s turn to call if the offender has not previously called, ...? > >That version, with the comma missing from the second clause, >indeed would have the effect you say. >..... Richard Hills: I semi-officially assisted Grattan Endicott during the drafting of the 2007 WBF Lawbook. On checking my records, I can confirm that the second comma (between ?call? and ?if?) was an intentional addition by the 2007 Drafting Committee. British comedian and dyslexic Marcus Brigstocke: ?If you struggle at school, maybe you learn to be funny. But it goes deeper than that. When I look at a word written down, it breaks down different shapes for me. I don?t just see ?disease?, I see ?dis? ?ease?. If you are creating comedy you?ve already got a different way of looking at things.? UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140513/7691ff4b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 13 08:12:04 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 06:12:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hypothetical 2015 Laws 31B, 31C & 31D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92E2B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL 2015 Law 31B - First Call Out of Turn at Partner's or LHO's Turn "If the offender's initial call is at her partner's turn to call, or at her LHO's turn to call, then (if Law 25A1 does not apply), her partner's future selection amongst logical alternatives are restricted by Law 16D. Law 23 may apply. Hypothetical Note: The lead restrictions of the 2007 Law 26 do not apply, as this Law has been deleted from the 2015 Lawbook." Richard Hills: Historical Note: According to a publicly available (on Adam Wildavsky's website) half-way draft of the 2007 Lawbook, the 2007 Drafting Committee seriously considered deleting the unnecessary** Law 26, which in my opinion provides random non- equity. ** The non-random Law 16D subsumes the purpose of Law 26. 2015 Law 31C - Later Call Out of Turn at LHO's Turn "All later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and either Law 25A or Law 25B applies. If Law 25B applies, then Law 16D also applies. Law 23 may apply." 2015 Law 31D - Later Call Out of Turn at Partner's Turn "All later calls at partner's turn to call (if Law 25A1 does not apply) are cancelled. Law 16D applies. Law 23 may apply." Konrad Lorenz (1903 - 1989), Austrian zoologist: "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." 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/20140513/f12b9dfa/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue May 13 08:32:44 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 08:32:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hypothetical 2015 Laws 31B, 31C & 31D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92E2B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92E2B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001e01cf6e75$26e5d820$74b18860$@online.no> ?Good grief!? (Pebbles) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard James HILLS Sendt: 13. mai 2014 08:12 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] Hypothetical 2015 Laws 31B, 31C & 31D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL 2015 Law 31B ? First Call Out of Turn at Partner?s or LHO?s Turn ?If the offender?s initial call is at her partner?s turn to call, or at her LHO?s turn to call, then (if Law 25A1 does not apply), her partner?s future selection amongst logical alternatives are restricted by Law 16D. Law 23 may apply. Hypothetical Note: The lead restrictions of the 2007 Law 26 do not apply, as this Law has been deleted from the 2015 Lawbook.? Richard Hills: Historical Note: According to a publicly available (on Adam Wildavsky?s website) half-way draft of the 2007 Lawbook, the 2007 Drafting Committee seriously considered deleting the unnecessary** Law 26, which in my opinion provides random non- equity. ** The non-random Law 16D subsumes the purpose of Law 26. 2015 Law 31C ? Later Call Out of Turn at LHO?s Turn ?All later calls at LHO?s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and either Law 25A or Law 25B applies. If Law 25B applies, then Law 16D also applies. Law 23 may apply.? 2015 Law 31D ? Later Call Out of Turn at Partner?s Turn ?All later calls at partner?s turn to call (if Law 25A1 does not apply) are cancelled. Law 16D applies. Law 23 may apply.? Konrad Lorenz (1903 ? 1989), Austrian zoologist: ?It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast.? 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/20140513/f81d6a1b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 13 09:17:09 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:17:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hypothetical 2015 Laws 31B, 31C & 31D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92E99@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: > >(Pebbles) Richard Hills: My guess is that the famous American comic strip Peanuts has other titles in other languages. Lucy van Pelt, 18th November 1971: "In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by people who 'thought they were doing the right thing.' Five cents, please." 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/20140513/caaf2cd0/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue May 13 14:14:35 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:14:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hypothetical 2015 Laws 31B, 31C & 31D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92E99@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92E99@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000f01cf6ea4$e803f8a0$b80be9e0$@online.no> Indeed, I confused the title ?Peanuts? with the name ?Pebbles? in the Flintstones. Sorry (Peanuts is ?Kn?ttene? in Norwegian) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard James HILLS Sendt: 13. mai 2014 09:17 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Hypothetical 2015 Laws 31B, 31C & 31D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >?Good grief!? >(Pebbles) Richard Hills: My guess is that the famous American comic strip Peanuts has other titles in other languages. Lucy van Pelt, 18th November 1971: ?In all of mankind?s history, there has never been more damage done than by people who ?thought they were doing the right thing.? Five cents, please.? 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/20140513/e3e32021/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 13 15:56:38 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:56:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz Message-ID: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Back to boring bread and butter: National teams competition (IMPS), None vul, Dealer West. _____________ North _____________ S: J 9 2 _____________ H: A 8 3 2 _____________ D: 9 6 5 _____________ C: A J 5 West ______________________ East S: 7 6 3 _____________________ S: Q 8 4 H: Q T 9 5 ___________________ H: 7 6 4 D: T 3 ______________________ D: A K J 7 2 C: Q 6 4 2 ___________________ C: 7 3 _____________ South _____________ S: A K T 5 _____________ H: K J _____________ D: Q 8 4 _____________ C: K T 9 8 West_North_East_South Pass_Pass__Pass_1N (1) Pass_2D(2)_X(3)__2S Pass_3D(4)_Pass_3N All pass (1) 14-16 (2) Staymanic (3) Lead-directing (4) Stop ask [A] Against South's game, West leads the ten of diamonds, won by South's queen. South exits in diamonds and East cashes all his diamonds. West's first discard is a spade. Declarer asks about discarding style and is (correctly) told normal count. South discards a spade and a heart from hand; two hearts from dummy. East exits with a spade, South revokes, playing a club, and West plays a small spade. South noticed his revoke before it's established. The director rules "Declarer may correct his revoke and play on -- West may change his card if he wants to. Inferences from this trick are UI to declarer and AI to defenders. Defenders may call me back if they feel they're damaged." The position is _____________ North _____________ S: J 9 2 _____________ H: A 8 _____________ D: - _____________ C: A J 5 West ______________________ East S: 7 3 ______________________ S: Q 8 4 H: Q T 9 ____________________ H: 7 6 4 D: - ________________________ D: - C: Q 6 4 _ ___________________ C: 7 3 _____________ South _____________ S: A K T _____________ H: K _____________ D: - _____________ C: K T 9 8 South wins SA and finesses West for the queen of clubs to make the contract with 2 X S, 2 X H, 1 X D, and 4 X C. East-West claim damage. Declarer says he believes West's spade discard and had already committed himself to taking the club finesse by discarding his fourth spade. Ruling? [B] How would you rule if West held and played the queen of spades, when declarer failed to follow suit; and declarer still played the same way, make his contract. From svenpran at online.no Tue May 13 16:29:57 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:29:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: <002001cf6eb7$d0db57a0$729206e0$@online.no> Nigel Guthrie > Emne: [BLML] Alcatraz > > Back to boring bread and butter: > > National teams competition (IMPS), None vul, Dealer West. > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 3 2 > _____________ D: 9 6 5 > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 6 3 _____________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 5 ___________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: T 3 ______________________ D: A K J 7 2 > C: Q 6 4 2 ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T 5 > _____________ H: K J > _____________ D: Q 8 4 > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > West_North_East_South > Pass_Pass__Pass_1N (1) > Pass_2D(2)_X(3)__2S > Pass_3D(4)_Pass_3N > All pass > (1) 14-16 (2) Staymanic (3) Lead-directing (4) Stop ask > > [A] Against South's game, West leads the ten of diamonds, won by South's > queen. South exits in diamonds and East cashes all his diamonds. West's > first discard is a spade. Declarer asks about discarding style and is > (correctly) told normal count. South discards a spade and a heart from hand; > two hearts from dummy. East exits with a spade, South revokes, playing a club, > and West plays a small spade. South noticed his revoke before it's established. > The director rules "Declarer may correct his revoke and play on -- West may > change his card if he wants to. Inferences from this trick are UI to declarer and > AI to defenders. Defenders may call me back if they feel they're damaged." > The position is > > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 3 ______________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 ____________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: - ________________________ D: - > C: Q 6 4 _ ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T > _____________ H: K > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > > South wins SA and finesses West for the queen of clubs to make the contract > with 2 X S, 2 X H, 1 X D, and 4 X C. East-West claim damage. Declarer says he > believes West's spade discard and had already committed himself to taking the > club finesse by discarding his fourth spade. Ruling? > > [B] How would you rule if West held and played the queen of spades, when > declarer failed to follow suit; and declarer still played the same way, make his > contract. [Sven Pran] A: Sure South has committed himself to taking the club finesse, I have no problem with that. But which way? East has already shown 8 HCP and probably holds the SQ since West did not win the revoke trick with that card. But East did not open, so now the CQ is most certainly located in West. I would rule that South without the UI has a fair chance of guessing wrong on which way to play the clubs. 3NT down 1 B: If West held and played the SQ on the revoke trick I would be attempted to adjust: either according to South correcting his revoke by playing the S10, or according to South guessing wrong on which way to play the clubs. Either way my ruling would be 3NT down 1 From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue May 13 16:42:58 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:42:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: <53722F72.9030406@t-online.de> Am 13.05.2014 15:56, schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > Back to boring bread and butter: > > National teams competition (IMPS), None vul, Dealer West. > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 3 2 > _____________ D: 9 6 5 > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 6 3 _____________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 5 ___________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: T 3 ______________________ D: A K J 7 2 > C: Q 6 4 2 ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T 5 > _____________ H: K J > _____________ D: Q 8 4 > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > West_North_East_South > Pass_Pass__Pass_1N (1) > Pass_2D(2)_X(3)__2S > Pass_3D(4)_Pass_3N > All pass > (1) 14-16 (2) Staymanic (3) Lead-directing (4) Stop ask > > [A] Against South's game, West leads the ten of diamonds, won by South's > queen. South exits in diamonds and East cashes all his diamonds. West's > first discard is a spade. Declarer asks about discarding style and is > (correctly) told normal count. South discards a spade and a heart from > hand; two hearts from dummy. East exits with a spade, South revokes, > playing a club, and West plays a small spade. South noticed his revoke > before it's established. The director rules "Declarer may correct his revoke > and play on -- West may change his card if he wants to. Inferences from this > trick are UI to declarer and AI to defenders. Defenders may call me back if > they feel they're damaged." The position is > > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 3 ______________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 ____________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: - ________________________ D: - > C: Q 6 4 _ ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T > _____________ H: K > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > > South wins SA and finesses West for the queen of clubs to make the contract > with 2 X S, 2 X H, 1 X D, and 4 X C. East-West claim damage. Declarer says > he believes West's spade discard and had already committed himself to taking > the club finesse by discarding his fourth spade. Ruling? Down one. Declarer has "seen" S Q and D AKJ, so the other queens will be with West, as East has not opened the bidding. The knowledge about the S Q is UI to him, so declarer may not choose a line of play that is suggested by the UI. Finessing East for C Q is a logical alternative (barely, he has already seen 8 HCP in a passed hand, but still... Declarer does not have the entries to cash H AK (which might discover where H Q is, which, if in East, would find C Q for him, but would let him go down two if he loses to C Q) before committing himself in clubs. > > [B] How would you rule if West held and played the queen of spades, when > declarer failed to follow suit; and declarer still played the same way, make > his contract. Difficult. This is, of course, UI, too, but here finessing in S does not seem to be a LA, as it doesn`t make the contract. Declarer needs the clubs to play for 4 tricks, and if they do, he only needs 2 spades. If S Q is in West it doesn`t tell declarer anything about C Q, so declarer is not restricted in his choices regarding the club suit. I would give him his contract. Best regards Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue May 13 17:57:46 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:57:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Nigel Guthrie" Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 08:56 To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz > Back to boring bread and butter: > > National teams competition (IMPS), None vul, Dealer West. > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 3 2 > _____________ D: 9 6 5 > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 6 3 _____________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 5 ___________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: T 3 ______________________ D: A K J 7 2 > C: Q 6 4 2 ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T 5 > _____________ H: K J > _____________ D: Q 8 4 > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > West_North_East_South > Pass_Pass__Pass_1N (1) > Pass_2D(2)_X(3)__2S > Pass_3D(4)_Pass_3N > All pass > (1) 14-16 (2) Staymanic (3) Lead-directing (4) Stop ask > > [A] Against South's game, West leads the ten of diamonds, won by South's > queen. South exits in diamonds and East cashes all his diamonds. West's > first discard is a spade. Declarer asks about discarding style and is > (correctly) told normal count. South discards a spade and a heart from > hand; two hearts from dummy. East exits with a spade, South revokes, > playing a club, and West plays a small spade. South noticed his revoke > before it's established. The director rules "Declarer may correct his > revoke > and play on -- West may change his card if he wants to. Inferences from > this > trick are UI to declarer and AI to defenders. Defenders may call me back > if > they feel they're damaged." The position is > > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 3 ______________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 ____________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: - ________________________ D: - > C: Q 6 4 _ ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T > _____________ H: K > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > > South wins SA and finesses West for the queen of clubs to make the > contract > with 2 X S, 2 X H, 1 X D, and 4 X C. East-West claim damage. Declarer > says > he believes West's spade discard and had already committed himself to > taking > the club finesse by discarding his fourth spade. Ruling? > > [B] How would you rule if West held and played the queen of spades, when > declarer failed to follow suit; and declarer still played the same way, > make > his contract. For the discovery play known as the Alcatraz Coup the best remedy is its prevention. This would be encouraged by treating the four players the same- for instance, in the creation of PCs. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Tue May 13 22:55:08 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:55:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: <000001cf6eed$a0cf04e0$e26d0ea0$@online.no> > Roger Pewick [...] > For the discovery play known as the Alcatraz Coup the best remedy is its > prevention. This would be encouraged by treating the four players the same- > for instance, in the creation of PCs. [Sven Pran] ????????? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 14 08:00:45 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:00:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: The reason we have penalty cards is because partner have seen the card(s) in question. Having this information is illegal (UI). One could envisage not having penalty cards, and treat each case as a UI case. But that would be a hopeless burden upon the TDs. Thus we have penalty cards instead. But to give declarer penalty cards in the same fashion as the defenders is really not an option. That would be draconian - he's got no partner who can benefit of seeing his unplayed cards. This is not the way to abolish Alcatras Coups and their likes. The price is far too high. Even thinking about that is a huge overbid. 2014-05-13 17:57 GMT+02:00 Roger Pewick : > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 08:56 > To: "BLML" > Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz > > > Back to boring bread and butter: > > > > National teams competition (IMPS), None vul, Dealer West. > > _____________ North > > _____________ S: J 9 2 > > _____________ H: A 8 3 2 > > _____________ D: 9 6 5 > > _____________ C: A J 5 > > West ______________________ East > > S: 7 6 3 _____________________ S: Q 8 4 > > H: Q T 9 5 ___________________ H: 7 6 4 > > D: T 3 ______________________ D: A K J 7 2 > > C: Q 6 4 2 ___________________ C: 7 3 > > _____________ South > > _____________ S: A K T 5 > > _____________ H: K J > > _____________ D: Q 8 4 > > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > > West_North_East_South > > Pass_Pass__Pass_1N (1) > > Pass_2D(2)_X(3)__2S > > Pass_3D(4)_Pass_3N > > All pass > > (1) 14-16 (2) Staymanic (3) Lead-directing (4) Stop ask > > > > [A] Against South's game, West leads the ten of diamonds, won by South's > > queen. South exits in diamonds and East cashes all his diamonds. > West's > > first discard is a spade. Declarer asks about discarding style and is > > (correctly) told normal count. South discards a spade and a heart from > > hand; two hearts from dummy. East exits with a spade, South revokes, > > playing a club, and West plays a small spade. South noticed his revoke > > before it's established. The director rules "Declarer may correct his > > revoke > > and play on -- West may change his card if he wants to. Inferences from > > this > > trick are UI to declarer and AI to defenders. Defenders may call me back > > if > > they feel they're damaged." The position is > > > > _____________ North > > _____________ S: J 9 2 > > _____________ H: A 8 > > _____________ D: - > > _____________ C: A J 5 > > West ______________________ East > > S: 7 3 ______________________ S: Q 8 4 > > H: Q T 9 ____________________ H: 7 6 4 > > D: - ________________________ D: - > > C: Q 6 4 _ ___________________ C: 7 3 > > _____________ South > > _____________ S: A K T > > _____________ H: K > > _____________ D: - > > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > > > > South wins SA and finesses West for the queen of clubs to make the > > contract > > with 2 X S, 2 X H, 1 X D, and 4 X C. East-West claim damage. Declarer > > says > > he believes West's spade discard and had already committed himself to > > taking > > the club finesse by discarding his fourth spade. Ruling? > > > > [B] How would you rule if West held and played the queen of spades, when > > declarer failed to follow suit; and declarer still played the same way, > > make > > his contract. > > For the discovery play known as the Alcatraz Coup the best remedy is its > prevention. This would be encouraged by treating the four players the > same- > for instance, in the creation of PCs. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140514/c2c97289/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 14 09:24:00 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:24:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: <008c01cf6f45$7b71b5f0$725521d0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > [B] How would you rule if West held and played the queen of spades, when > declarer failed to follow suit; and declarer still played the same way, make > his contract. [tony] I am getting declarer to take the losing spade finesse,then probably the losing club finesse as well. Then I hit him with L23. Of course she may be a lol who has dropped a card accidentally, but I doubt it. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 14 13:38:25 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 13:38:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: <537355B1.80607@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/05/2014 15:56, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Back to boring bread and butter: > > National teams competition (IMPS), None vul, Dealer West. > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 3 2 > _____________ D: 9 6 5 > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 6 3 _____________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 5 ___________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: T 3 ______________________ D: A K J 7 2 > C: Q 6 4 2 ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T 5 > _____________ H: K J > _____________ D: Q 8 4 > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > West_North_East_South > Pass_Pass__Pass_1N (1) > Pass_2D(2)_X(3)__2S > Pass_3D(4)_Pass_3N > All pass > (1) 14-16 (2) Staymanic (3) Lead-directing (4) Stop ask > > [A] Against South's game, West leads the ten of diamonds, won by South's > queen. South exits in diamonds and East cashes all his diamonds. West's > first discard is a spade. Declarer asks about discarding style and is > (correctly) told normal count. South discards a spade and a heart from > hand; two hearts from dummy. East exits with a spade, South revokes, > playing a club, and West plays a small spade. South noticed his revoke > before it's established. The director rules "Declarer may correct his revoke > and play on -- West may change his card if he wants to. Inferences from this > trick are UI to declarer and AI to defenders. Defenders may call me back if > they feel they're damaged." The position is > > _____________ North > _____________ S: J 9 2 > _____________ H: A 8 > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: A J 5 > West ______________________ East > S: 7 3 ______________________ S: Q 8 4 > H: Q T 9 ____________________ H: 7 6 4 > D: - ________________________ D: - > C: Q 6 4 _ ___________________ C: 7 3 > _____________ South > _____________ S: A K T > _____________ H: K > _____________ D: - > _____________ C: K T 9 8 > > South wins SA and finesses West for the queen of clubs to make the contract > with 2 X S, 2 X H, 1 X D, and 4 X C. East-West claim damage. Declarer says > he believes West's spade discard and had already committed himself to taking > the club finesse by discarding his fourth spade. Ruling? Since playing small from hand would be using the information, playing this way can't be. South didn't score more tricks by playing the Ace of Spades, and the way he played clubs is prompted by West's early discards, which is allowed. (short version : South's infraction didn't give him any information about clubs) > > [B] How would you rule if West held and played the queen of spades, when > declarer failed to follow suit; and declarer still played the same way, make > his contract. This is Alcatrastic in nature. The play of a small spade may have been helped by West's play of a small spade. (and "may'" is enough) Disallow the play and either score 3NT down, or 75% of down and 25% of making. It might depend on local customs. (C) A clever West plays a small spade after South has discarded (in order to score two tricks from the revoke if it isn't noticed). South uses that information to replace his club by a small spade, and now West, as allowed, replaces his own card with the SQ. Nyargh nyargh. Best regards Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 14 15:45:07 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:45:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> Message-ID: <53737363.9050202@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-14 2:00 AM, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > But to give declarer penalty cards in the same fashion as the defenders > is really not an option. That would be draconian - he's got no partner > who can benefit of seeing his unplayed cards. This is not the way to > abolish Alcatras Coups and their likes. The price is far too high. Worse yet, it wouldn't work. Declarer just has to make sure the card he exposes is one he is willing to play next time he's on lead. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 14 16:05:27 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:05:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <53737827.9010404@nhcc.net> "When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called** ..." On 2014-05-13 1:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > This footnote attached to the last if clause makes it clear (at least to > me) that this if clause shall only apply when it was LHO?s turn to call, > not when it was partner?s turn to call. I don't see that the footnote placement tells us anything about whether the "if" clause applies to both preceding clauses or not. The footnote can only sensibly apply when it was LHO's turn and offender has previously called. The commas are the problem. Evidently the Danish and American translators reached different conclusions. (I _think_ the American "translator" was Adam Wildavsky, a member of the WBFLC.) Aside from grammatical evidence, it strikes me that a change in the Law text that introduces ambiguity most likely is a result of intention to change the effect. > Otherwise there would be no > rectification at all in the case when offender?s LHO deals and calls, > immediately followed by offender making a bid out of turn. This is the case on which we agree, I thought: offender has not previously called, so partner is barred under either reading. We disagree in the case where offender has previously called. For 2017, I'd suggest the LC break 31B into two (say 31B and 31C), one for a BOOT at LHO's turn to call and a separate one for a BOOT at partner's turn to call. This would let the working TD go straight to the correct place. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 14 22:16:23 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 22:16:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <53737363.9050202@nhcc.net> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> <53737363.9050202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001801cf6fb1$619234e0$24b69ea0$@online.no> Steve Willner > Sendt: 14. mai 2014 15:45 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Alcatraz > > On 2014-05-14 2:00 AM, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > > But to give declarer penalty cards in the same fashion as the > > defenders is really not an option. That would be draconian - he's got > > no partner who can benefit of seeing his unplayed cards. This is not > > the way to abolish Alcatras Coups and their likes. The price is far too high. > > Worse yet, it wouldn't work. Declarer just has to make sure the card he > exposes is one he is willing to play next time he's on lead. [Sven Pran] Forget it - Law 48A says: [...] no card of declarer?s or dummy?s hand ever becomes a penalty card. [...] And any change in the laws for the purpose of giving declarer penalty card(s) is meaningless. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 14 22:48:34 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <536C7537.7010401@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> <5363AA19.30507@ulb.ac.be> <536BD340.3040609@nhcc.net> <536C7537.7010401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5373D6A2.9080708@nhcc.net> a little old but perhaps still worth a reply: On 2014-05-09 2:27 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > However, a correct explanation of a misbid contains not just something > which might well be considered AI, but also a piece of information which > is decidedly UI: the fact that you have misbid. And I doubt if anyone > wishes to change that. Jeff Rubens does wish to change it. I agree with him. We both realize this is a big change, though it's what the Laws on this subject were prior to 1975 and not far from what they were from 1975 to 1987. As I wrote earlier, it took me a year from reading Jeff's suggestion to realizing how good an idea it is, so it doesn't surprise me that people aren't willing to consider it at first. There's no doubt it would be a change, but it seems to me very much a change for the better. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 14 22:56:07 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 22:56:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53737827.9010404@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> <53737827.9010404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001f01cf6fb6$ed684b80$c838e280$@online.no> Steve Willner > Sendt: 14. mai 2014 16:05 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] L31B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > "When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to > call, if the offender has not previously called** ..." > > On 2014-05-13 1:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > This footnote attached to the last if clause makes it clear (at least > > to > > me) that this if clause shall only apply when it was LHO's turn to > > call, not when it was partner's turn to call. > > I don't see that the footnote placement tells us anything about whether the "if" > clause applies to both preceding clauses or not. The footnote can only sensibly > apply when it was LHO's turn and offender has previously called. The commas > are the problem. Evidently the Danish and American translators reached > different conclusions. (I _think_ the American "translator" was Adam > Wildavsky, a member of the WBFLC.) [Sven Pran] The footnote clarifies the effect of the if clause: If the offender has previously called then his BOOT is an attempted change of call. So if the if clause applies to a BOOT also at partner's turn to call then so must the footnote. My (syntax) analysis is that the word "or" clearly splits the expression into two distinct conditions: 1: at his partner's turn to call 2: at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called Also, the footnote is meaningless if it should apply when it was partner's turn to call because offender's bid out of turn at that time can never be an attempted change of call. > > Aside from grammatical evidence, it strikes me that a change in the Law text > that introduces ambiguity most likely is a result of intention to change the > effect. [Sven Pran] Or maybe to clarify a previously vague point? > > > Otherwise there would be no > > rectification at all in the case when offender's LHO deals and calls, > > immediately followed by offender making a bid out of turn. > > This is the case on which we agree, I thought: offender has not previously > called, so partner is barred under either reading. [Sven Pran] This cannot be correct. Partner is never barred when the offence is treated as an attempt to change a call so that Law 25 applies. > > We disagree in the case where offender has previously called. [Sven Pran] But if you read Law 31B as: "at his partner's turn to call [...] if the offender has not previously called" then there is no way you can reach the specified rectification in Law 31B (or in fact any rectification) when the offender has previously called. > > For 2017, I'd suggest the LC break 31B into two (say 31B and 31C), one for a > BOOT at LHO's turn to call and a separate one for a BOOT at partner's turn to > call. This would let the working TD go straight to the correct place. [Sven Pran] I strongly agree (on this point only)! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 15 00:47:06 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 22:47:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A961E2@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >>However, a correct explanation of a misbid contains not just something >>which might well be considered AI, but also a piece of information which >>is decidedly UI: the fact that you have misbid. And I doubt if anyone >>wishes to change that. Steve Willner: >Jeff Rubens does wish to change it. I agree with him. We both realize >this is a big change, though it's what the Laws on this subject were >prior to 1975 and not far from what they were from 1975 to 1987. > >As I wrote earlier, it took me a year from reading Jeff's suggestion to >realizing how good an idea it is, so it doesn't surprise me that people >aren't willing to consider it at first. There's no doubt it would be a >change, but it seems to me very much a change for the better. Richard Hills: In my opinion, very much a change for the worst. Neo-classical economists have a fundamental simplifying assumption that all human beings participating in the market are rational. But their theories fail to explain stock market booms and busts. That is because in actuality human beings are partially irrational herd animals. Likewise, Jeff Rubens has a neo-classical simplifying assumption that all partnerships have fully complete bidding methods. Not so. Many partnerships (even expert ones) have gaps or paradoxes in their methods. If the pre-1975 situation of alerts (or failures to alert) being AI was restored, then such partnerships would be able to fill gaps in their methods during the auction by a judicious alert / non-alert. Maurice Harrison-Gray, "A Short History of Texas", conclusion: Our experts had overlooked a clash of conventions when they switched to South African Texas. From West's angle, four clubs was Gerber; so he showed his two aces. His partner's agonised attempt to find a resting place sounded like a further ask for kings; so he showed his three kings. The final contract went three down. The rival team stopped at five hearts, just made. Those who follow the Texas flag have something in common with the heroes of the Alamo. In most cases, as you will note, they die with their bidding boots on. 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/20140514/6fc8435c/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Thu May 15 14:45:32 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 08:45:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <001f01cf6fb6$ed684b80$c838e280$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> <53737827.9010404@nhcc.net> <001f01cf6fb6$ed684b80$c838e280$@online.no> Message-ID: <70B64CA9-4CCB-48E0-893C-6D2E8CE4B729@verizon.net> On May 14, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Steve Willner >> >> "When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to >> call, if the offender has not previously called** ..." >> >> On 2014-05-13 1:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> This footnote attached to the last if clause makes it clear (at least >>> to >>> me) that this if clause shall only apply when it was LHO's turn to >>> call, not when it was partner's turn to call. >> >> I don't see that the footnote placement tells us anything about whether the "if" >> clause applies to both preceding clauses or not. The footnote can only sensibly >> apply when it was LHO's turn and offender has previously called. The commas >> are the problem. Evidently the Danish and American translators reached >> different conclusions. (I _think_ the American "translator" was Adam >> Wildavsky, a member of the WBFLC.) > > [Sven Pran] > The footnote clarifies the effect of the if clause: If the offender has > previously called then his BOOT is an attempted change of call. > So if the if clause applies to a BOOT also at partner's turn to call then so > must the footnote. > > My (syntax) analysis is that the word "or" clearly splits the expression > into two distinct conditions: > 1: at his partner's turn to call > 2: at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called > > Also, the footnote is meaningless if it should apply when it was partner's > turn to call because offender's bid out of turn at that time can never be an > attempted change of call. > >> Aside from grammatical evidence, it strikes me that a change in the Law text >> that introduces ambiguity most likely is a result of intention to change the >> effect. > > [Sven Pran] > Or maybe to clarify a previously vague point? > >>> Otherwise there would be no >>> rectification at all in the case when offender's LHO deals and calls, >>> immediately followed by offender making a bid out of turn. >> >> This is the case on which we agree, I thought: offender has not previously >> called, so partner is barred under either reading. > > [Sven Pran] > This cannot be correct. Partner is never barred when the offence is treated > as an attempt to change a call so that Law 25 applies. > >> We disagree in the case where offender has previously called. > > [Sven Pran] > But if you read Law 31B as: "at his partner's turn to call [...] if the > offender has not previously called" then there is no way you can reach the > specified rectification in Law 31B (or in fact any rectification) when the > offender has previously called. > >> For 2017, I'd suggest the LC break 31B into two (say 31B and 31C), one for a >> BOOT at LHO's turn to call and a separate one for a BOOT at partner's turn to >> call. This would let the working TD go straight to the correct place. > > [Sven Pran] > I strongly agree (on this point only)! The only sensible conclusion from this thread is that adding the comma between "call" and "if" introduced an unintended amiguity into L31B, a mistake that needs to be rectified in the next edition. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From g3 at nige1.com Thu May 15 16:05:50 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:05:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz (off-list) In-Reply-To: <008c01cf6f45$7b71b5f0$725521d0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> <008c01cf6f45$7b71b5f0$725521d0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <8D294ABFEA5A47F8AC448273ACC02495@G3> Hi Tony, Off-list. On BLML, you wrote: [tony] "I am getting declarer to take the losing spade finesse,then probably the losing club finesse as well. Then I hit him with L23. Of course she may be a lol who has dropped a card accidentally, but I doubt it." [nige1] I agree with your approach to the rules. I think the rules are insufficiently deterrent. The actual situation was case (B). I was the offending South who corrected his revoke and went on to make his contract. The director ruled against me (1-down). I accepted the ruling without demur. My partner suggested we should appeal but I said no because the ruling seemed sensible. Last year I qualified as a director and recently attended an advanced course. I may be directing at the Commonwealth Games :( This made me think a bit more. Now, I wonder whether a ruling like yours conforms with equity principles. Suppose a top player is South and makes the same claim that I did "When I discarded a spade, I committed myself to taking the club finesse". Since four club tricks are enough for the contract, would you still insist that declarer. - Finesse against East for the club queen, against the odds (If anything the UI would suggest finessing that way, so would you allow it, if the finesse were successful). - Take a "practice finesse" in spades. - And would you really consider applying an additional L23 PP/DP? Regards, Nigel From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu May 15 16:17:09 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:17:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz (off-list) In-Reply-To: <8D294ABFEA5A47F8AC448273ACC02495@G3> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> <008c01cf6f45$7b71b5f0$725521d0$@optusnet.com.au> <8D294ABFEA5A47F8AC448273ACC02495@G3> Message-ID: <5374CC65.7010100@t-online.de> If you want to send this to Tony I suggest you use _his_ adress...... Am 15.05.2014 16:05, schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > Hi Tony, > > Off-list. On BLML, you wrote: > > [tony] "I am getting declarer to take the losing spade finesse,then > probably the losing club finesse as well. Then I hit him with > L23. Of course she may be a lol who has dropped a card > accidentally, but I doubt it." > > [nige1] I agree with your approach to the rules. I think the rules are > insufficiently deterrent. > > The actual situation was case (B). I was the offending South who corrected > his revoke and went on to make his contract. The director ruled against me > (1-down). I accepted the ruling without demur. My partner suggested we > should appeal but I said no because the ruling seemed sensible. > > Last year I qualified as a director and recently attended an advanced > course. I may be directing at the Commonwealth Games :( This made me think a > bit more. > > Now, I wonder whether a ruling like yours conforms with equity principles. > Suppose a top player is South and makes the same claim that I did "When I > discarded a spade, I committed myself to taking the club finesse". Since > four club tricks are enough for the contract, would you still insist that > declarer. > - Finesse against East for the club queen, against the odds (If anything the > UI would suggest finessing that way, so would you allow it, if the finesse > were successful). > - Take a "practice finesse" in spades. > - And would you really consider applying an additional L23 PP/DP? > > Regards, Nigel > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Thu May 15 16:27:09 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:27:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz (off-list) In-Reply-To: <5374CC65.7010100@t-online.de> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> <008c01cf6f45$7b71b5f0$725521d0$@optusnet.com.au><8D294ABFEA5A47F8AC448273ACC02495@G3> <5374CC65.7010100@t-online.de> Message-ID: [Matthias Berghaus] If you want to send this to Tony I suggest you use _his_ adress...... [nige1] I'm cracking up :( I was sure I had :( Sorry :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 16 09:00:51 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 07:00:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Repeal Law 26 (too relaxed) instead use Law 16D (sufficiently deterrent) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A97F5D@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, May 2014 ["off-list" thread]: >>>..... >>>I think the rules are insufficiently deterrent. >>>..... Richard Hills, November 2009 [not perceiving the problem]: >>For many a year a prolific blmler (N*g*l G*thr**) has been >>bolstering his argument for deterrent / punishment changes to score >>adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this framing: >> >>offending side = law breakers >>non-offending side = victims >> >>I will now put forward an equally irrelevant argument in favour of >>maintaining the current rectification / equity score adjustments in >>the next edition of the Lawbook with this equally invalid framing: >> >>offending side = careless and embarrassed Little Old Ladies >>non-offending side = last-drop-of-blood-from-a-stone sea-lawyers >> >>What's the last drop of problem? Grattan Endicott, November 2009 [perceiving the problem]: >+=+ As it were polar and equatorial views of the subject. >Somewhere between there are temperate climes, although >how that will change when all the ice has melted remains >to be seen. > In the meantime the lawmakers have to pick their path. >A theme that has bobbed up in our discussions from time >to time is that of enabling players to "play bridge" as much >as possible after an irregularity. Moderation of retribution >flows quite often from this, together with a desire to make >a distinction between rectification and procedural penalty. > With that motivation a 2003 proposal of mine was to >scrap specified lead penalties and allow freedom of choice >subject to not using UI. Now superficially that would be a >relaxation, but upon mature reflection I am not so sure - >UI could exist which lies outside of merely knowing what >suits have or have not been shown. > "A policeman's lot is not a nappy one". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ David Burn, September 2007 [proving Law 26 to be too relaxed]: Oh, one can never be sure of anything in this vale of tears. It may indeed be that the lawmakers took pains to avoid a situation in which a player could in theory ban an opponent from leading anything at all. But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather prevent this kind of thing. You, East, hold: 63 4 A10987 A10987 South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What call do you make? Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the minors, explaining that you thought North had bid 2H rather than 6H. It will not do declarer much good to be able to forbid a diamond lead if he cannot also forbid a club lead. David Burn London, England UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140516/72892135/attachment-0001.html From posundelin at yahoo.se Fri May 16 12:09:27 2014 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 11:09:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Explaining agreements This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as something different. How do I explain my partner?s bids? To me it seems crystal clear that you should act as you would behind screens. You can only see partner?s bids, any other action of his is out of your reach. It will then become clear to opponents that you have a f-up. This is AI to them but not to you?and your partner. We fulfill the requirement to inform opponents of (both...)our agreements. ? If? instead I would (should?) explain partner?s bids, based on his explanation of my bid, I would be using UI to me,? and I would certainly keep the opponents in the dark as long as possible. Imagine my partner?s interpretation is what he plays with a different partner, and I have no clue as to its continuation. ? Where would we draw the line when to base our explanations on his (mis)interpretation? He was asked He alerted He didn?t alert Add to that: we know he is wrong, we know he is right, we don?t know. And: He lost his glasses, he frequently forgets to alert, he looks tired, and may have forgotten? ? If the Laws could be interpreted as telling you differently, I vote for a change. Before 2027. Den fredag, 16 maj 2014 9:08 skrev "blml-request at rtflb.org" : > > >Send Blml mailing list submissions to >??? blml at rtflb.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >??? http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >??? blml-request at rtflb.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at >??? blml-owner at rtflb.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > >? 1. Re:? L31B (Eric Landau) >? 2. Re:? Alcatraz (off-list) (Nigel Guthrie) >? 3. Re:? Alcatraz (off-list) (Matthias Berghaus) >? 4. Re:? Alcatraz (off-list) (Nigel Guthrie) >? 5.? Repeal Law 26 (too relaxed) instead use Law 16D >? ? ? (sufficiently deterrent) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Richard James HILLS) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 08:45:32 -0400 >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [BLML] L31B >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Message-ID: <70B64CA9-4CCB-48E0-893C-6D2E8CE4B729 at verizon.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >On May 14, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Steve Willner >>> >>> "When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to >>> call, if the offender has not previously called** ..." >>> >>> On 2014-05-13 1:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>? ? >>>> This footnote attached to the last if clause makes it clear (at least >>>> to >>>> me) that this if clause shall only apply when it was LHO's turn to >>>> call, not when it was partner's turn to call. >>> >>> I don't see that the footnote placement tells us anything about whether the "if" >>> clause applies to both preceding clauses or not.? The footnote can only sensibly >>> apply when it was LHO's turn and offender has previously called.? The commas >>> are the problem.? Evidently the Danish and American translators reached >>> different conclusions.? (I _think_ the American "translator" was Adam >>> Wildavsky, a member of the WBFLC.) >> >> [Sven Pran] >> The footnote clarifies the effect of the if clause: If the offender has >> previously called then his BOOT is an attempted change of call. >> So if the if clause applies to a BOOT also at partner's turn to call then so >> must the footnote. >> >> My (syntax) analysis is that the word "or" clearly splits the expression >> into two distinct conditions: >> 1: at his partner's turn to call >> 2: at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called >> >> Also, the footnote is meaningless if it should apply when it was partner's >> turn to call because offender's bid out of turn at that time can never be an >> attempted change of call. >> >>> Aside from grammatical evidence, it strikes me that a change in the Law text >>> that introduces ambiguity most likely is a result of intention to change the >>> effect. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Or maybe to clarify a previously vague point? >> >>>> Otherwise there would be no >>>> rectification at all in the case when offender's LHO deals and calls, >>>> immediately followed by offender making a bid out of turn. >>> >>> This is the case on which we agree, I thought: offender has not previously >>> called, so partner is barred under either reading. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> This cannot be correct. Partner is never barred when the offence is treated >> as an attempt to change a call so that Law 25 applies. >> >>> We disagree in the case where offender has previously called. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> But if you read Law 31B as: "at his partner's turn to call [...] if the >> offender has not previously called" then there is no way you can reach the >> specified rectification in Law 31B (or in fact any rectification) when the >> offender has previously called. >> >>> For 2017, I'd suggest the LC break 31B into two (say 31B and 31C), one for a >>> BOOT at LHO's turn to call and a separate one for a BOOT at partner's turn to >>> call.? This would let the working TD go straight to the correct place. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> I strongly agree (on this point only)! > >The only sensible conclusion from this thread is that adding the comma between "call" and "if" introduced an unintended amiguity into L31B, a mistake that needs to be rectified in the next edition. > > >Eric Landau >Silver Spring MD >New York NY > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:05:50 +0100 >From: "Nigel Guthrie" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Alcatraz (off-list) >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Message-ID: <8D294ABFEA5A47F8AC448273ACC02495 at G3> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >??? reply-type=original > >Hi Tony, > >Off-list.? On BLML, you wrote: > >[tony] "I am getting declarer to take the losing spade finesse,then >probably the losing club finesse as well. Then I hit him with >L23.? Of course she may be a lol who has dropped a card >accidentally, but I doubt it." > >[nige1] I agree with your approach to the rules. I think the rules are >insufficiently deterrent. > >The actual situation was case (B).? I was the offending South who corrected >his revoke and went on to make his contract. The director ruled against me >(1-down).? I accepted the ruling without demur. My partner suggested we >should appeal but I said no because the ruling seemed sensible. > >Last year I qualified as a director and recently attended an advanced >course. I may be directing at the Commonwealth Games :( This made me think a >bit more. > >Now, I wonder whether a ruling like yours conforms with equity principles. >Suppose a top player is South and makes the same claim that I did? "When I >discarded a spade, I committed myself to taking the club finesse".? Since >four club tricks are enough for the contract, would you still insist that >declarer. >- Finesse against East for the club queen, against the odds (If anything the >UI would suggest finessing that way, so would you allow it, if the finesse >were successful). >- Take a "practice finesse" in spades. >- And would you really consider applying an additional L23 PP/DP? > >Regards, Nigel > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:17:09 +0200 >From: Matthias Berghaus >Subject: Re: [BLML] Alcatraz (off-list) >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Message-ID: <5374CC65.7010100 at t-online.de> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >If you want to send this to Tony I suggest you use _his_ adress...... > >Am 15.05.2014 16:05, schrieb Nigel Guthrie: >> Hi Tony, >> >> Off-list.? On BLML, you wrote: >> >> [tony] "I am getting declarer to take the losing spade finesse,then >> probably the losing club finesse as well. Then I hit him with >> L23.? Of course she may be a lol who has dropped a card >> accidentally, but I doubt it." >> >> [nige1] I agree with your approach to the rules. I think the rules are >> insufficiently deterrent. >> >> The actual situation was case (B).? I was the offending South who corrected >> his revoke and went on to make his contract. The director ruled against me >> (1-down).? I accepted the ruling without demur. My partner suggested we >> should appeal but I said no because the ruling seemed sensible. >> >> Last year I qualified as a director and recently attended an advanced >> course. I may be directing at the Commonwealth Games :( This made me think a >> bit more. >> >> Now, I wonder whether a ruling like yours conforms with equity principles. >> Suppose a top player is South and makes the same claim that I did? "When I >> discarded a spade, I committed myself to taking the club finesse".? Since >> four club tricks are enough for the contract, would you still insist that >> declarer. >> - Finesse against East for the club queen, against the odds (If anything the >> UI would suggest finessing that way, so would you allow it, if the finesse >> were successful). >> - Take a "practice finesse" in spades. >> - And would you really consider applying an additional L23 PP/DP? >> >> Regards, Nigel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:27:09 +0100 >From: "Nigel Guthrie" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Alcatraz (off-list) >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >??? reply-type=original > >[Matthias Berghaus] >If you want to send this to Tony I suggest you use _his_ adress...... > >[nige1] I'm cracking up :( I was sure I had :( Sorry :( > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 07:00:51 +0000 >From: "Richard James HILLS" >Subject: [BLML] Repeal Law 26 (too relaxed) instead use Law 16D >??? (sufficiently deterrent) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >To: "Laws Bridge" >Message-ID: >??? <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A97F5D at SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >UNOFFICIAL > >Nigel Guthrie, May 2014 ["off-list" thread]: > >>>>..... >>>>I think the rules are insufficiently deterrent. >>>>..... > >Richard Hills, November 2009 [not perceiving the problem]: > >>>For many a year a prolific blmler (N*g*l G*thr**) has been >>>bolstering his argument for deterrent / punishment changes to score >>>adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this framing: >>> >>>offending side = law breakers >>>non-offending side = victims >>> >>>I will now put forward an equally irrelevant argument in favour of >>>maintaining the current rectification / equity score adjustments in >>>the next edition of the Lawbook with this equally invalid framing: >>> >>>offending side = careless and embarrassed Little Old Ladies >>>non-offending side = last-drop-of-blood-from-a-stone sea-lawyers >>> >>>What's the last drop of problem? > >Grattan Endicott, November 2009 [perceiving the problem]: > >>+=+ As it were polar and equatorial views of the subject. >>Somewhere between there are temperate climes, although >>how that will change when all the ice has melted remains >>to be seen. >>? ? ? In the meantime the lawmakers have to pick their path. >>A theme that has bobbed up in our discussions from time >>to time is that of enabling players to "play bridge" as much >>as possible after an irregularity. Moderation of retribution >>flows quite often from this, together with a desire to make >>a distinction between rectification and procedural penalty. >>? ? ? With that motivation a 2003 proposal of mine was to >>scrap specified lead penalties and allow freedom of choice >>subject to not using UI. Now superficially that would be a >>relaxation, but upon mature reflection I am not so sure - >>UI could exist which lies outside of merely knowing what >>suits have or have not been shown. >>? ? ? "A policeman's lot is not a nappy one". >>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~? +=+ > >David Burn, September 2007 [proving Law 26 to be too relaxed]: > >Oh, one can never be sure of anything in this vale of tears. It may indeed >be that the lawmakers took pains to avoid a situation in which a player >could in theory ban an opponent from leading anything at all. > >But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather prevent >this kind of thing. You, East, hold: > >63? 4? A10987? A10987 > >South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. >What call do you make? > >Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the >minors, explaining that you thought North had bid 2H rather than 6H. > >It will not do declarer much good to be able to forbid a diamond lead if >he cannot also forbid a club lead. > >David Burn >London, England > >UNOFFICIAL > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.? This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged >and/or copyright information.? Any review, retransmission, dissemination >or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >intended recipient is prohibited.? DIBP respects your privacy and has >obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.? The official departmental privacy >policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.? See: >http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140516/72892135/attachment.html > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >End of Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 >************************************ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140516/d798c858/attachment-0001.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 16 12:42:20 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:42:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> Am 16.05.2014 12:09, schrieb PO Sundelin: > Explaining agreements > > This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: > My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as > something different. > How do I explain my partner?s bids? Depends on whether partner is right or not, which is to say it depends what the system actually is. You explain according to system and bid according to your notion of what your bid meant _before_ partner alerted/didn`t alert/explained/whatever.... > To me it seems crystal clear that you should act as you would behind > screens. You can only see partner?s bids, any other action of his is > out of your reach. Right. > It will then become clear to opponents that you have a f-up. Probably, yes, if they add two and two together and the result is four. Sometimes they miss it (rarely), when they get it they may try to capitalize on it. > This is AI to them but not to youand your partner. Right. > We fulfill the requirement to inform opponents of (both...)our agreements. > If instead I would (should?) explain partner?s bids, based on his > explanation of my bid, I would be using UI to me, and I would > certainly keep the opponents in the dark as long as possible. Well, this is de Wael territory... Either you describe according to system and (if your idea what the system is turns out to be correct) describe partner`s bids differently from what he intended them as, or you explain according to partner`s notion, which _may_ describe his intentions, but will hide the f-up, so they have no chance to find out what is going on. The Law tells you to explain according to system, and if that wisens them up, too bad for you. They are entitled to an explanation of the system, not the hand. You will have to correct your partner`s explanations before the opening lead, to boot, if your side ends up declaring the contract. They may have guessed, already.... > Imagine my partner?s interpretation is what he plays with a different > partner, and I have no clue as to its continuation. > Where would we draw the line when to base our explanations on his > (mis)interpretation? > He was asked > He alerted > He didn?t alert > Add to that: we know he is wrong, we know he is right, we don?t know. If he is right we have to explain according to system (his version, in this case), and continue to bid according to our own version, as the "real" system is UI to us for the rest of the hand. If we don`t know it gets really complicated... I would continue to bid and explain according to my version, then, at the end of the bidding (if we declare) summon the TD, explain the situation and let him sort it out > And: He lost his glasses, he frequently forgets to alert, he looks > tired, and may have forgotten? > If the Laws could be interpreted as telling you differently, I vote > for a change. Before 2027. > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 16 17:11:39 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:11:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> Message-ID: <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> Matthias, really! Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 16.05.2014 12:09, schrieb PO Sundelin: >> Explaining agreements >> >> This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: >> My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as >> something different. >> How do I explain my partner?s bids? > > Depends on whether partner is right or not, which is to say it depends > what the system actually is. You explain according to system and bid > according to your notion of what your bid meant _before_ partner > alerted/didn`t alert/explained/whatever.... > How can it depend on what the system really is? PO deliberately asks you to explain in different cases, a few of which are that he is uncertain of what the system is. How can you give advice to a player that is impossible to follow! Herman. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 16 17:55:10 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:55:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> Am 16.05.2014 17:11, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Matthias, really! > > Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> Am 16.05.2014 12:09, schrieb PO Sundelin: >>> Explaining agreements >>> >>> This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: >>> My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as >>> something different. >>> How do I explain my partner?s bids? >> Depends on whether partner is right or not, which is to say it depends >> what the system actually is. You explain according to system and bid >> according to your notion of what your bid meant _before_ partner >> alerted/didn`t alert/explained/whatever.... >> > How can it depend on what the system really is? > PO deliberately asks you to explain in different cases, a few of which > are that he is uncertain of what the system is. > How can you give advice to a player that is impossible to follow! Why is it impossible? If one or the other is right you explain accordingly, if you are not sure you explain according to what you originally thought. Where is the problem? > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 16 23:04:10 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 22:04:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explanation In-Reply-To: <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> Message-ID: <3802A0C75C5F49A8A7AC1BDB257988AE@G3> [PO Sundelin] Explaining agreements This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as something different. How do I explain my partner?s bids? To me it seems crystal clear that you should act as you would behind screens. You can only see partner?s bids, any other action of his is out of your reach. It will then become clear to opponents that you have a f-up. This is AI to them but not to you and your partner. We fulfil the requirement to inform opponents of (both...)our agreements. If instead I would (should?) explain partner?s bids, based on his explanation of my bid, I would be using UI to me, and I would certainly keep the opponents in the dark as long as possible. Imagine my partner?s interpretation is what he plays with a different partner, and I have no clue as to its continuation. Where would we draw the line when to base our explanations on his (mis)interpretation? He was asked He alerted He didn?t alert Add to that: we know he is wrong, we know he is right, we don?t know. And: He lost his glasses, he frequently forgets to alert, he looks tired, and may have forgotten? If the Laws could be interpreted as telling you differently, I vote for a change. Before 2027. [TFLB L20F1. Explanation Of Calls] During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. [Nige1] IMO this means that you must decide what is your real partnership understanding -- the aggregate of relevant explicit and implicit agreements. This partnership understanding might be based on 1. Your original assumption (i.e. 1N overcall = Natural -- and you still believe that is right). 2. The meaning, indicated by partner's actions (e.g. Partner's explanation woke you up to your new agreement 1N = 5 + 5+ 2-suiter in unbid suits). 3. Conceivably something else (e.g. Super Psycho Pseudo Suction that you've just agreed but you both seem to have forgotten). Whatever you decide is your "actual agreement", the law seem to dictate that you explain partner's calls in that light. Opponents are fully entitled to (what you believe is) your actual agreement -- but to nothing else. If you don't know what is your agreement, then you should admit that. Arguably, whatever you decide about your actual understanding, you must still bid according to your original beliefs. This means that you partnership explanations may have no connection with the contents each other's hands. Unfortunately, some examples in [TFLB L75] seem to clash with that interpretation. Hence, PO Sundelin seems right that this is another law in need clarification. Unless this apparent wooliness is another deliberate attempt to camouflage disagreement among law-makers about what the law should be -- and to further devolve rule-making responsibility to individual NBOs and directors. I, too, would welcome simpler clearer rules. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat May 17 09:15:08 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 09:15:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> Message-ID: <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 16.05.2014 17:11, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Matthias, really! >> >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >>> Am 16.05.2014 12:09, schrieb PO Sundelin: >>>> Explaining agreements >>>> >>>> This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: >>>> My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as >>>> something different. >>>> How do I explain my partner?s bids? >>> Depends on whether partner is right or not, which is to say it depends >>> what the system actually is. You explain according to system and bid >>> according to your notion of what your bid meant _before_ partner >>> alerted/didn`t alert/explained/whatever.... >>> >> How can it depend on what the system really is? >> PO deliberately asks you to explain in different cases, a few of which >> are that he is uncertain of what the system is. >> How can you give advice to a player that is impossible to follow! > > Why is it impossible? If one or the other is right you explain > accordingly, if you are not sure you explain according to what you > originally thought. Where is the problem? > The problem is that no-one knows whether you are sure. If I say I am sure that my partner is right, then I'm allowed to give a consistent answer? Is that what you are saying? Then I shall always say that I am sure my partner was right! Where does that lead us? to the De Wael School! You have to understand this problem, before you can give a sensible answer: the player asks what he should do, when he is uncertain of who is right. You cannot let that action depend on what he thinks the system is, since he will tell you whatever he wants. Nor can you let his action depend on what the system really is, since he is not (yet) allowed to check his system card. There are just two options: - either you tell him to explain consistently - that is DWS. - or you tell him that he must reveal that he thought he was playing a different system (the one he originally bid in, which is something you can check) - this is simply scrapping L20F5 from the lawbook; Those two options are the only two you can reasonably tell a player to follow. Herman. >> >> 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 Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat May 17 11:23:16 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 11:23:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> Am 17.05.2014 09:15, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> Am 16.05.2014 17:11, schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> Matthias, really! >>> >>> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >>>> Am 16.05.2014 12:09, schrieb PO Sundelin: >>>>> Explaining agreements >>>>> >>>>> This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: >>>>> My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as >>>>> something different. >>>>> How do I explain my partner?s bids? >>>> Depends on whether partner is right or not, which is to say it depends >>>> what the system actually is. You explain according to system and bid >>>> according to your notion of what your bid meant _before_ partner >>>> alerted/didn`t alert/explained/whatever.... >>>> >>> How can it depend on what the system really is? >>> PO deliberately asks you to explain in different cases, a few of which >>> are that he is uncertain of what the system is. >>> How can you give advice to a player that is impossible to follow! >> Why is it impossible? If one or the other is right you explain >> accordingly, if you are not sure you explain according to what you >> originally thought. Where is the problem? >> > The problem is that no-one knows whether you are sure. > If I say I am sure that my partner is right, then I'm allowed to give a > consistent answer? Is that what you are saying? Then I shall always say > that I am sure my partner was right! > Where does that lead us? to the De Wael School! No, Herman, it leads us to TDs who do their job. The rule is clear: If the TD has any doubt about what the system actually is he shall assume wrong explanation. Where is the problem? I don`t care wjat you (or any other player) tells me what the system is. You got documentation, I look it up. You don`t, I am very very often assume wrong explanation. The lawbook says so. So the non-offending side is going to be protected, and a partnership where at least half of the players can`t remember what the system is deserves what it gets. You know pretty well that any competent TD is not going to accept undocumented assurances, so don`t base your arguments on the TD being an imcompetent halfwit. > > You have to understand this problem, before you can give a sensible > answer: the player asks what he should do, when he is uncertain of who > is right. You cannot let that action depend on what he thinks the system > is, since he will tell you whatever he wants. Sure he does. So what? Afterwards I am going to look at his system card. If there is none I am extremely unlikely to rule misbid, as it is not impossible, but very very unlikely that I know the system better than the players involved.. > Nor can you let his action > depend on what the system really is, since he is not (yet) allowed to > check his system card. He isn`t, right. So what? He is sure, he acts accordingly. He is unsure, he acts according to what he thought the system was when he made his bid. What is difficult? > There are just two options: > - either you tell him to explain consistently - that is DWS. And against the rules, which you know full well. > - or you tell him that he must reveal that he thought he was playing a > different system (the one he originally bid in, which is something you > can check) - this is simply scrapping L20F5 from the lawbook; This is an assertion which you keep repeating, but which is not shared (and explicitly rejected) by the laws committee. If it is the same to you I rather follow the authorities. If not, I still follow them. > Those two options are the only two you can reasonably tell a player to > follow. Bullshit. The player does not have to reveal anything. _If_ opps can figure out what has happened, more power to them.The DWS is not about being nice to the opponents, it is (as P.O. mentioned) about hiding something. By following the law there will be no MI (and don`t tell me that the player misinforms opps about partner`s hand, they are not entitled to that, so what?), as any MI (if the TD rules that there was some, partner being right about the system, or no documentation) is going to be cleared up before the opening lead, any UI is going to be monitored, any disadvantage will be removed (if need be by an adjusted score), so no harm will come to the non-offending side. My job is not to protect the offenders. It never was, and it is never going to be, as I am going to quit the very moment the DWS takes hold. I do not care what happens to offenders. Drawing and quartering is to lenient for people who can`t get their system right, and you don`t really want to learn what I would like to do to people who try to hide the fact, believe me. > > Herman. > > From hermandw at skynet.be Sat May 17 14:38:34 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 14:38:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> You still don't understand, Matthias: Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 17.05.2014 09:15, schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> >> The problem is that no-one knows whether you are sure. >> If I say I am sure that my partner is right, then I'm allowed to give a >> consistent answer? Is that what you are saying? Then I shall always say >> that I am sure my partner was right! >> Where does that lead us? to the De Wael School! > > No, Herman, it leads us to TDs who do their job. The rule is clear: If > the TD has any doubt about what the system actually is he shall assume > wrong explanation. But the player is asking for advice on what to do AT THE TABLE. He is not able to find out what the true system is. And yet you give him an advice which depends on this knowledge. That is what is impossible about your advice! > Where is the problem? I don`t care wjat you (or any > other player) tells me what the system is. You got documentation, I look > it up. You don`t, I am very very often assume wrong explanation. The > lawbook says so. So the non-offending side is going to be protected, and > a partnership where at least half of the players can`t remember what the > system is deserves what it gets. You know pretty well that any competent > TD is not going to accept undocumented assurances, so don`t base your > arguments on the TD being an imcompetent halfwit. > I know all that, but it still does not tell the player what he should do at the table. Remember that it is better for him to give a consistent explanation than a "correct" one. It carries no UI to partner, and it does not reveal to opponents that a misunderstanding has taken place. Which iw why my advice is to give the consistent explanation. If that turns out to be incorrect, then the pllayer shall accept a ruling of MI. But he is spared a ruling of UI (in the second direction, the UI in the first direction has already happened and he's already restricted in the choice of his next call. >> >> You have to understand this problem, before you can give a sensible >> answer: the player asks what he should do, when he is uncertain of who >> is right. You cannot let that action depend on what he thinks the system >> is, since he will tell you whatever he wants. > > Sure he does. So what? Afterwards I am going to look at his system card. And you're going to rule MI. Fine. The player accepts that. Are you going to rule anything else? > If there is none I am extremely unlikely to rule misbid, as it is not > impossible, but very very unlikely that I know the system better than > the players involved.. > >> Nor can you let his action >> depend on what the system really is, since he is not (yet) allowed to >> check his system card. > > He isn`t, right. So what? He is sure, he acts accordingly. He is unsure, > he acts according to what he thought the system was when he made his > bid. What is difficult? > The fact that he's going to tell you he's sure, and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise. He was sure, and still turned out to be wrong. What are you going to do? >> There are just two options: >> - either you tell him to explain consistently - that is DWS. > > And against the rules, which you know full well. > Please tell me why that's against the rules, for a player who is certain his partner gave the correct explanation. >> - or you tell him that he must reveal that he thought he was playing a >> different system (the one he originally bid in, which is something you >> can check) - this is simply scrapping L20F5 from the lawbook; > > This is an assertion which you keep repeating, but which is not shared > (and explicitly rejected) by the laws committee. If it is the same to > you I rather follow the authorities. If not, I still follow them. > Your right. But you're not making sense (and neither are the authorities). >> Those two options are the only two you can reasonably tell a player to >> follow. > > Bullshit. The player does not have to reveal anything. _ How can he fail to reveal that he's having a misunderstanding? "what is 4NT?" 'Blackwood" "what is 5Di?" 'Diamond preference". If the opponents don't understand that there was a misunderstanding, they are really stupid. If the partner does not understand he misinterpreted 4NT, I still rule that he has UI to that effect. > If_ opps can > figure out what has happened, more power to them.The DWS is not about > being nice to the opponents, it is (as P.O. mentioned) about hiding > something. Hiding something that the opponents are not entitled to. If I don't tell my opponents that I have the DQ, I have hidden that fact to them. Did I do something wrong? (this one just to prove that hiding something from opponents does not need to be an infraction, as you seem to imply in your sentence above). > By following the law there will be no MI (and don`t tell me By following L20F5, there is MI. And the Laws authorize this. So what's the problem with MI? We know how to deal with that! And the player accepts that he's going to be ruled against. > that the player misinforms opps about partner`s hand, they are not > entitled to that, so what?), as any MI (if the TD rules that there was > some, partner being right about the system, or no documentation) is > going to be cleared up before the opening lead, any UI is going to be > monitored, any disadvantage will be removed (if need be by an adjusted > score), so no harm will come to the non-offending side. My job is not to > protect the offenders. It never was, and it is never going to be, as I > am going to quit the very moment the DWS takes hold. I do not care what > happens to offenders. Drawing and quartering is to lenient for people > who can`t get their system right, and you don`t really want to learn > what I would like to do to people who try to hide the fact, believe me. > Well, let me suggest a change in the laws that you should like: scrap L20F5. But, apparently, that is not the intention of the WBFLC. As they clearly stated in their minutes from Shanghai. >> >> Herman. >> >> Herman. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 17 20:47:04 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 14:47:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5377AEA8.6070003@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-16 6:09 AM, PO Sundelin wrote: > My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as > something different. > How do I explain my partner??s bids? As others have written, the legal requirement is to give a correct explanation of your understandings. You are allowed to "use UI" in order to do that. UI still restricts your choice of calls and plays, so you may find yourself explaining according to one system but bidding according to another. Determining "the correct explanation" is a normal part of any MI ruling. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 17 20:57:58 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <001f01cf6fb6$ed684b80$c838e280$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> <53737827.9010404@nhcc.net> <001f01cf6fb6$ed684b80$c838e280$@online.no> Message-ID: <5377B136.3080601@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-14 4:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The footnote clarifies the effect of the if clause: If the offender has > previously called then his BOOT is an attempted change of call. > So if the if clause applies to a BOOT also at partner's turn to call then so > must the footnote. Thank you for the explanation. It is a good argument, but I'm afraid I don't find it convincing in view of the contrary arguments. > My (syntax) analysis is that the word "or" clearly splits the expression > into two distinct conditions: > 1: at his partner's turn to call > 2: at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called That is how the 1997 Laws worked. The question is the 2007 Laws and specifically the effect of the added comma. [the 2007 change was...] > Or maybe to clarify a previously vague point? You think the 2007 text is clearer than the 1997 version? >>> Otherwise there would be no >>> rectification at all in the case when offender's LHO deals and calls, >>> immediately followed by offender making a bid out of turn. >> >> This is the case on which we agree, I thought: offender has not previously >> called, so partner is barred under either reading. > > [Sven Pran] > This cannot be correct. Partner is never barred when the offence is treated > as an attempt to change a call so that Law 25 applies. One of us is not understanding something. West deals and bids 1S. South immediately bids 2H. Don't we both agree that North will be barred? (I certainly think so.) > But if you read Law 31B as: "at his partner's turn to call [...] if the > offender has not previously called" then there is no way you can reach the > specified rectification in Law 31B (or in fact any rectification) when the > offender has previously called. Yes, this is my view. South deals and opens 1H, West bids 1S, and South immediately bids 2H. You read L31B as saying North is barred, but I read it otherwise. (In the ACBL version, North is clearly not barred. In the Danish and apparently Norweigian translation, and in the 1997 Laws, he clearly is.) From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 17 22:50:04 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 16:50:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <537355B1.80607@ulb.ac.be> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> <537355B1.80607@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5377CB7C.8040908@nhcc.net> >> South wins SA and finesses West for the queen of clubs to make the contract >> >with 2 X S, 2 X H, 1 X D, and 4 X C. East-West claim damage. Declarer says >> >he believes West's spade discard and had already committed himself to taking >> >the club finesse by discarding his fourth spade. Ruling? On 2014-05-14 7:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Since playing small from hand would be using the information, playing > this way can't be. South didn't score more tricks by playing the Ace of > Spades, and the way he played clubs is prompted by West's early > discards, which is allowed. Sorry, Alain (and Nigel). Look again at Sven's reply. Locating the S-Q is irrelevant _except that it also locates the club queen_, which is critical. Absent the Alcatraz, declarer could have finessed either way for C-Q. With the S-Q located, declarer will "guess" correctly. L23 and adjusted score unless I'm missing something else. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat May 17 23:59:53 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 23:59:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> Am 17.05.2014 14:38, schrieb Herman De Wael: > You still don't understand, Matthias: > > Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> Am 17.05.2014 09:15, schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> The problem is that no-one knows whether you are sure. >>> If I say I am sure that my partner is right, then I'm allowed to give a >>> consistent answer? Is that what you are saying? Then I shall always say >>> that I am sure my partner was right! >>> Where does that lead us? to the De Wael School! >> No, Herman, it leads us to TDs who do their job. The rule is clear: If >> the TD has any doubt about what the system actually is he shall assume >> wrong explanation. > But the player is asking for advice on what to do AT THE TABLE. > He is not able to find out what the true system is. > And yet you give him an advice which depends on this knowledge. > That is what is impossible about your advice! I am sure you can read. Why don`t you do so? If he is not sure he should bid (and explain) according to what he believed the system is when he made his bid. That is not difficult, is it? > Remember that it is better for him to give a consistent explanation > than a "correct" one. It carries no UI to partner, and it does not > reveal to opponents that a misunderstanding has taken place. Yes, Herman, it hides something from the opponents. Oh, and it violates the rules of Bridge. But you know that, and obviously you don`t care. > The fact that he's going to tell you he's sure, and there is nothing > you can do to prove otherwise. He was sure, and still turned out to be > wrong. What are you going to do? If I can`t prove it ( one way or another) , how can he turn out to have been wrong? Oh, he can`t, right. So? If I can`t find to my satisfaction that he explained according to the actual system I am going to rule misexplanation. As will anyone else who takes care to read the rulebook. If I find that he explained according to system I am going to rule that his partner gave misexplanation, and take it from there. >>> There are just two options: >>> - either you tell him to explain consistently - that is DWS. >> And against the rules, which you know full well. >> > Please tell me why that's against the rules, for a player who is certain > his partner gave the correct explanation. If he is sure, fine. He has UI, he has to bid according to his earlier misconception. Easy case. That is not DWS, it`s the law. Now if he is sure that partner is wrong... > > >> Bullshit. The player does not have to reveal anything. _ > How can he fail to reveal that he's having a misunderstanding? > "what is 4NT?" 'Blackwood" > "what is 5Di?" 'Diamond preference". > If the opponents don't understand that there was a misunderstanding, > they are really stupid. Right. So? You keep repeating cases where they have to be morons not to understand what has happened. I can`t find where the lawbook says that they may not understand that opps have what P.O. described as a major f-up. And not all examples are as easily understandable as the "minor two-suiter vs. Blackwood" one. And even if they all were, so what? They are the non-offending side, if they can, by use of their mental faculties, gain information you would rather hide from them, then I wish them the best of luck. > >> By following the law there will be no MI (and don`t tell me > By following L20F5, there is MI. And the Laws authorize this. Herman, you continously assert that 20F5 says anything of the sort, in spite of the fact (which you know full well) that the people who _define_ the rules have issued notes that explicitly say something else. Which part of the concept of authority is it that you manage to ignore ( I know that you are not incapable of understanding it, you just ignore and contradict it whenever you get the chance) continosly? If you want that changed ( if I were a religious person I would offer a prayer to prevent that) you have either to convince the people who make the law, or become one of them and convince enough of the rest. Continous repetition of tenets which you know have been explicitly rejected by those in authority helps nobody, quite the opposite. > Well, let me suggest a change in the laws that you should like: scrap L20F5. > But, apparently, that is not the intention of the WBFLC. > As they clearly stated in their minutes from Shanghai. > Yes, indeed they did. "Right" or "wrong", that is the law. I happen to entertain the notion that a game is best played by its rules. If I happen to think that some part of the rules is not good, I have to try to have it changed. Ignoring the rules will not help me, the game, or anyone else. From svenpran at online.no Sun May 18 00:09:56 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 00:09:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <5377B136.3080601@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> <53737827.9010404@nhcc.net> <001f01cf6fb6$ed684b80$c838e280$@online.no> <5377B136.3080601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000d01cf721c$bd111da0$373358e0$@online.no> Steve Willner [...] > One of us is not understanding something. West deals and bids 1S. > South immediately bids 2H. Don't we both agree that North will be barred? (I > certainly think so.) > [...] > Yes, this is my view. South deals and opens 1H, West bids 1S, and South > immediately bids 2H. You read L31B as saying North is barred, but I read it > otherwise. (In the ACBL version, North is clearly not barred. > In the Danish and apparently Norweigian translation, and in the 1997 Laws, he > clearly is.) [Sven Pran] Please forget the 2007 laws for a moment and just explain why it makes sense to you that North shall not be barred if South deals and passes*, then West passes* and now South bids (OOT), while North is indeed barred if West deals and passes* and South bids(OOT)? * You are free to replace any of these passes with other legal calls or bids at your choice. Don't you see that the clause "if the offender has not previously called" (with its footnote) makes sense when applicable to bids out of turn at LHO's turn to call only? From svenpran at online.no Sun May 18 00:15:41 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 00:15:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alcatraz In-Reply-To: <5377CB7C.8040908@nhcc.net> References: <99C69D2A1E8D48D5B7B010EDBAF3BBC1@G3> <537355B1.80607@ulb.ac.be> <5377CB7C.8040908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000e01cf721d$8a882530$9f986f90$@online.no> Steve Willner [...] > Sorry, Alain (and Nigel). Look again at Sven's reply. > > Locating the S-Q is irrelevant _except that it also locates the club queen_, > which is critical. Absent the Alcatraz, declarer could have finessed either way > for C-Q. With the S-Q located, declarer will "guess" correctly. L23 and adjusted > score unless I'm missing something else. [Sven Pran] There is no need for Law 23 here, Law 16D is all we need: For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun May 18 11:20:18 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 11:20:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> Message-ID: <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 17.05.2014 14:38, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> You still don't understand, Matthias: >> >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >>> Am 17.05.2014 09:15, schrieb Herman De Wael: >>>> The problem is that no-one knows whether you are sure. >>>> If I say I am sure that my partner is right, then I'm allowed to give a >>>> consistent answer? Is that what you are saying? Then I shall always say >>>> that I am sure my partner was right! >>>> Where does that lead us? to the De Wael School! >>> No, Herman, it leads us to TDs who do their job. The rule is clear: If >>> the TD has any doubt about what the system actually is he shall assume >>> wrong explanation. >> But the player is asking for advice on what to do AT THE TABLE. >> He is not able to find out what the true system is. >> And yet you give him an advice which depends on this knowledge. >> That is what is impossible about your advice! > > I am sure you can read. Why don`t you do so? If he is not sure he > should bid (and explain) according to what he believed the system is > when he made his bid. That is not difficult, is it? > I can sure read. Can you? It is not difficult, except when he does something else. And then tells you he was certain his partner had given the correct explanation. You can be certain and still wrong, can't you? If you give the advice above, there is nothing you can do against clever players who do the opposite. And when you decide to consider the person who said he was certain a liar, how are you going to rule against the honest person who also said he was certain? You should rule against him too. And then the problems only start. What are you going to rule? Missing MI? "you found a bid without the use of UI, but your partner should have given you UI. If he had done so, you would not be able to prove beyond doubt that you would have found that bid without the UI, so I'm going to rule your bid illegal". You would be ruling a bid illegal because of the use of UI that the player did not in fact receive! You misunderstand the whole problem, Matthias. If you are telling your players to behave "correctly" and I tell my players to behave "DWS", my players will have a better score than yours, and there is virtually nothing a director can do about it. Now you believe that since my players get a better score than yours, they must be doing something wrong. Consider the following counter-example then: I teach my players to finesse, you tell them to play for the drop at all times. My playeres get better results than yours - is that because my players are cheats or because your advice is wrong? You should not compare my players to yours, but just to some third pair who do not receive a follow-up question. My players will have the same result as those players, and that result is deemed quite OK by the WBF, despite a player who knows that MI has been given to keep shut about it (thereby, in the view of some, aggravating the MI!) Herman. >> Remember that it is better for him to give a consistent explanation >> than a "correct" one. It carries no UI to partner, and it does not >> reveal to opponents that a misunderstanding has taken place. > > Yes, Herman, it hides something from the opponents. Oh, and it violates > the rules of Bridge. But you know that, and obviously you don`t care. > >> The fact that he's going to tell you he's sure, and there is nothing >> you can do to prove otherwise. He was sure, and still turned out to be >> wrong. What are you going to do? > > If I can`t prove it ( one way or another) , how can he turn out to have > been wrong? Oh, he can`t, right. So? If I can`t find to my satisfaction > that he explained according to the actual system I am going to rule > misexplanation. As will anyone else who takes care to read the rulebook. > If I find that he explained according to system I am going to rule that > his partner gave misexplanation, and take it from there. > >>>> There are just two options: >>>> - either you tell him to explain consistently - that is DWS. >>> And against the rules, which you know full well. >>> >> Please tell me why that's against the rules, for a player who is certain >> his partner gave the correct explanation. > > If he is sure, fine. He has UI, he has to bid according to his earlier > misconception. Easy case. That is not DWS, it`s the law. Now if he is > sure that partner is wrong... > >> >> >>> Bullshit. The player does not have to reveal anything. _ >> How can he fail to reveal that he's having a misunderstanding? >> "what is 4NT?" 'Blackwood" >> "what is 5Di?" 'Diamond preference". >> If the opponents don't understand that there was a misunderstanding, >> they are really stupid. > > Right. So? You keep repeating cases where they have to be morons not to > understand what has happened. I can`t find where the lawbook says that > they may not understand that opps have what P.O. described as a major > f-up. And not all examples are as easily understandable as the "minor > two-suiter vs. Blackwood" one. And even if they all were, so what? They > are the non-offending side, if they can, by use of their mental > faculties, gain information you would rather hide from them, then I wish > them the best of luck. > >> >>> By following the law there will be no MI (and don`t tell me >> By following L20F5, there is MI. And the Laws authorize this. > > Herman, you continously assert that 20F5 says anything of the sort, in > spite of the fact (which you know full well) that the people who > _define_ the rules have issued notes that explicitly say something else. > Which part of the concept of authority is it that you manage to ignore ( > I know that you are not incapable of understanding it, you just ignore > and contradict it whenever you get the chance) continosly? If you want > that changed ( if I were a religious person I would offer a prayer to > prevent that) you have either to convince the people who make the law, > or become one of them and convince enough of the rest. Continous > repetition of tenets which you know have been explicitly rejected by > those in authority helps nobody, quite the opposite. >> Well, let me suggest a change in the laws that you should like: scrap L20F5. >> But, apparently, that is not the intention of the WBFLC. >> As they clearly stated in their minutes from Shanghai. >> > > Yes, indeed they did. "Right" or "wrong", that is the law. I happen to > entertain the notion that a game is best played by its rules. If I > happen to think that some part of the rules is not good, I have to try > to have it changed. Ignoring the rules will not help me, the game, or > anyone else. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Sun May 18 11:51:21 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 11:51:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cf727e$bc5ef820$351ce860$@online.no> Herman PLEASE! This is boring > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 18. mai 2014 11:20 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 > > Matthias Berghaus schreef: > > Am 17.05.2014 14:38, schrieb Herman De Wael: > >> You still don't understand, Matthias: > >> > >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > >>> Am 17.05.2014 09:15, schrieb Herman De Wael: > >>>> The problem is that no-one knows whether you are sure. > >>>> If I say I am sure that my partner is right, then I'm allowed to > >>>> give a consistent answer? Is that what you are saying? Then I shall > >>>> always say that I am sure my partner was right! > >>>> Where does that lead us? to the De Wael School! > >>> No, Herman, it leads us to TDs who do their job. The rule is clear: > >>> If the TD has any doubt about what the system actually is he shall > >>> assume wrong explanation. > >> But the player is asking for advice on what to do AT THE TABLE. > >> He is not able to find out what the true system is. > >> And yet you give him an advice which depends on this knowledge. > >> That is what is impossible about your advice! > > > > I am sure you can read. Why don`t you do so? If he is not sure he > > should bid (and explain) according to what he believed the system is > > when he made his bid. That is not difficult, is it? > > > > I can sure read. Can you? > It is not difficult, except when he does something else. And then tells you he > was certain his partner had given the correct explanation. You can be certain > and still wrong, can't you? > If you give the advice above, there is nothing you can do against clever players > who do the opposite. > > And when you decide to consider the person who said he was certain a liar, how > are you going to rule against the honest person who also said he was certain? > You should rule against him too. > And then the problems only start. What are you going to rule? Missing MI? > "you found a bid without the use of UI, but your partner should have given you > UI. If he had done so, you would not be able to prove beyond doubt that you > would have found that bid without the UI, so I'm going to rule your bid illegal". > You would be ruling a bid illegal because of the use of UI that the player did not > in fact receive! > > You misunderstand the whole problem, Matthias. If you are telling your players > to behave "correctly" and I tell my players to behave "DWS", my players will > have a better score than yours, and there is virtually nothing a director can do > about it. > > Now you believe that since my players get a better score than yours, they must > be doing something wrong. > Consider the following counter-example then: I teach my players to finesse, you > tell them to play for the drop at all times. My playeres get better results than > yours - is that because my players are cheats or because your advice is wrong? > > You should not compare my players to yours, but just to some third pair who do > not receive a follow-up question. My players will have the same result as those > players, and that result is deemed quite OK by the WBF, despite a player who > knows that MI has been given to keep shut about it (thereby, in the view of > some, aggravating the MI!) > > Herman. > > >> Remember that it is better for him to give a consistent explanation > >> than a "correct" one. It carries no UI to partner, and it does not > >> reveal to opponents that a misunderstanding has taken place. > > > > Yes, Herman, it hides something from the opponents. Oh, and it > > violates the rules of Bridge. But you know that, and obviously you don`t care. > > > >> The fact that he's going to tell you he's sure, and there is nothing > >> you can do to prove otherwise. He was sure, and still turned out to > >> be wrong. What are you going to do? > > > > If I can`t prove it ( one way or another) , how can he turn out to > > have been wrong? Oh, he can`t, right. So? If I can`t find to my > > satisfaction that he explained according to the actual system I am > > going to rule misexplanation. As will anyone else who takes care to read the > rulebook. > > If I find that he explained according to system I am going to rule > > that his partner gave misexplanation, and take it from there. > > > >>>> There are just two options: > >>>> - either you tell him to explain consistently - that is DWS. > >>> And against the rules, which you know full well. > >>> > >> Please tell me why that's against the rules, for a player who is > >> certain his partner gave the correct explanation. > > > > If he is sure, fine. He has UI, he has to bid according to his earlier > > misconception. Easy case. That is not DWS, it`s the law. Now if he is > > sure that partner is wrong... > > > >> > >> > >>> Bullshit. The player does not have to reveal anything. _ > >> How can he fail to reveal that he's having a misunderstanding? > >> "what is 4NT?" 'Blackwood" > >> "what is 5Di?" 'Diamond preference". > >> If the opponents don't understand that there was a misunderstanding, > >> they are really stupid. > > > > Right. So? You keep repeating cases where they have to be morons not > > to understand what has happened. I can`t find where the lawbook says > > that they may not understand that opps have what P.O. described as a > > major f-up. And not all examples are as easily understandable as the > > "minor two-suiter vs. Blackwood" one. And even if they all were, so > > what? They are the non-offending side, if they can, by use of their > > mental faculties, gain information you would rather hide from them, > > then I wish them the best of luck. > > > >> > >>> By following the law there will be no MI (and don`t tell me > >> By following L20F5, there is MI. And the Laws authorize this. > > > > Herman, you continously assert that 20F5 says anything of the sort, in > > spite of the fact (which you know full well) that the people who > > _define_ the rules have issued notes that explicitly say something else. > > Which part of the concept of authority is it that you manage to ignore > > ( I know that you are not incapable of understanding it, you just > > ignore and contradict it whenever you get the chance) continosly? If > > you want that changed ( if I were a religious person I would offer a > > prayer to prevent that) you have either to convince the people who > > make the law, or become one of them and convince enough of the rest. > > Continous repetition of tenets which you know have been explicitly > > rejected by those in authority helps nobody, quite the opposite. > >> Well, let me suggest a change in the laws that you should like: scrap L20F5. > >> But, apparently, that is not the intention of the WBFLC. > >> As they clearly stated in their minutes from Shanghai. > >> > > > > Yes, indeed they did. "Right" or "wrong", that is the law. I happen to > > entertain the notion that a game is best played by its rules. If I > > happen to think that some part of the rules is not good, I have to try > > to have it changed. Ignoring the rules will not help me, the game, or > > anyone else. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun May 18 18:43:25 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 18:43:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> Am 18.05.2014 11:20, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Matthias Berghaus schreef: > I can sure read. Can you? > It is not difficult, except when he does something else. And then tells > you he was certain his partner had given the correct explanation. You > can be certain and still wrong, can't you? Sure, but why is that a problem? If he can`t prove it I am going to rule MI whatever he tells me. Where`s the problem? > If you give the advice above, there is nothing you can do against clever > players who do the opposite. Sure I can, see above. > > And when you decide to consider the person who said he was certain a > liar, how are you going to rule against the honest person who also said > he was certain? You should rule against him too. Certainly. > And then the problems only start. What are you going to rule? Missing MI? > "you found a bid without the use of UI, but your partner should have > given you UI. If he had done so, you would not be able to prove beyond > doubt that you would have found that bid without the UI, so I'm going to > rule your bid illegal". You would be ruling a bid illegal because of the > use of UI that the player did not in fact receive! Nonsense, and you know it. The laws define what is UI and what is AI. What more does a TD need? > > You misunderstand the whole problem, Matthias. If you are telling your > players to behave "correctly" and I tell my players to behave "DWS", my > players will have a better score than yours, and there is virtually > nothing a director can do about it. Wrong. They will get the same score, and if I find that they lied to me (I can read CCs) or even suspect that they did, I hit them with a PP to boot. Let`s see how often they try that ploy... > > Now you believe that since my players get a better score than yours, > they must be doing something wrong. They don`t get a better score, they just try to do so. And they so something wrong because they violate the laws of the game. That cannot be right, even if the law _should_ be as they want it to be. This specific universe is called Bridge, or Chess, Backgammon, whatever. Each of these universes has its own laws. If you deviate from them you leave that universe and create some parallel world. We do not agree because we play different games, Herman. They just seem very similar, but I try to play Bridge, while you try to play DWS. It just so happens that both are played with cards, have a bidding etc. They look very similar, but they are not. > Consider the following counter-example then: I teach my players to > finesse, you tell them to play for the drop at all times. My playeres > get better results than yours - is that because my players are cheats or > because your advice is wrong? If you have 4 apples and I have 4 bananas, who has more? You can`t compare apples and bananas? Right.... Since I am unable to do so, too, I am not going to communicate any more about this. One cannot compare different games. If you ever produce a printed version of the laws of DWS, be sure _not_ to send me a copy. I am not interested. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun May 18 19:01:34 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 19:01:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> <5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 18.05.2014 11:20, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> I can sure read. Can you? >> It is not difficult, except when he does something else. And then tells >> you he was certain his partner had given the correct explanation. You >> can be certain and still wrong, can't you? > > Sure, but why is that a problem? If he can`t prove it I am going to rule > MI whatever he tells me. Where`s the problem? > The problem is that we're not talking about the MI. As a player, I am fully prepared to submit to a MI ruling. As a director, I would rule MI as well. That was never the issue, and if you believe it is, then I hope you'll forgive me for not making that clearer. The problem is not with the MI that is given. The problem is whether it is acceptable, in this situation, to give the MI when one knows that it is MI. I believe this is acceptable, in order to minimize the UI problem. It is just as acceptable as the L20F5-obliged action of keeping silent about the MI given by partner. >> If you give the advice above, there is nothing you can do against clever >> players who do the opposite. > > Sure I can, see above. > But that was calculated in advance. >> >> And when you decide to consider the person who said he was certain a >> liar, how are you going to rule against the honest person who also said >> he was certain? You should rule against him too. > > Certainly. > >> And then the problems only start. What are you going to rule? Missing MI? >> "you found a bid without the use of UI, but your partner should have >> given you UI. If he had done so, you would not be able to prove beyond >> doubt that you would have found that bid without the UI, so I'm going to >> rule your bid illegal". You would be ruling a bid illegal because of the >> use of UI that the player did not in fact receive! > > Nonsense, and you know it. The laws define what is UI and what is AI. > What more does a TD need? > Indeed. We are completely in agreement. >> >> You misunderstand the whole problem, Matthias. If you are telling your >> players to behave "correctly" and I tell my players to behave "DWS", my >> players will have a better score than yours, and there is virtually >> nothing a director can do about it. > > Wrong. They will get the same score, and if I find that they lied to me > (I can read CCs) or even suspect that they did, I hit them with a PP to > boot. Let`s see how often they try that ploy... > Well, the PP has to be very severe, in order to remedy the fact of not giving UI. And you'll be giving PPs without good reason. After all, you can read CCs, but the player cannot (at the table); so when he says he was convinced his partner was right, how can you prove he is lying? The CC will not give you any help, since it's not the fact that is under discussion, but the players perception. Which you cannot read. >> >> Now you believe that since my players get a better score than yours, >> they must be doing something wrong. > > They don`t get a better score, they just try to do so. And they so > something wrong because they violate the laws of the game. That cannot > be right, even if the law _should_ be as they want it to be. This > specific universe is called Bridge, or Chess, Backgammon, whatever. Each > of these universes has its own laws. If you deviate from them you leave > that universe and create some parallel world. We do not agree because we > play different games, Herman. They just seem very similar, but I try to > play Bridge, while you try to play DWS. It just so happens that both are > played with cards, have a bidding etc. They look very similar, but they > are not. > >> Consider the following counter-example then: I teach my players to >> finesse, you tell them to play for the drop at all times. My playeres >> get better results than yours - is that because my players are cheats or >> because your advice is wrong? > > If you have 4 apples and I have 4 bananas, who has more? You can`t > compare apples and bananas? Right.... > Poppycock. We have both give an advice to our players. My players get a better result. You say that they must be cheating. I say that I gave a better advice. I'm not discussing your opinion here, merely your argument. > Since I am unable to do so, too, I am not going to communicate any more > about this. One cannot compare different games. If you ever produce a > printed version of the laws of DWS, be sure _not_ to send me a copy. I > am not interested. I hope you may find that to be the 2017 lawbook. Herman. From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 19 00:20:46 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:20:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: Providing that you abide by the current law, advocating and campaigning for a law-improvement is highly commendable. BUT If the law forbids the DWS ploy (and most BLMLers seem to to think it does) then honest players should avoid it even if it's use is widespread and it's hard for directors to detect, so that law-breakers routinely get away with it. Occasionally, however, (by reading a convention card or otherwise), a director might strongly suspect that a player, in full knowledge of the law, has deliberately transgressed it, in order to gain advantage. In such a case, the director might consider a DP (say a year ban). Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly recommends that other players deliberately break the law, . From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 19 00:46:26 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 22:46:26 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CC0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >If you don't know what is your agreement, then you should admit that. [big snip] Richard Hills: Yes and No. If you know that you do not have an agreement, then you indeed must (not merely should) admit that. But..... If you know that you have an agreement, but you have temporarily forgotten it, then by Australian regulation you must not guess, but instead you must summon the Aussie Director. She will send you away from the table so that your partner can correctly explain your agreement in your absence. W.S. Gilbert, "The Mikado": "Our logical Mikado, seeing no moral difference between the dignified judge who condemns a criminal to die, and the industrious mechanic who carries out the sentence, has rolled the two offices into one, and every judge is now his own executioner." 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/20140518/29ba36be/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 19 01:10:57 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:10:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." "Lord Chief Justice and Archbishop" De Wael (parallel thread): >..... >The problem is whether it is acceptable, in this situation, to give >the MI when one knows that it is MI. I believe this is acceptable, >..... "The Mikado", Pooh-Bah: "It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, but I do 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/20140518/65f941ed/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 19 01:59:10 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:59:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99D1C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie >IMO this means that you must decide what is your real partnership >understanding -- the aggregate of relevant explicit and implicit agreements. >This partnership understanding might be based on >1. Your original assumption (i.e. 1N overcall = Natural -- and you still >believe that is right). >2. The meaning, indicated by partner's actions (e.g. Partner's explanation >woke you up to your new agreement 1N = 5 + 5+ 2-suiter in unbid suits). >3. Conceivably something else (e.g. Super Psycho Pseudo Suction that >you've just agreed but you both seem to have forgotten). Richard Hills: My personal guesstimate for erroneous explanations over my bridge career would be: 1. 60% = my original assumption correct, 2. 35% = my partner's explanation correct, and 3. 5% = both of us wrong. But these figures are skewed due to me being a system nerd foisting over- complex conventions upon my various victims / partners. :) :) Nigel Guthrie: >Whatever you decide is your "actual agreement", the law seem to dictate >that you explain partner's calls in that light. Opponents are fully entitled >to (what you believe is) your actual agreement -- but to nothing else. If >you don't know what is your agreement, then you should admit that. > >Arguably, whatever you decide about your actual understanding, you >must still bid according to your original beliefs. Richard Hills: No argument - Law 75A is clear on this point. Nigel Guthrie: >This means that your partnership explanations may have no connection >with the contents of each other's hands. Richard Hills: No argument - Law 75C is clear on this point. Nigel Guthrie: >Unfortunately, some examples in [TFLB L75] seem to clash with that >interpretation. Hence, PO Sundelin seems right that this is another law >in need of clarification. Richard Hills: Now I argue - I see no clash. In my opinion Nigel's above interpretation is fully consistent with the words of Law 75. Nigel Guthrie: >Unless this apparent wooliness is another deliberate attempt to >camouflage disagreement among law-makers about what the law >should be -- and to further devolve rule-making responsibility to >individual NBOs and directors. I, too, would welcome simpler >clearer rules. Richard Hills: Ahem. The wording of the 1997 footnote to Law 75 was slightly woolly. In 2007 the main part of the 1997 Law 75 was merged into Law 40, thus elevating the 1997 footnote to being the 2007 Law 75. I rewrote the 2007 Law 75 to make it more fully comprehensible (not to "camouflage disagreement"), and my version of the 2007 Law 75 was accepted by the Drafting Committee without alteration. What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140518/bc3dfee5/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 19 08:23:10 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 06:23:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Deliberately breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Meredith Burgmann, NSW Legislative Council President 1999-2007, and deliberate breaker of the Law during the 1971 Springboks tour: "Well, there were huge number of demonstrators over on the Hill area and there was smoke bombs, and there was this incredible noise and it was like sort of world war was happening over on that area. But I and my sister and two friends had borrowed members' tickets and we dressed up as Afrikaaners; I wore a red wig because otherwise I was too easily recognisable and the police would have arrested me as I was going into the ground. And we brought in a steel Esky with us and sat it right by the fence. And we discussed, in what we considered were Afrikaaner accents, the game, very loudly, and the police who were in front of us, there was one about every three feet along the perimeter of the ground, we eventually convinced them to move aside so that we could see the game better, and by this stage they were totally convinced that we were South Africans and they moved aside. And then ten minutes into the second half, we saw our chance, and we used the steel Esky as a sort of a ramp up over the fence, and off we went. And us four and one other guy were the only people who actually got onto the ground during that demonstration. And my sister actually got hold of the ball and she kicked it, and The Bulletin called it the best kick of the season." Richard Hills: In last Saturday's walk-in pairs, for one round both of my opponents were nonagenarians. One ultra-elderly opponent perpetrated a non- damaging revoke. I then Lawfully chose not to call attention to that revoke. Unfortunately, a few tricks later the revoker woke up to the revoke, and innocently called attention to the revoke herself. I was now obliged to summon the Director (who would have awarded me an unearned extra trick). Instead I truthfully stated, with some firmness, "I have not been damaged by the revoke." And then I untruthfully stated, with equal firmness, "So we do not need to call the Director." Thus by deliberately breaking the Law I scored an unLawful +170 instead of a Lawful +200. And I openly recommend that other players deliberately break the Law in similar bridge circumstances, or similar Apartheid circumstances. Nigel Guthrie ("Blml Digest" thread): >Providing that you abide by the current law, advocating and >campaigning for a law-improvement is highly commendable. BUT [snip] >Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly >recommends that other players deliberately break the law. 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/20140519/a462d73a/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 19 09:04:43 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:04:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5379AD0B.7070003@skynet.be> Very fine recommendations, Nigel, BUT: Nigel Guthrie schreef: > Providing that you abide by the current law, advocating and campaigning for > a law-improvement is highly commendable. BUT > > If the law forbids the DWS ploy (and most BLMLers seem to to think it does) > then honest players should avoid it even if it's use is widespread and it's > hard for directors to detect, so that law-breakers routinely get away with > it. > > Occasionally, however, (by reading a convention card or otherwise), a > director might strongly suspect that a player, in full knowledge of the > law, has deliberately transgressed it, in order to gain advantage. In such > a case, the director might consider a DP (say a year ban). > > Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly recommends > that other players deliberately break the law, . > First of all, as you correctly say, this is very difficult to detect. Secondly, when it happens, and you cannot detect that it was done deliberately, how often will you allow people to get away with it? When law-abiding players are being punished for abiding to the law? And thirdly, why should you bother? DWS-adepts do not gain an advantage, not over people in exactly the same situation but without the follow-up question. So why should you punish them? Why indeed should you punish any player (the law-abider and the DWS-er) simply because an opponent asks a follow-up question? And why should you give an advantage to an opponent who asks a question over an opponent who decides to look it up on the CC? That last one is the true question you should ask yourself! Do we really want people who ask questions to gain an advantage over people who don't? And I'm not talking interest here, I am talking asking questions. One player can be interested, but believing he knows it already, don't ask question. While another player can ask questions even without being interested. Do we really want the second one to benefit? Herman. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 19 09:14:48 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:14:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Deliberately breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5379AF68.9000109@t-online.de> Am 19.05.2014 08:23, schrieb Richard James HILLS: > Richard Hills: > In last Saturday?s walk-in pairs, for one round both of my opponents > were nonagenarians. One ultra-elderly opponent perpetrated a non- > damaging revoke. I then Lawfully chose not to call attention to that > revoke. Unfortunately, a few tricks later the revoker woke up to the > revoke, and innocently called attention to the revoke herself. > I was now obliged to summon the Director (who would have > awarded me an unearned extra trick). Instead I truthfully stated, > with some firmness, ?I have not been damaged by the revoke.? And > then I untruthfully stated, with equal firmness, ?So we do not need > to call the Director.? > Thus by deliberately breaking the Law I scored an unLawful +170 > instead of a Lawful +200. And I openly recommend that other > players deliberately break the Law in similar bridge circumstances, > or similar Apartheid circumstances. > I suggest you ask the pairs sitting in your opponent`s direction whether they agree with that... I have no problem with the first 2/3 of your statement, but the last...? You won`t be able to close Pandora`s box again. Ever. The environment where everyone chooses which law to abide by, and which one to ignore, is called anarchy. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 19 09:26:46 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:26:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> And yet again, this boils down to whether or not it is an infraction to give UI to partner. I believe it is. After all, it carries a penalty, doesn't it? or what else do you call it when partner is barred from acting as he pleases? And once you accept that, it is just a question of which infringement of Law takes precedence. Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Law 72B1: > ?A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.? > ?Lord Chief Justice and Archbishop? De Wael (parallel thread): >>..... >>The problem is whether it is acceptable, in this situation, to give >>the MI when one knows that it is MI. I believe this is acceptable, >>..... > ?The Mikado?, Pooh-Bah: > ?It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First > Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, > Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the > Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting > and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid > for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, > but I do 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon May 19 09:54:26 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:54:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Deliberately breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001401cf7337$91aad040$b50070c0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard James HILLS Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014 4:23 PM To: Laws Bridge Subject: [BLML] Deliberately breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Meredith Burgmann, NSW Legislative Council President 1999-2007, and deliberate breaker of the Law during the 1971 Springboks tour: "Well, there were huge number of demonstrators over on the Hill area and there was smoke bombs, and there was this incredible noise and it was like sort of world war was happening over on that area. But I and my sister and two friends had borrowed members' tickets and we dressed up as Afrikaaners; I wore a red wig because otherwise I was too easily recognisable and the police would have arrested me as I was going into the ground. And we brought in a steel Esky with us and sat it right by the fence. And we discussed, in what we considered were Afrikaaner accents, the game, very loudly, and the police who were in front of us, there was one about every three feet along the perimeter of the ground, we eventually convinced them to move aside so that we could see the game better, and by this stage they were totally convinced that we were South Africans and they moved aside. And then ten minutes into the second half, we saw our chance, and we used the steel Esky as a sort of a ramp up over the fence, and off we went. And us four and one other guy were the only people who actually got onto the ground during that demonstration. And my sister actually got hold of the ball and she kicked it, and The Bulletin called it the best kick of the season." Richard Hills: In last Saturday's walk-in pairs, for one round both of my opponents were nonagenarians. One ultra-elderly opponent perpetrated a non- damaging revoke. I then Lawfully chose not to call attention to that revoke. Unfortunately, a few tricks later the revoker woke up to the revoke, and innocently called attention to the revoke herself. I was now obliged to summon the Director (who would have awarded me an unearned extra trick). Instead I truthfully stated, with some firmness, "I have not been damaged by the revoke." And then I untruthfully stated, with equal firmness, "So we do not need to call the Director." Thus by deliberately breaking the Law I scored an unLawful +170 instead of a Lawful +200. And I openly recommend that other players deliberately break the Law in similar bridge circumstances, or similar Apartheid circumstances. [tony] this is bound to happen when two masochistic super ethicists play each other. For goodness sakes let the director rule, these oldies won the session, right? cheers Tony (Sydney) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20140519/cea2ca08/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 19 11:58:15 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:58:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman, you know very well that we never penalize giving UI to partner. We never do and never did. It's partner's use of UI that was penalized prior to the 2007 laws. These days we rectify, we don't penalize. WebRep Overall rating 2014-05-19 9:26 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael : > And yet again, this boils down to whether or not it is an infraction to > give UI to partner. I believe it is. After all, it carries a penalty, > doesn't it? or what else do you call it when partner is barred from > acting as he pleases? > And once you accept that, it is just a question of which infringement of > Law takes precedence. > > Richard James HILLS schreef: > > UNOFFICIAL > > Law 72B1: > > ?A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.? > > ?Lord Chief Justice and Archbishop? De Wael (parallel thread): > >>..... > >>The problem is whether it is acceptable, in this situation, to give > >>the MI when one knows that it is MI. I believe this is acceptable, > >>..... > > ?The Mikado?, Pooh-Bah: > > ?It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First > > Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, > > Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the > > Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting > > and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid > > for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, > > but I do 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140519/193072a0/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 19 13:56:17 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:56:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5379F161.9030102@skynet.be> Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: > Herman, you know very well that we never penalize giving UI to partner. > We never do and never did. > It's partner's use of UI that was penalized prior to the 2007 laws. > These days we rectify, we don't penalize. Harald, are you just criticizing my words or are you trying to disagree with me. Because it's a common misunderstanding that the giving of UI is not penalized (and I do mean "rectified" if you prefer that word - I don't). 1) I drop the Spade Ace, the director comes and explains the penalty card. Declarer chooses to forbid the Spade Lead. "Don't lead a spade" says the Director to my partner. OK? 2) I say to partner "a spade lead would suit me". The Director comes and explains the UI Laws. "Don't lead something that might be suggested by partner's remark if you have a logical alternative" says Director to my partner. Which obviously translates into "don't lead a spade". Why should situation 1 be called a penalty and not situation 2. And should not both my actions be equally called "infractions"? What else is it when it bars partner from leading a spade. There is of course a second infraction: when partner leads a spade anyway. In situation 1), director then applies L61A (this is a revoke); in situation 2), he applies L16. The mere fact that, as director, we never encounter the secondary infraction in situation 1; wheras we only seldom get called on the primary infraction in situation 2, gives rise to the misconception that sending UI is not an infraction or that it is not penalized. Sending UI is an infraction of the rules. Sometimes it's inadvertent, but so are many other infractions. And the infraction is penalized (or whatever word you want to use) because partner will be restricted in his options. He may very well decide on his own restrictions and no director will be called. But he's penalized nonetheless. As a sidebar, I do wish to use penalize, rather than rectify in this situation. Compare the rulings for MI and UI. When ruling on MI, we will usually award a weighted score, and this will include non-offender making the wrong choice after all. But when ruling on UI, we will not weigh, or give any weight to offender making the right choice at all. A MI-offender will be no worse off after the ruling. An UI-offender will be worse off. I call that a penalty. And an infraction. Herman. > WebRep > Overall rating > > > 2014-05-19 9:26 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael >: > > And yet again, this boils down to whether or not it is an infraction to > give UI to partner. I believe it is. After all, it carries a penalty, > doesn't it? or what else do you call it when partner is barred from > acting as he pleases? > And once you accept that, it is just a question of which infringement of > Law takes precedence. > > Richard James HILLS schreef: > > UNOFFICIAL > > Law 72B1: > > ?A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.? > > ?Lord Chief Justice and Archbishop? De Wael (parallel thread): > >>..... > >>The problem is whether it is acceptable, in this situation, to give > >>the MI when one knows that it is MI. I believe this is acceptable, > >>..... > > ?The Mikado?, Pooh-Bah: > > ?It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First > > Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, > > Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the > > Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting > > and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid > > for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, > > but I do 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 19 14:01:52 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:01:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5379F161.9030102@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> <5379F161.9030102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5379F2B0.5020907@skynet.be> I did not need to make this reply so long. What about L73B? Sending out UI is clearly called illegal in that one. Herman De Wael schreef: > > > Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: >> Herman, you know very well that we never penalize giving UI to partner. >> We never do and never did. >> It's partner's use of UI that was penalized prior to the 2007 laws. >> These days we rectify, we don't penalize. > > Harald, are you just criticizing my words or are you trying to disagree > with me. > Because it's a common misunderstanding that the giving of UI is not > penalized (and I do mean "rectified" if you prefer that word - I don't). > 1) I drop the Spade Ace, the director comes and explains the penalty card. > Declarer chooses to forbid the Spade Lead. "Don't lead a spade" says the > Director to my partner. OK? > 2) I say to partner "a spade lead would suit me". The Director comes and > explains the UI Laws. "Don't lead something that might be suggested by > partner's remark if you have a logical alternative" says Director to my > partner. Which obviously translates into "don't lead a spade". > Why should situation 1 be called a penalty and not situation 2. > And should not both my actions be equally called "infractions"? What > else is it when it bars partner from leading a spade. > > There is of course a second infraction: when partner leads a spade > anyway. In situation 1), director then applies L61A (this is a revoke); > in situation 2), he applies L16. > The mere fact that, as director, we never encounter the secondary > infraction in situation 1; wheras we only seldom get called on the > primary infraction in situation 2, gives rise to the misconception that > sending UI is not an infraction or that it is not penalized. > > Sending UI is an infraction of the rules. Sometimes it's inadvertent, > but so are many other infractions. And the infraction is penalized (or > whatever word you want to use) because partner will be restricted in his > options. He may very well decide on his own restrictions and no director > will be called. But he's penalized nonetheless. > > As a sidebar, I do wish to use penalize, rather than rectify in this > situation. Compare the rulings for MI and UI. When ruling on MI, we will > usually award a weighted score, and this will include non-offender > making the wrong choice after all. But when ruling on UI, we will not > weigh, or give any weight to offender making the right choice at all. > > A MI-offender will be no worse off after the ruling. An UI-offender will > be worse off. I call that a penalty. And an infraction. > > Herman. > >> WebRep >> Overall rating >> >> >> 2014-05-19 9:26 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael > >: >> >> And yet again, this boils down to whether or not it is an infraction to >> give UI to partner. I believe it is. After all, it carries a penalty, >> doesn't it? or what else do you call it when partner is barred from >> acting as he pleases? >> And once you accept that, it is just a question of which infringement of >> Law takes precedence. >> >> Richard James HILLS schreef: >> > UNOFFICIAL >> > Law 72B1: >> > ?A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a >> > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.? >> > ?Lord Chief Justice and Archbishop? De Wael (parallel thread): >> >>..... >> >>The problem is whether it is acceptable, in this situation, to give >> >>the MI when one knows that it is MI. I believe this is acceptable, >> >>..... >> > ?The Mikado?, Pooh-Bah: >> > ?It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First >> > Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, >> > Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the >> > Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting >> > and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid >> > for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, >> > but I do 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 >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Harald Berre Skj?ran >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Mon May 19 14:42:00 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:42:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5379F2B0.5020907@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> <5379F161.9030102@skynet.be> <5379F2B0.5020907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004601cf735f$bb8f6ce0$32ae46a0$@online.no> As I have already said to you Herman: You are boring. But I must say that I am scared by a (presumed) authority showing such ignorance of the laws. You apparently cannot distinguish between UI and illegal communication between partner's (Law 73B) where UI isn't even mentioned because it is the illegal communication that is important. Nor do you seem aware of Law 10C2 which explicitly forbids communication between partners when a rectification option shall be selected. Here again UI is not mentioned because it is the communication (again illegal) that is important. And finally(?) you apparently do not distinguish between penalty card rectifications (where UI is not a question) and the possible UI consequences from the existence of the penalty card, mainly after it ceased to be a penalty card. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 19. mai 2014 14:02 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I did not need to make this reply so long. > What about L73B? > Sending out UI is clearly called illegal in that one. > > Herman De Wael schreef: > > > > > > Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: > >> Herman, you know very well that we never penalize giving UI to partner. > >> We never do and never did. > >> It's partner's use of UI that was penalized prior to the 2007 laws. > >> These days we rectify, we don't penalize. > > > > Harald, are you just criticizing my words or are you trying to > > disagree with me. > > Because it's a common misunderstanding that the giving of UI is not > > penalized (and I do mean "rectified" if you prefer that word - I don't). > > 1) I drop the Spade Ace, the director comes and explains the penalty card. > > Declarer chooses to forbid the Spade Lead. "Don't lead a spade" says > > the Director to my partner. OK? > > 2) I say to partner "a spade lead would suit me". The Director comes > > and explains the UI Laws. "Don't lead something that might be > > suggested by partner's remark if you have a logical alternative" says > > Director to my partner. Which obviously translates into "don't lead a spade". > > Why should situation 1 be called a penalty and not situation 2. > > And should not both my actions be equally called "infractions"? What > > else is it when it bars partner from leading a spade. > > > > There is of course a second infraction: when partner leads a spade > > anyway. In situation 1), director then applies L61A (this is a > > revoke); in situation 2), he applies L16. > > The mere fact that, as director, we never encounter the secondary > > infraction in situation 1; wheras we only seldom get called on the > > primary infraction in situation 2, gives rise to the misconception > > that sending UI is not an infraction or that it is not penalized. > > > > Sending UI is an infraction of the rules. Sometimes it's inadvertent, > > but so are many other infractions. And the infraction is penalized (or > > whatever word you want to use) because partner will be restricted in > > his options. He may very well decide on his own restrictions and no > > director will be called. But he's penalized nonetheless. > > > > As a sidebar, I do wish to use penalize, rather than rectify in this > > situation. Compare the rulings for MI and UI. When ruling on MI, we > > will usually award a weighted score, and this will include > > non-offender making the wrong choice after all. But when ruling on UI, > > we will not weigh, or give any weight to offender making the right choice at > all. > > > > A MI-offender will be no worse off after the ruling. An UI-offender > > will be worse off. I call that a penalty. And an infraction. > > > > Herman. > > > >> WebRep > >> Overall rating > >> > >> > >> 2014-05-19 9:26 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael >> >: > >> > >> And yet again, this boils down to whether or not it is an infraction to > >> give UI to partner. I believe it is. After all, it carries a penalty, > >> doesn't it? or what else do you call it when partner is barred from > >> acting as he pleases? > >> And once you accept that, it is just a question of which infringement of > >> Law takes precedence. > >> > >> Richard James HILLS schreef: > >> > UNOFFICIAL > >> > Law 72B1: > >> > ?A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > >> > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.? > >> > ?Lord Chief Justice and Archbishop? De Wael (parallel thread): > >> >>..... > >> >>The problem is whether it is acceptable, in this situation, to give > >> >>the MI when one knows that it is MI. I believe this is acceptable, > >> >>..... > >> > ?The Mikado?, Pooh-Bah: > >> > ?It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First > >> > Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, > >> > Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the > >> > Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting > >> > and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid > >> > for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, > >> > but I do 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kind regards, > >> Harald Berre Skj?ran > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 19 14:49:25 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:49:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <5379AD0B.7070003@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <5379AD0B.7070003@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Herman De Wael] Very fine recommendations, Nigel, BUT: First of all, as you correctly say, this is very difficult to detect. Secondly, when it happens, and you cannot detect that it was done deliberately, how often will you allow people to get away with it? When law-abiding players are being punished for abiding to the law? And thirdly, why should you bother? DWS-adepts do not gain an advantage, not over people in exactly the same situation but without the follow-up question. So why should you punish them? Why indeed should you punish any player (the law-abider and the DWS-er) simply because an opponent asks a follow-up question? And why should you give an advantage to an opponent who asks a question over an opponent who decides to look it up on the CC? That last one is the true question you should ask yourself! Do we really want people who ask questions to gain an advantage over people who don't? And I'm not talking interest here, I am talking asking questions. One player can be interested, but believing he knows it already, don't ask question. While another player can ask questions even without being interested. Do we really want the second one to benefit? [Nigel] Of course I agree with Herman that many Bridge rules encourage and reward their infraction. I trust this is not a deliberate WBF policy. The problem is more likely to be that-called "Equity" is geared to restoring the status quo rather than deterring law-breakers and compensating their victims. An even clearer example is UI law. Deliberately using UI (from partner's hesitation or whatever) is usually profitable and is likely to go undetected/unreported. If the law-breaker is unlucky enough to get an adverse ruling, the worst he will normally suffer is no worse than if he had refrained form using UI, in the first place. If the director is an advocate of weighted rulings, he is likely to fare even better. There other similar anomalies Bridge-rules over-rely on players being law-abiding ladies and gentlemen. But players are a cross-section of society. Outside the club, they break speed limits, cheat on tax, and break marriage vows. It's naive to expect conscience to suddenly switch on at the bridge-table. Hence some players agree with Herman that the law is crying out for massive simplification and improvement. But until the law is rationalised, we should abide by it with all its faults. From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 19 15:24:39 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:24:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Deliberately breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <30C3231E0D7E4941BC25797BCE6AA3BF@G3> [Nige1] Providing that you abide by the current law, advocating and campaigning for a law-improvement is highly commendable. BUT [snip] Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly recommends that other players deliberately break the law. [snip] Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly recommends that other players deliberately break the law. [Richard Hills] In last Saturday?s walk-in pairs, for one round both of my opponents were nonagenarians. One ultra-elderly opponent perpetrated a non- damaging revoke. I then Lawfully chose not to call attention to that revoke. Unfortunately, a few tricks later the revoker woke up to the revoke, and innocently called attention to the revoke herself. I was now obliged to summon the Director (who would have awarded me an unearned extra trick). Instead I truthfully stated, with some firmness, ?I have not been damaged by the revoke.? And then I untruthfully stated, with equal firmness, ?So we do not need to call the Director.? Thus by deliberately breaking the Law I scored an unLawful +170 instead of a Lawful +200. And I openly recommend that other players deliberately break the Law in similar bridge circumstances, or similar Apartheid circumstances. [Nige1] A Machiavellian might argue that it?s OK to break a law for the greater good, but you can?t really complain when you?re caught and punished. Usually, It is hubris to act above the law, simply because you know better. Especially, in cases like Richard?s, where he could legally ask the director to waive rectification. Then tempering justice with mercy would be up to the good sense of the director. Unlike Richard, most players who break the law seem to have poor insight into their motives, poor memory of their transgressions, and great skill at rationalization. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 19 15:50:43 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:50:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Deliberately breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30C3231E0D7E4941BC25797BCE6AA3BF@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A0BD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <30C3231E0D7E4941BC25797BCE6AA3BF@G3> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:24:39 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > Providing that you abide by the current law, advocating and > campaigning for a law-improvement is highly commendable. BUT > [snip] Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly > recommends that other players deliberately break the law. > [snip] Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly > recommends that other players deliberately break the law. > > [Richard Hills] > In last Saturday?s walk-in pairs, for one round both of my opponents > were nonagenarians. One ultra-elderly opponent perpetrated a non- > damaging revoke. I then Lawfully chose not to call attention to that > revoke. Unfortunately, a few tricks later the revoker woke up to the > revoke, and innocently called attention to the revoke herself. > I was now obliged to summon the Director (who would have > awarded me an unearned extra trick). Instead I truthfully stated, > with some firmness, ?I have not been damaged by the revoke.? And > then I untruthfully stated, with equal firmness, ?So we do not need > to call the Director.? > Thus by deliberately breaking the Law I scored an unLawful +170 > instead of a Lawful +200. And I openly recommend that other > players deliberately break the Law in similar bridge circumstances, > or similar Apartheid circumstances. > > [Nige1] > A Machiavellian might argue that it?s OK to break a law for the greater > good, but you can?t really complain when you?re caught and punished. > Usually, It is hubris to act above the law, simply because you know > better. > Especially, in cases like Richard?s, where he could legally ask the > director > to waive rectification. Then tempering justice with mercy would be up to > the > good sense of the director. > > Unlike Richard, most players who break the law seem to have poor insight > into their motives, poor memory of their transgressions, and great skill > at > rationalization. And, once again, there are different types of moralities, and giving highest allegiance to following the rules is just one of them. Kohlberg actually ranks them. There are moralities worse than rigidly following the rules. And there are moralities that Kohlberg ranks as higher. Sorry, the U.S. honors known criminals like George Washington and Martin Luther King. The actual situation here is complicated. One reason to follow rules is that The Authorities may have considered the situation more carefully. But, if I understand a long-ago blml post, the idea in Europe is that authorities have to earn their respect, and part of this is explaining why a law is made. One last shot. The goal in bridge is to have fun. The laws should help players do that. When the laws get in the away, there is a problem. Richard has a right to enjoy bridge and not go home feeling like a prick. Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards. Stage 6 - Universal Principles Kohlberg?s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 19 16:04:18 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:04:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601cf735f$bb8f6ce0$32ae46a0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> <5379F161.9030102@skynet.be> <5379F2B0.5020907@skynet.be> <004601cf735f$bb8f6ce0$32ae46a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <537A0F62.5000008@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > As I have already said to you Herman: You are boring. > And yet you continue to read my stuff. I am honoured. > But I must say that I am scared by a (presumed) authority showing such > ignorance of the laws. > Well, I can say the same of any of you. I am giving op?nions, based on the law. You don't like the conclusion, and so you say that I am ignorant of the laws. Really! > You apparently cannot distinguish between UI and illegal communication > between partner's (Law 73B) where UI isn't even mentioned because it is the > illegal communication that is important. > And the difference is? I indeed cannot distinguish between them, because they are the same thing. > Nor do you seem aware of Law 10C2 which explicitly forbids communication > between partners when a rectification option shall be selected. Here again > UI is not mentioned because it is the communication (again illegal) that is > important. > And what do you suggest the penalty for breaking such a communication be? Other than an application of L16, forbidding the partner to select the suggested option? > And finally(?) you apparently do not distinguish between penalty card > rectifications (where UI is not a question) and the possible UI consequences > from the existence of the penalty card, mainly after it ceased to be a > penalty card. > of course I can distinguish between the two. My point with the penalty card being that while the applicable law is different, the outcome is the same: partner is forbidden to lead spades. That is a penalty. And the reason for the penalty can only be called an infraction. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 19 16:15:11 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:15:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <5379AD0B.7070003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <537A11EF.1060908@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > > [Nigel] > Of course I agree with Herman that many Bridge rules encourage and reward > their infraction. I trust this is not a deliberate WBF policy. The problem > is more likely to be that-called "Equity" is geared to restoring the status > quo rather than deterring law-breakers and compensating their victims. > > An even clearer example is UI law. Deliberately using UI (from partner's > hesitation or whatever) is usually profitable and is likely to go > undetected/unreported. If the law-breaker is unlucky enough to get an > adverse ruling, the worst he will normally suffer is no worse than if he had > refrained form using UI, in the first place. If the director is an advocate > of weighted rulings, he is likely to fare even better. > Are you American, Nigel? Because weighted rulings are not used (anywhere) for UI rulings. As a result, using UI usually means the player is worse off. But that is not the matter under discussion here. > There other similar anomalies > But if you are talking about infractions going undetected, then the DWS infraction of adding MI to existing MI will certainly not remain undetected. My advice to players always ends with "tell opponents and director what you have done immediately after the final pass (or after the hand if you become defender). Yes, we rely on players acting law-abidingly, but we also keep sticks handy to hit those that don't. And we try to make the rules such, that no mind-reading is needed to determine whether a player was acting according to the law. Which translates into my point. If you are going to rule against a player who knowingly and willingly takes the DWS-option, you must do the same against the player who has never heard of DWS, but gives the consistent answer just because he "knows" partner was right. And that is a ruling I am not happy with. > Bridge-rules over-rely on players being law-abiding ladies and gentlemen. > But players are a cross-section of society. Outside the club, they break > speed limits, cheat on tax, and break marriage vows. It's naive to expect > conscience to suddenly switch on at the bridge-table. > > Hence some players agree with Herman that the law is crying out for massive > simplification and improvement. But until the law is rationalised, we > should abide by it with all its faults. > If you insist on calling DWS against the laws, so be it. But under the current laws (and director practice), there is very little you can do about it. But I urge you all to reconsider and notice that in order to keep the DWS illegal, you must go very far in your rulings, and the laws need to be adapted or re-interpreted in such a way as to render the game of bridge irrecognizable. And I urge you to consider if allowing the DWS would be such a bad thing. What is the difference between a player who responds "1 ace" to the question "how many aces" and the player in the same situation who does not have to say anything because his opponent remembered a Blackwood sequence from two boards earlier? Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon May 19 16:49:32 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:49:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <537A0F62.5000008@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A99CE4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5379B236.7010906@skynet.be> <5379F161.9030102@skynet.be> <5379F2B0.5020907@skynet.be> <004601cf735f$bb8f6ce0$32ae46a0$@online.no> <537A0F62.5000008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101cf7371$8c5ae6e0$a510b4a0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran schreef: > > As I have already said to you Herman: You are boring. > And yet you continue to read my stuff. I am honoured. [Sven Pran] No, I read the comments from Harald and got scared when I saw how this discussion had developed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 19 23:49:06 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:49:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Deliberately breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A163@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie ("Blml Digest" thread): >>Providing that you abide by the current law, advocating and >>campaigning for a law-improvement is highly commendable. BUT [snip] >>Authorities should consider a life-ban for any player, who openly >>recommends that other players deliberately break the law. Richard Hills: But the law-breaking activist Meredith Burgmann did not get a life ban from politics. Instead her career culminated in holding Australia's oldest political office for a term of eight years. Meredith Burgmann, NSW Legislative Council President 1999-2007, and deliberate breaker of the Law during the 1971 Springboks tour: "Well, there were huge number of demonstrators over on the Hill area and there was smoke bombs, and there was this incredible noise and it was like sort of world war was happening over on that area. But I and my sister and two friends had borrowed members' tickets and we dressed up as Afrikaaners; I wore a red wig because otherwise I was too easily recognisable and the police would have arrested me as I was going into the ground. And we brought in a steel Esky with us and sat it right by the fence. And we discussed, in what we considered were Afrikaaner accents, the game, very loudly, and the police who were in front of us, there was one about every three feet along the perimeter of the ground, we eventually convinced them to move aside so that we could see the game better, and by this stage they were totally convinced that we were South Africans and they moved aside. And then ten minutes into the second half, we saw our chance, and we used the steel Esky as a sort of a ramp up over the fence, and off we went. And us four and one other guy were the only people who actually got onto the ground during that demonstration. And my sister actually got hold of the ball and she kicked it, and The Bulletin called it the best kick of the season." Matthias Berghaus: [snip] >You won`t be able to close Pandora's box again. Ever. The >environment where everyone chooses which law to abide by, and >which one to ignore, is called anarchy. Richard Hills: Yes and No. In the case of Meredith Burgmann her anarchy was called morality. The famous New Zealand rugby team are known as the All Blacks. But in 1971 the South African rugby team, officially known as the Springboks, were derisively dubbed the "All Whites" due to being racially selected under the immoral Apartheid regime. As for me, my morality would have been major anarchy in 2007 or earlier, but is minor anarchy today. The 1997 Law 9B1(a) used the strongest word - "must" - in requiring me to summon the Director. But..... 2007 Law 9B1(a): "The Director ++should++ be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." 2007 Introduction: " ..... 'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), ..... " UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140519/95e38f4a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 20 01:41:32 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:41:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Self-serving undocumented assurances [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A29E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the ++weight++ of the evidence he is able to collect." Matthias Berghaus, May 2014: [big snip] >>You know pretty well that any competent TD is not going to accept >>undocumented assurances, so don't base your [Herman's] arguments >>on the TD being an incompetent halfwit. [big snip Ed Reppert, July 2005: >Every time I see the term "self-serving" on blml it "sounds" to me as >if saying leaves a bad taste in the "speaker's" mouth. But should it? > >Okay, so the statement is self-serving. So what? Doesn't mean you >throw it out. Richard Hills, May 2014: Matthias is wrong and Ed is right. Self-serving undocumented assurances have little Law 85A1 "weight", but they do NOT have zero Law 85A1 "weight". Pooh-Bah: "Of course, as First Lord of the Treasury, I could propose a special vote that would cover all expenses, if it were not that, as Leader of the Opposition, it would be my duty to resist it, tooth and nail. Or, as Paymaster General, I could so cook the accounts that, as Lord High Auditor, I should never discover the fraud. But then, as Archbishop of Titipu, it would be my duty to denounce my dishonesty and give myself into my own custody as first Commissioner of Police." 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/20140519/7818202d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 20 02:45:29 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 00:45:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] PO Sundelin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A335@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL PO Sundelin: >Explaining agreements > >This thread started long ago. I repeat the question: >My (intended as) natural 1NT overcall was alerted, and described as something >different. >How do I explain my partner's bids? Richard Hills: You are required by Law to explain partner's calls in accordance with your pre- existing mutual explicit and/or implicit partnership understandings. To un- intentionally misexplain is a minor infraction. To intentionally misexplain is a major infraction. PO Sundelin: >To me it seems crystal clear that you should act as you would behind screens. >You can only see partner's bids, any other action of his is out of your reach. >..... Richard Hills: Your crystal ball is cloudy, as proved by a succinct comment from Steve Willner: >>As others have written, the legal requirement is to give a correct >>explanation of your understandings. You are allowed to "use UI" in order >>to do that. >> >>UI still restricts your choice of calls and plays, so you may find yourself >>explaining according to one system but bidding according to another. Ko-Ko: "I consulted the Attorney General, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Judge Ordinary, and the Lord Chancellor. They're all of the same opinion. Never knew such unanimity on a point of law in my life!" 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/20140520/b21262a3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 20 03:00:14 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:00:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Self-serving undocumented assurances [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A29E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A29E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 May 2014 19:41:32 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Law 85A1: >?In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance > of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the ++weight++ of > the evidence he is able to collect.? >Matthias Berghaus, May 2014: >[big snip] >>> You know pretty well that any competent TD is not going to accept >>> undocumented assurances, so don?t base your [Herman?s] arguments >>> on the TD being an incompetent halfwit. > [big snip >Ed Reppert, July 2005: > >> Every time I see the term ?self-serving? on blml it ?sounds? to me as >> if saying leaves a bad taste in the ?speaker?s? mouth. But should it? >> >> Okay, so the statement is self-serving. So what? Doesn?t mean you >> throw it out. >Richard Hills, May 2014: >Matthias is wrong and Ed is right. Self-serving undocumented > assurances have little Law 85A1 ?weight?, but they do NOT have > zero Law 85A1 ?weight?. Well, a player drops a card on the table. The partner could have seen it, but says he did not. A player hesitates. His partner says he was bidding 3 Spades even without the hesitation. The laws are written as if there is a problem with self-serving unverifiable assertions. The lawmakers are, IMO, right. The director should not have to play lie detector, or call someone a liar, or trust people who could easily be lying. >> > Pooh-Bah: >?Of course, as First Lord of the Treasury, I could propose a special > vote that would cover all expenses, if it were not that, as Leader of > the Opposition, it would be my duty to resist it, tooth and nail. Or, as > Paymaster General, I could so cook the accounts that, as Lord High > Auditor, I should never discover the fraud. But then, as Archbishop > of Titipu, it would be my duty to denounce my dishonesty and give > myself into my own custody as first Commissioner of Police.? > 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/20140520/fed2f185/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 20 08:08:43 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 06:08:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A House Divided one score years ago [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A487@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Tony Musgrove, November 2002: >>I am another who has learnt more in 6 years taking BLML than >>in the previous 20 years at the coalface. A great deal of that is >>due to the writings of DWS [David Stevenson - who, amongst >>other excellent observations, correctly noted that verbal self- >>serving evidence was still evidence - RH], who will be hard to >>replace as a guru whose authoritative opinion was awaited with >>interest. Of course, nowadays, owing to the law of diminishing >>returns, I no longer learn too much that is new. However, I still >>derive a lot of enjoyment out of the posts which I fear are >>attracting some of the DWS spleen. I can't imagine a breakfast >>without seeking out a well turned David (B) [Burn] phrase, or a >>Grattan quotation (I thought he had run out when he broke into >>Latin once). It took me 3 days to translate and then I only >>scored "Close - but no cigar". They just don't make people who >>do good irony these days. I just love the internecine bitchiness >>of the UK contingent. And then after a couple of cups of coffee, >>I can attempt to tackle the labyrinthine erudition of Richard's >>posts. [Compulsory censorship of a scintillating question; use Google if interested in Tony Musgrove's 2002 pertinacity which is even more pertinent in 2014.] >>And then there is the humour. I nearly died hearing of the >>humanitarianism of President Bush Sr. and now we learn of a >>thin skinned TD. Where will it ever end? >> >>I am sure Richard is already posing the question: If DWS looks >>in on BLML in 6 months' time and finds it has improved in his >>absence...What will that mean?? >> >>Must off and take my tablet. Memo to DWS, yours do not seem >>to be working. I suggest you check your dosage. >> >>Back to work from >> >>Tony (Sydney) Grattan Endicott, November 2002: >+=+ David should be feeling more loved now than he did a week >ago. He is thin skinned; but if you have heard Directors are not >sensitive, vulnerable souls, put the thought aside - they feel, they >herd together for protection and support, they kick themselves in >frustration over their own failings, they weep in their bedrooms, in >sum they could even be human. And if David suddenly feels hurt by >the brutality of some reply, he should look again and know that he >has thrust under the writer's guard and drawn blood. Richard Hills, May 2014: Another human being is Herman De Wael. And if Herman suddenly feels hurt by the brutality of some reply, he should look again and know that this is not an ad hominem attack upon Herman's cuddly personality. Rather it is a refutation of his De Wael School, which lacks any scrap of authority from The-Powers-That-Be. Grattan Endicott, November 2002: >Blml is a turbulent, choppy channel at times, people ride hobby >horses, tilt at each other, show their frailties and their incapacity >to change. But so what? - its great success is in bringing out the >misconceptions that subscribers have and subjecting them to >rather more scrutiny than they merit. We do not remove them >from their permanent owners, but at least the thinking clergy >have notice of false prophecies. And, just once in a while, ton, >kojak, or even I, will take a second look at the historical truths >and ask ourselves if we could do better (without ever, of course, >conceding that we were wrong). >Come back, David, and we'll forgive you. >~ 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/20140520/4c334171/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 20 18:05:20 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:05:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L65D and agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Again! 6 weeks later, EW said down 1, North agreed, then South said making. By the time I got to the table, all of the hands were out of order, South was confidently replaying the hand. NS plausibly could remember the hand, they problably have at 6000 masterpoints between them. EW, with their 20 masterpoints, could not follow her at all. West was happy to concede, but that didn't seem right to me. I figured NS were right, but I decided to rule in favor of EW. Agreement made, no way to determine what had happened. I checked the hand records (ambiguous). The issue was finally settled when they realized NS had already played the board. So much for their good memory. On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 06:40:31 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer and dummy said "down 1" and one defender agreed. They folded up > their cards. The other defender then said "down 2". (The fourth player's > cards looked to be in order but did not seem to be in order when I > examined them.) > > A critical question was if that counted as agreement per L65D ("Agreement > on Results of Play"). > > There was no L79A1 infraction, all four hands had not been returned to > the > board. Not sure how that would be relevant. > > And, ironically, while the first defender was agreeing on the results of > play, that defender was not agreeing on number of tricks won -- the > defender claimed that she was agreeing to 1NT down one, when the contract > was actually 2NT. > > L79B2 apparently covered the situation -- "The director rules what score > is to be recorded". And I consulted with a lawyer/director who said that > one person agreeing counts as an agreement. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 21 02:00:12 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 20:00:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A House Divided one score years ago [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A487@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A487@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I erased the ones you said. Did you want to make the gallery active now? This link still seems to work: http://www.longisland.usta.com/photos/2014-awards-dinner-winners/78/img_0888/ On your list, you have Bernstein Amy/James as coming after Olivia Fermo. But it is a single picture of Danny with a woman. That's where the mistakes start. (I am sure Olivia Fermo was correct originally). Is that a couple? I don't remember any couple pictures in that area. Then there is a long string of men and I couldn't get back on track. When I tried to match up names to pictures starting from the back, that was wrong from the first one I think. The camera assigns the numbers to the pictures, and they are on the website in that order. So the current order of pictures almost surely corresponds to the order they were taken. On Tue, 20 May 2014 02:08:43 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Tony Musgrove, November 2002: > >>> I am another who has learnt more in 6 years taking BLML than >>> in the previous 20 years at the coalface. A great deal of that is >>> due to the writings of DWS [David Stevenson ? who, amongst >>> other excellent observations, correctly noted that verbal self- >>> serving evidence was still evidence ? RH], who will be hard to >>> replace as a guru whose authoritative opinion was awaited with >>> interest. Of course, nowadays, owing to the law of diminishing >>> returns, I no longer learn too much that is new. However, I still >>> derive a lot of enjoyment out of the posts which I fear are >>> attracting some of the DWS spleen. I can?t imagine a breakfast >>> without seeking out a well turned David (B) [Burn] phrase, or a >>> Grattan quotation (I thought he had run out when he broke into >>> Latin once). It took me 3 days to translate and then I only >>> scored ?Close - but no cigar?. They just don?t make people who >>> do good irony these days. I just love the internecine bitchiness >>> of the UK contingent. And then after a couple of cups of coffee, >>> I can attempt to tackle the labyrinthine erudition of Richard?s >>> posts. > [Compulsory censorship of a scintillating question; use Google if > interested in Tony Musgrove?s 2002 pertinacity which is even > more pertinent in 2014.] >>> And then there is the humour. I nearly died hearing of the >>> humanitarianism of President Bush Sr. and now we learn of a >>> thin skinned TD. Where will it ever end? >>> >>> I am sure Richard is already posing the question: If DWS looks >>> in on BLML in 6 months? time and finds it has improved in his >>> absence...What will that mean?? >>> >>> Must off and take my tablet. Memo to DWS, yours do not seem >>> to be working. I suggest you check your dosage. >>> >>> Back to work from >>> >>> Tony (Sydney) >Grattan Endicott, November 2002: > >> +=+ David should be feeling more loved now than he did a week >> ago. He is thin skinned; but if you have heard Directors are not >> sensitive, vulnerable souls, put the thought aside - they feel, they >> herd together for protection and support, they kick themselves in >> frustration over their own failings, they weep in their bedrooms, in >> sum they could even be human. And if David suddenly feels hurt by >> the brutality of some reply, he should look again and know that he >> has thrust under the writer?s guard and drawn blood. >Richard Hills, May 2014: >Another human being is Herman De Wael. And if Herman suddenly > feels hurt by the brutality of some reply, he should look again and > know that this is not an ad hominem attack upon Herman?s cuddly > personality. Rather it is a refutation of his De Wael School, which > lacks any scrap of authority from The-Powers-That-Be. >Grattan Endicott, November 2002: > >> Blml is a turbulent, choppy channel at times, people ride hobby >> horses, tilt at each other, show their frailties and their incapacity >> to change. But so what? - its great success is in bringing out the >> misconceptions that subscribers have and subjecting them to >> rather more scrutiny than they merit. We do not remove them >> from their permanent owners, but at least the thinking clergy >> have notice of false prophecies. And, just once in a while, ton, >> kojak, or even I, will take a second look at the historical truths >> and ask ourselves if we could do better (without ever, of course, >> conceding that we were wrong). >> Come back, David, and we?ll forgive you. >> ~ 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/20140521/bf505eaa/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 21 02:30:25 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 20:30:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A House Divided one score years ago [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A487@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Oops. I bet that didn't make a lot of sense! Very sorry. On Tue, 20 May 2014 20:00:12 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > I erased the ones you said. Did you want to make the gallery active now? > > This link still seems to work: > http://www.longisland.usta.com/photos/2014-awards-dinner-winners/78/img_0888/ > > > > On your list, you have Bernstein Amy/James as coming after Olivia Fermo. > But it is a single picture of Danny with a >woman. That's where the > mistakes start. (I am sure Olivia Fermo was correct originally). Is that > a couple? I don't >remember any couple pictures in that area. Then there > is a long string of men and I couldn't get back on track. > > When I tried to match up names to pictures starting from the back, that > was wrong from the first one I think.> > > The camera assigns the numbers to the pictures, and they are on the > website in that order. So the current order of >pictures almost surely > corresponds to the order they were taken. > >> > > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 02:08:43 -0400, Richard James HILLS > wrote: > >>>> UNOFFICIAL >>Tony Musgrove, November 2002: >> >>>> I am another who has learnt more in 6 years taking BLML than >>>> in the previous 20 years at the coalface. A great deal of that is >>>> due to the writings of DWS [David Stevenson ? who, amongst >>>> other excellent observations, correctly noted that verbal self- >>>> serving evidence was still evidence ? RH], who will be hard to >>>> replace as a guru whose authoritative opinion was awaited with >>>> interest. Of course, nowadays, owing to the law of diminishing >>>> returns, I no longer learn too much that is new. However, I still >>>> derive a lot of enjoyment out of the posts which I fear are >>>> attracting some of the DWS spleen. I can?t imagine a breakfast >>>> without seeking out a well turned David (B) [Burn] phrase, or a >>>> Grattan quotation (I thought he had run out when he broke into >>>> Latin once). It took me 3 days to translate and then I only >>>> scored ?Close - but no cigar?. They just don?t make people who >>>> do good irony these days. I just love the internecine bitchiness >>>> of the UK contingent. And then after a couple of cups of coffee, >>>> I can attempt to tackle the labyrinthine erudition of Richard?s >>>> posts. >> [Compulsory censorship of a scintillating question; use Google if >> interested in Tony Musgrove?s 2002 pertinacity which is even >> more pertinent in 2014.] >>>> And then there is the humour. I nearly died hearing of the >>>> humanitarianism of President Bush Sr. and now we learn of a >>>> thin skinned TD. Where will it ever end? >>>> >>>> I am sure Richard is already posing the question: If DWS looks >>>> in on BLML in 6 months? time and finds it has improved in his >>>> absence...What will that mean?? >>>> >>>> Must off and take my tablet. Memo to DWS, yours do not seem >>>> to be working. I suggest you check your dosage. >>>> >>>> Back to work from >>>> >>>> Tony (Sydney) >>Grattan Endicott, November 2002: >> >>> +=+ David should be feeling more loved now than he did a week >>> ago. He is thin skinned; but if you have heard Directors are not >>> sensitive, vulnerable souls, put the thought aside - they feel, they >>> herd together for protection and support, they kick themselves in >>> frustration over their own failings, they weep in their bedrooms, in >>> sum they could even be human. And if David suddenly feels hurt by >>> the brutality of some reply, he should look again and know that he >>> has thrust under the writer?s guard and drawn blood. >>Richard Hills, May 2014: >>Another human being is Herman De Wael. And if Herman suddenly >> feels hurt by the brutality of some reply, he should look again and >> know that this is not an ad hominem attack upon Herman?s cuddly >> personality. Rather it is a refutation of his De Wael School, which >> lacks any scrap of authority from The-Powers-That-Be. >>Grattan Endicott, November 2002: >> >>> Blml is a turbulent, choppy channel at times, people ride hobby >>> horses, tilt at each other, show their frailties and their incapacity >>> to change. But so what? - its great success is in bringing out the >>> misconceptions that subscribers have and subjecting them to >>> rather more scrutiny than they merit. We do not remove them >>> from their permanent owners, but at least the thinking clergy >>> have notice of false prophecies. And, just once in a while, ton, >>> kojak, or even I, will take a second look at the historical truths >>> and ask ourselves if we could do better (without ever, of course, >>> conceding that we were wrong). >>> Come back, David, and we?ll forgive you. >>> ~ 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 -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140521/0d9aedab/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed May 21 13:56:09 2014 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 07:56:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <3NFh1o01t5NZjdJ01NFlbn> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> <3NFh1o01t5NZjdJ01NFlbn> Message-ID: Is it then also boring when Matthias responds? Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: 05/18/2014 5:51 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 Herman PLEASE! This is boring > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 18. mai 2014 11:20 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 > > Matthias Berghaus schreef: > > Am 17.05.2014 14:38, schrieb Herman De Wael: > >> You still don't understand, Matthias: > >> > >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > >>> Am 17.05.2014 09:15, schrieb Herman De Wael: > >>>> The problem is that no-one knows whether you are sure. > >>>> If I say I am sure that my partner is right, then I'm allowed to > >>>> give a consistent answer? Is that what you are saying? Then I shall > >>>> always say that I am sure my partner was right! > >>>> Where does that lead us? to the De Wael School! > >>> No, Herman, it leads us to TDs who do their job. The rule is clear: > >>> If the TD has any doubt about what the system actually is he shall > >>> assume wrong explanation. > >> But the player is asking for advice on what to do AT THE TABLE. > >> He is not able to find out what the true system is. > >> And yet you give him an advice which depends on this knowledge. > >> That is what is impossible about your advice! > > > > I am sure you can read. Why don`t you do so? If he is not sure he > > should bid (and explain) according to what he believed the system is > > when he made his bid. That is not difficult, is it? > > > > I can sure read. Can you? > It is not difficult, except when he does something else. And then tells you he > was certain his partner had given the correct explanation. You can be certain > and still wrong, can't you? > If you give the advice above, there is nothing you can do against clever players > who do the opposite. > > And when you decide to consider the person who said he was certain a liar, how > are you going to rule against the honest person who also said he was certain? > You should rule against him too. > And then the problems only start. What are you going to rule? Missing MI? > "you found a bid without the use of UI, but your partner should have given you > UI. If he had done so, you would not be able to prove beyond doubt that you > would have found that bid without the UI, so I'm going to rule your bid illegal". > You would be ruling a bid illegal because of the use of UI that the player did not > in fact receive! > > You misunderstand the whole problem, Matthias. If you are telling your players > to behave "correctly" and I tell my players to behave "DWS", my players will > have a better score than yours, and there is virtually nothing a director can do > about it. > > Now you believe that since my players get a better score than yours, they must > be doing something wrong. > Consider the following counter-example then: I teach my players to finesse, you > tell them to play for the drop at all times. My playeres get better results than > yours - is that because my players are cheats or because your advice is wrong? > > You should not compare my players to yours, but just to some third pair who do > not receive a follow-up question. My players will have the same result as those > players, and that result is deemed quite OK by the WBF, despite a player who > knows that MI has been given to keep shut about it (thereby, in the view of > some, aggravating the MI!) > > Herman. > > >> Remember that it is better for him to give a consistent explanation > >> than a "correct" one. It carries no UI to partner, and it does not > >> reveal to opponents that a misunderstanding has taken place. > > > > Yes, Herman, it hides something from the opponents. Oh, and it > > violates the rules of Bridge. But you know that, and obviously you don`t care. > > > >> The fact that he's going to tell you he's sure, and there is nothing > >> you can do to prove otherwise. He was sure, and still turned out to > >> be wrong. What are you going to do? > > > > If I can`t prove it ( one way or another) , how can he turn out to > > have been wrong? Oh, he can`t, right. So? If I can`t find to my > > satisfaction that he explained according to the actual system I am > > going to rule misexplanation. As will anyone else who takes care to read the > rulebook. > > If I find that he explained according to system I am going to rule > > that his partner gave misexplanation, and take it from there. > > > >>>> There are just two options: > >>>> - either you tell him to explain consistently - that is DWS. > >>> And against the rules, which you know full well. > >>> > >> Please tell me why that's against the rules, for a player who is > >> certain his partner gave the correct explanation. > > > > If he is sure, fine. He has UI, he has to bid according to his earlier > > misconception. Easy case. That is not DWS, it`s the law. Now if he is > > sure that partner is wrong... > > > >> > >> > >>> Bullshit. The player does not have to reveal anything. _ > >> How can he fail to reveal that he's having a misunderstanding? > >> "what is 4NT?" 'Blackwood" > >> "what is 5Di?" 'Diamond preference". > >> If the opponents don't understand that there was a misunderstanding, > >> they are really stupid. > > > > Right. So? You keep repeating cases where they have to be morons not > > to understand what has happened. I can`t find where the lawbook says > > that they may not understand that opps have what P.O. described as a > > major f-up. And not all examples are as easily understandable as the > > "minor two-suiter vs. Blackwood" one. And even if they all were, so > > what? They are the non-offending side, if they can, by use of their > > mental faculties, gain information you would rather hide from them, > > then I wish them the best of luck. > > > >> > >>> By following the law there will be no MI (and don`t tell me > >> By following L20F5, there is MI. And the Laws authorize this. > > > > Herman, you continously assert that 20F5 says anything of the sort, in > > spite of the fact (which you know full well) that the people who > > _define_ the rules have issued notes that explicitly say something else. > > Which part of the concept of authority is it that you manage to ignore > > ( I know that you are not incapable of understanding it, you just > > ignore and contradict it whenever you get the chance) continosly? If > > you want that changed ( if I were a religious person I would offer a > > prayer to prevent that) you have either to convince the people who > > make the law, or become one of them and convince enough of the rest. > > Continous repetition of tenets which you know have been explicitly > > rejected by those in authority helps nobody, quite the opposite. > >> Well, let me suggest a change in the laws that you should like: scrap L20F5. > >> But, apparently, that is not the intention of the WBFLC. > >> As they clearly stated in their minutes from Shanghai. > >> > > > > Yes, indeed they did. "Right" or "wrong", that is the law. I happen to > > entertain the notion that a game is best played by its rules. If I > > happen to think that some part of the rules is not good, I have to try > > to have it changed. Ignoring the rules will not help me, the game, or > > anyone else. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed May 21 14:07:42 2014 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:07:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A House Divided one score years ago [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46941o00T4Y5R3i01695dC> References: <46941o00T4Y5R3i01695dC> Message-ID: IOW, MAS Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard James HILLS Sent: 05/20/2014 2:09 AM To: Laws Bridge Subject: [BLML] A House Divided one score years ago [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Tony Musgrove, November 2002: >>I am another who has learnt more in 6 years taking BLML than >>in the previous 20 years at the coalface. A great deal of that is >>due to the writings of DWS [David Stevenson - who, amongst >>other excellent observations, correctly noted that verbal self- >>serving evidence was still evidence - RH], who will be hard to >>replace as a guru whose authoritative opinion was awaited with >>interest. Of course, nowadays, owing to the law of diminishing >>returns, I no longer learn too much that is new. However, I still >>derive a lot of enjoyment out of the posts which I fear are >>attracting some of the DWS spleen. I can't imagine a breakfast >>without seeking out a well turned David (B) [Burn] phrase, or a >>Grattan quotation (I thought he had run out when he broke into >>Latin once). It took me 3 days to translate and then I only >>scored "Close - but no cigar". They just don't make people who >>do good irony these days. I just love the internecine bitchiness >>of the UK contingent. And then after a couple of cups of coffee, >>I can attempt to tackle the labyrinthine erudition of Richard's >>posts. [Compulsory censorship of a scintillating question; use Google if interested in Tony Musgrove's 2002 pertinacity which is even more pertinent in 2014.] >>And then there is the humour. I nearly died hearing of the >>humanitarianism of President Bush Sr. and now we learn of a >>thin skinned TD. Where will it ever end? >> >>I am sure Richard is already posing the question: If DWS looks >>in on BLML in 6 months' time and finds it has improved in his >>absence...What will that mean?? >> >>Must off and take my tablet. Memo to DWS, yours do not seem >>to be working. I suggest you check your dosage. >> >>Back to work from >> >>Tony (Sydney) Grattan Endicott, November 2002: >+=+ David should be feeling more loved now than he did a week >ago. He is thin skinned; but if you have heard Directors are not >sensitive, vulnerable souls, put the thought aside - they feel, they >herd together for protection and support, they kick themselves in >frustration over their own failings, they weep in their bedrooms, in >sum they could even be human. And if David suddenly feels hurt by >the brutality of some reply, he should look again and know that he >has thrust under the writer's guard and drawn blood. Richard Hills, May 2014: Another human being is Herman De Wael. And if Herman suddenly feels hurt by the brutality of some reply, he should look again and know that this is not an ad hominem attack upon Herman's cuddly personality. Rather it is a refutation of his De Wael School, which lacks any scrap of authority from The-Powers-That-Be. Grattan Endicott, November 2002: >Blml is a turbulent, choppy channel at times, people ride hobby >horses, tilt at each other, show their frailties and their incapacity >to change. But so what? - its great success is in bringing out the >misconceptions that subscribers have and subjecting them to >rather more scrutiny than they merit. We do not remove them >from their permanent owners, but at least the thinking clergy >have notice of false prophecies. And, just once in a while, ton, >kojak, or even I, will take a second look at the historical truths >and ask ourselves if we could do better (without ever, of course, >conceding that we were wrong). >Come back, David, and we'll forgive you. >~ 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/20140521/0a8fc2c9/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Wed May 21 14:11:50 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:11:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be> <3NFh1o01t5NZjdJ01NFlbn> Message-ID: <002c01cf74ed$d9bd80a0$8d3881e0$@online.no> Jim Fox > Is it then also boring when Matthias responds? [Sven Pran] Well, Herman has continued flogging the same dead horse for years. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 21 16:32:46 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:32:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-18 6:20 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > If the law forbids the DWS ploy (and most BLMLers seem to to think it does) I don't know about "most BLMLers," but I don't see anything in the Laws themselves that prohibits DWS. There is a WBFLC interpretation that does, though. We've been over this ground many times. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 21 16:49:02 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:49:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-05-18 6:20 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > If the law forbids the DWS ploy (and most BLMLers seem to to think it > > does) > > I don't know about "most BLMLers," but I don't see anything in the Laws > themselves that prohibits DWS. There is a WBFLC interpretation that does, > though. > > We've been over this ground many times. [Sven Pran] We have indeed. And Law 75 makes it quite clear that opponents shall be given an accurate description of partnership agreements, not indicating the cards actually held. DWS implies that a player shall change his explanation to reflect the cards actually held when he understands from his partner's mistaken explanation that his partner holds a hand no longer conforming to the actual agreement. The WBFLC minute in question simply clarified that this principle is a violation of law. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 21 16:51:46 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:51:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <537CBD82.80106@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-21 10:49 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > DWS implies that a player shall change his explanation to reflect the cards > actually held I'm shocked. The above is not correct. Please understand DWS before posting further about it. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 21 17:12:47 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:12:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <537CBD82.80106@nhcc.net> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> <537CBD82.80106@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001901cf7507$20ff0b00$62fd2100$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-05-21 10:49 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > DWS implies that a player shall change his explanation to reflect the > > cards actually held > > I'm shocked. The above is not correct. Please understand DWS before posting > further about it. [Sven Pran] Well, If I make a bid that asks for some specific information and my partner explains it as asking for something different: Does DWS instruct me to explain partners response according to my understanding or according to his understanding (as revealed by his misinformation)? From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 21 19:33:13 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:33:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <001901cf7507$20ff0b00$62fd2100$@online.no> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> <537CBD82.80106@nhcc.net> <001901cf7507$20ff0b00$62fd2100$@online.no> Message-ID: <537CE359.1060900@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-21 11:12 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If I make a bid that asks for some specific information and my partner > explains it as asking for something different: > Does DWS instruct me to explain partners response according to my > understanding or according to his understanding (as revealed by his > misinformation)? Everyone should know the answer by now. Either way, it has nothing to do with the cards you happen to hold. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 21 21:21:59 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:21:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L31B In-Reply-To: <000d01cf721c$bd111da0$373358e0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A92D67@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01cf6e6c$2c12b2e0$843818a0$@online.no> <53737827.9010404@nhcc.net> <001f01cf6fb6$ed684b80$c838e280$@online.no> <5377B136.3080601@nhcc.net> <000d01cf721c$bd111da0$373358e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <537CFCD7.8070706@nhcc.net> On 2014-05-17 6:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Please forget the 2007 laws for a moment and just explain why it makes sense > to you that North shall not be barred if South deals and passes*, then West > passes* and now South bids (OOT), while North is indeed barred if West deals > and passes* and South bids(OOT)? The situations differ, and arguably different rectifications are appropriate. An initial call, if there was one, tells quite a lot about South's hand, so a less severe rectification may be in order in that case. (Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way as to which is better; I just want the rules to be clear.) > Don't you see that the clause "if the offender has not previously called" > (with its footnote) makes sense when applicable to bids out of turn at LHO's > turn to call only? No, I don't see that. Neither did the ACBLLC, who decided to apply the "if" clause to both situations here in the ACBL. As I read the text, that was probably also the intent of the WBFLC, but I agree it remains ambiguous. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 21 22:35:24 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 22:35:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <537CE359.1060900@nhcc.net> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> <537CBD82.80106@nhcc.net> <001901cf7507$20ff0b00$62fd2100$@online.no> <537CE359.1060900@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001cf7534$31d278e0$95776aa0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-05-21 11:12 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > If I make a bid that asks for some specific information and my partner > > explains it as asking for something different: > > Does DWS instruct me to explain partners response according to my > > understanding or according to his understanding (as revealed by his > > misinformation)? > > Everyone should know the answer by now. Either way, it has nothing to do with > the cards you happen to hold. [Sven Pran] Why do you avoid the question? It has everything to do with what cards partner holds and what he has indicated with his response according to the real partnership agreements. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 22 01:30:27 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 23:30:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A8CD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >I rewrote the 2007 Law 75 to make it more fully comprehensible (not >to "camouflage disagreement" [and definitely not to change its 1997 >meaning]), and my version of the 2007 Law 75 was accepted by the >Drafting Committee without alteration. > >What's the problem? WBF Laws Committee meeting, October 2008: LAW 75C The phrase "they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands" first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the Law. 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/20140521/467ba934/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 22 03:44:55 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 01:44:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9A986@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL WBF Laws Committee meeting, October 2008: LAW 75C The phrase "they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands" first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the Law. Steve Willner: >>I don't know about "most BLMLers," but I don't see anything in >>the Laws themselves that prohibits DWS. Richard Hills: {DWS = Herman De Wael's idiosyncratic - and refuted - interpretation of Law 20F5.} Herman has openly admitted on many occasions that his DWS interpretation of Law 20F5 is prohibited by the clear wording of Law 75C. His philosophy is that if he is forced to choose between infracting Law 20F5 or infracting Law 75, then he might as well choose the advantageous infraction of intentionally lying to the opponents (albeit retracting the lie once Herman's partner can no longer be hamstrung by Law 75A). Steve Willner: >>There is a WBFLC interpretation that does, though. >> >>We've been over this ground many times. Sven Pran: >We have indeed. > >And Law 75 makes it quite clear that opponents shall be given an >accurate description of partnership agreements, not indicating the >cards actually held. > >DWS implies that a player shall change his explanation to reflect >the cards [partner] actually held when he understands from his >partner's mistaken explanation that his partner holds a hand no >longer conforming to the actual agreement. > >The WBFLC minute in question simply clarified that this >principle is a violation of law. 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/20140522/795d6014/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 22 09:07:35 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:07:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <537DA237.9020506@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > Steve Willner >> On 2014-05-18 6:20 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>> If the law forbids the DWS ploy (and most BLMLers seem to to think it >>> does) >> >> I don't know about "most BLMLers," but I don't see anything in the Laws >> themselves that prohibits DWS. There is a WBFLC interpretation that does, >> though. >> >> We've been over this ground many times. > > [Sven Pran] > We have indeed. > > And Law 75 makes it quite clear that opponents shall be given an accurate > description of partnership agreements, not indicating the cards actually > held. > > DWS implies that a player shall change his explanation to reflect the cards > actually held when he understands from his partner's mistaken explanation > that his partner holds a hand no longer conforming to the actual agreement. > > The WBFLC minute in question simply clarified that this principle is a > violation of law. > No, actually it didn't. The WBFLC minute clarified that the opposing principle is not a violation of Law, which, according to L20F5 it was. The word "overriding" is used, true, probably indicating that it is the action the WBFLC preferred at the time (and presumably still does), but since no penalty is described, I do not interpret the WBFLC minute as making the DWS illegal. It is, of course, illegal in the sense that MI is being given. But that was never in question. Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 22 09:44:36 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:44:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <537DA237.9020506@skynet.be> References: <1400234967.99242.YahooMailNeo@web172904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5375EB8C.3060306@t-online.de> <53762AAB.5070708@skynet.be> <537634DE.6040906@t-online.de> <53770C7C.9040004@skynet.be> <53772A84.6060907@t-online.de> <5377584A.9060206@skynet.be> <5377DBD9.5040000@t-online.de> <53787B52.4050705@skynet.be><5378E32D.1060509@t-online.de> <5378E76E.4080506@skynet.be> <537CB90E.1020408@nhcc.net> <001701cf7503$ceb8e850$6c2ab8f0$@online.no> <537DA237.9020506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004f01cf7591$ae20da10$0a628e30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Dear Herman, My eye wasn't slow enough to avoid your remarks below. Also because I thought to have read an earlier message in which you told blml to stop your Donquichotterie ( prefer DQS instead of DWS). Let me tell you that your approach is illegal and that as far as I am able to interpret wbflc-decisions the lc has said so. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De Wael Verzonden: donderdag 22 mei 2014 9:08 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 62, Issue 29 Sven Pran schreef: > Steve Willner >> On 2014-05-18 6:20 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>> If the law forbids the DWS ploy (and most BLMLers seem to to think >>> it >>> does) >> >> I don't know about "most BLMLers," but I don't see anything in the >> Laws themselves that prohibits DWS. There is a WBFLC interpretation >> that does, though. >> >> We've been over this ground many times. > > [Sven Pran] > We have indeed. > > And Law 75 makes it quite clear that opponents shall be given an > accurate description of partnership agreements, not indicating the > cards actually held. > > DWS implies that a player shall change his explanation to reflect the > cards actually held when he understands from his partner's mistaken > explanation that his partner holds a hand no longer conforming to the actual agreement. > > The WBFLC minute in question simply clarified that this principle is a > violation of law. > No, actually it didn't. The WBFLC minute clarified that the opposing principle is not a violation of Law, which, according to L20F5 it was. The word "overriding" is used, true, probably indicating that it is the action the WBFLC preferred at the time (and presumably still does), but since no penalty is described, I do not interpret the WBFLC minute as making the DWS illegal. It is, of course, illegal in the sense that MI is being given. But that was never in question. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 23 01:13:36 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 23:13:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Donquichotterie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9AC8C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL WBF Laws Committee meeting, October 2008: LAW 75C The phrase "they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands" first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the Law. Sven Pran: >>>..... >>>And Law 75 makes it quite clear that opponents shall be given >>>an accurate description of partnership agreements, not indicating >>>the cards actually held. >>> >>>DWS implies that a player shall change his explanation to reflect >>>the cards [partner] actually held when he understands from his >>>partner's mistaken explanation that his partner holds a hand no >>>longer conforming to the actual agreement. >>> >>>The WBFLC minute in question simply clarified that this >>>principle is a violation of law. Ton Kooijman: >Dear Herman, > >My eye wasn't slow enough to avoid your remarks below. Also >because I thought to have read an earlier message in which you >told blml to stop your Donquichotterie (prefer DQS instead of >DWS). Richard Hills: Free translation of "Donquichotterie" into English = "tilting at windmills". Ton Kooijman: >Let me tell you that your approach is illegal and that as far as I >am able to interpret wbflc-decisions the lc has said so. > >ton Herman De Wael: >>..... >>The WBFLC minute, clarified that the opposing principle is not >>a violation of Law, Richard Hills: There were TWO relevant items in the WBF Law Committee's October 2008 minutes. The item interpreting Law 75C (see above) was a clarification that the DQS is unLawful. The item interpreting Law 20F was a clarification that the non-quixotic alternative to the DQS is Lawful. What's the problem? Herman De Wael: >>..... >>since no penalty is described, I do not interpret the WBFLC >>minute as making the [DQS] illegal. >>..... Law 12A1: "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." 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/20140522/65d30fc5/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 23 06:42:29 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 14:42:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system Message-ID: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> Today I played with a partner with absolutely no system discussion, so the bidding went: LHO CHO RHO Me 2H (wk) 2NT pass 3NT pass 4D all pass of course, at 4D, I immediately offered to alert 2NT because it was "for the minors" evidently. At the table my mind went blank wondering what Richard would do, and whether I was allowed to bid 5D (making), or indeed, whether I was even allowed to pass. Since it was a bad board anyway, I didn't think much more about it until I got home when I realised that I should have adjusted the board back to 3NT down a few, since partner has so clearly "used" the UI of my non alert. So, I find that I cannot direct sitting down as I am sure that I would have got it right standing up with my director's hat on. A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to partner's system if partner makes an impossible bid in my universe? I am sure that David Stevenson had an article on his webpage at one stage on the subject, but it seems to have gone now. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 23 07:41:37 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 05:41:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9AE2C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL John (MadDog) Probst, December 2008: >>I happily spent a couple of minutes describing a hand I didn't hold >>last night. Bore no resemblance at all, in fact, but I'd been conscious >>of that. After I faced my hand my opponent burst out laughing and >>said "well done". >> >>Footnote: It's difficult to keep a straight face when you're describing >>the hand you've bid rather than the one you hold, but that's what we >>do. john Tony Musgrove, May 2014: >Today I played with a partner with absolutely no system discussion, >so the bidding went: > >LHO+++++CHO+++++RHO+++++Me >2H(wk)+++2NT++++++pass+++++3NT >pass++++++4D++++++all pass > >of course, at 4D, I immediately offered to alert 2NT because it was >"for the minors" evidently. At the table my mind went blank >wondering what Richard would do, Richard Hills, May 2014: The key word is "evidently". If I had been in Tony's shoes then I would have known that CHO and I had an implicit partnership understanding that a 2NT overcall will ++always++ show 5/5 in the minors. (Similarly, last Saturday afternoon my non-expert CHO chose a double "with absolutely no system discussion". The logical meaning for the double was penalty. But I knew my CHO and I had an implicit partnership understanding to use inappropriate negative doubles, so I therefore did not pass.) Tony Musgrove, May 2014: >and whether I was allowed to bid 5D (making), or indeed, >whether I was even allowed to pass. > >..... > >A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to partner's >system if partner makes an impossible bid in my universe? I >am sure that David Stevenson had an article on his webpage at >one stage on the subject, but it seems to have gone now. Richard Hills, May 2014: Tony was reminded of his implicit partnership understanding neither by pard's explanation, nor by pard's alert / non-alert, but rather by pard's 4D call. Therefore Law 75A did not apply to Tony's future actions. Rather Tony could do whatever he chose thanks to these Law 16A1 criteria: "derives from the legal calls ..... of the current board ..... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". Monty Python's Life of Brian, 33 AD (about tea time): JUDITH: They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him! REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion! COMMANDO #1: Yeah. JUDITH: What?! COMMANDO #2: Immediate. COMMANDO #1: Right. LORETTA: New motion? REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action-- FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken. REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't enact another resolution till you've voted on 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/20140523/b16f9605/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Fri May 23 09:06:33 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:06:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000c01cf7655$88735030$9959f090$@online.no> Tony Musgrove [...] > A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to partner's system if partner > makes an impossible bid in my universe? [Sven Pran] In my opinion you certainly are, provided your "wakeup" is ONLY triggered by authorized information (like partner's call) and NOT from unauthorized information (like partner's alert or missing alert). From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 23 09:54:12 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:54:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9AE2C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9AE2C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <00b701cf765c$2fd83100$8f889300$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard James HILLS Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014 3:42 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL John (MadDog) Probst, December 2008: >>I happily spent a couple of minutes describing a hand I didn't hold >>last night. Bore no resemblance at all, in fact, but I'd been conscious >>of that. After I faced my hand my opponent burst out laughing and >>said "well done". >> >>Footnote: It's difficult to keep a straight face when you're describing >>the hand you've bid rather than the one you hold, but that's what we >>do. john Tony Musgrove, May 2014: >Today I played with a partner with absolutely no system discussion, >so the bidding went: > >LHO+++++CHO+++++RHO+++++Me >2H(wk)+++2NT++++++pass+++++3NT >pass++++++4D++++++all pass > >of course, at 4D, I immediately offered to alert 2NT because it was >"for the minors" evidently. At the table my mind went blank >wondering what Richard would do, Richard Hills, May 2014: The key word is "evidently". If I had been in Tony's shoes then I would have known that CHO and I had an implicit partnership understanding that a 2NT overcall will ++always++ show 5/5 in the minors. (Similarly, last Saturday afternoon my non-expert CHO chose a double "with absolutely no system discussion". The logical meaning for the double was penalty. But I knew my CHO and I had an implicit partnership understanding to use inappropriate negative doubles, so I therefore did not pass.) Tony Musgrove, May 2014: >and whether I was allowed to bid 5D (making), or indeed, >whether I was even allowed to pass. > >..... > >A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to partner's >system if partner makes an impossible bid in my universe? I >am sure that David Stevenson had an article on his webpage at >one stage on the subject, but it seems to have gone now. Richard Hills, May 2014: Tony was reminded of his implicit partnership understanding neither by pard's explanation, nor by pard's alert / non-alert, but rather by pard's 4D call. Therefore Law 75A did not apply to Tony's future actions. Rather Tony could do whatever he chose thanks to these Law 16A1 criteria: "derives from the legal calls ..... of the current board ..... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". cut the best bit. Our discussion afterwards went as follows: me: sorry pard, I always play it as natural there CHO: so do I , but I thought you might play for the minors Is this what "implicit" means? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140523/977c8f1e/attachment-0001.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri May 23 10:03:14 2014 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 10:03:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1897748387.16842591.1400832194047.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Tony Musgrove" > ?: "BLML" > Envoy?: Vendredi 23 Mai 2014 06:42:29 > Objet: [BLML] Remembering the system > > Today I played with a partner with absolutely no system > discussion, so the bidding went: > > LHO CHO RHO Me > 2H (wk) 2NT pass 3NT > pass 4D all pass > > of course, at 4D, I immediately offered > to alert 2NT because it was "for the minors" > evidently. At the table my mind went blank > wondering what Richard would do, and whether > I was allowed to bid 5D (making), or indeed, > whether I was even allowed to pass. > > Since it was a bad board anyway, I didn't think > much more about it until I got home when I > realised that I should have adjusted the board > back to 3NT down a few, since partner has so > clearly "used" the UI of my non alert.* how can an alert be expected or a non-alert come as a surprise when you have absolutely no agreement? jpr So, I find > that I cannot direct sitting down as I am sure that > I would have got it right standing up with my > director's hat on. > A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to > partner's system if partner makes an impossible bid > in my universe? I am sure that David Stevenson > had an article on his webpage at one stage on > the subject, but it seems to have gone now. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 23 10:20:40 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 10:20:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> There are two aspects to this story: 1) the real system. This is up to the Director to decide. Absent other evidence, he will rule that the intended system is the actual system, and the opponents have been misinformed. But that was not Tony's concern. 2) the Unauthorized information There is one piece of UI: the non-alert by Tony is UI to his partner. Is he allowed to bid 4Di? There is one piece of AI: the 4Di bid to Tony. Tony does not have UI and is allowed to raise to 5Di. So how about the UI? Most of you use the rule-of-thumb of question 1 as basis for a ruling on question 2. Since the apparent system is "minors", the non-alert is UI. But in order to find out LAs, you need to poll players. And it is wrong to poll them using the words "you bid 2NT for the minors", because that is not the situation Tony's partner was in. What you should ask the polled players is: "you want to show your minors but you are uncertain of your system. You decide to bid 2NT. Partner bids 3NT. What do you do?". I am quite certain that, when asked this way, most of the polled players would say "I interpret this as partner not having understood I have the minors.' Whether they would bid 4Di with the hand you give them is open to question, but the fact that they interpret it like that means the suggestion has fallen away (has become AI) and therefore, I would rule that Tony's partner is free to bid 4Di. My point: don't just tell the pollees what the system (apparently) is, give them the situation as the players experienced it at the table (minus the non-alert, of course). Herman. Tony Musgrove schreef: > Today I played with a partner with absolutely no system > discussion, so the bidding went: > > LHO CHO RHO Me > 2H (wk) 2NT pass 3NT > pass 4D all pass > > of course, at 4D, I immediately offered > to alert 2NT because it was "for the minors" > evidently. At the table my mind went blank > wondering what Richard would do, and whether > I was allowed to bid 5D (making), or indeed, > whether I was even allowed to pass. > > Since it was a bad board anyway, I didn't think > much more about it until I got home when I > realised that I should have adjusted the board > back to 3NT down a few, since partner has so > clearly "used" the UI of my non alert. So, I find > that I cannot direct sitting down as I am sure that > I would have got it right standing up with my > director's hat on. > A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to > partner's system if partner makes an impossible bid > in my universe? I am sure that David Stevenson > had an article on his webpage at one stage on > the subject, but it seems to have gone now. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri May 23 18:01:13 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 18:01:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> DQ: Since the apparent system is "minors", the non-alert is UI. ton: Even if their system is 15-18 (so no alert) and the bid is done with the minors the non-alert is UI. So your shown statement is wrong. And to make your following reasoning acceptable the player should have taken a piece of paper to write down that he would bid 4D even if partner would bid 3NT. So it is all close to nonsense once more. But in order to find out LAs, you need to poll players. And it is wrong to poll them using the words "you bid 2NT for the minors", because that is not the situation Tony's partner was in. What you should ask the polled players is: "you want to show your minors but you are uncertain of your system. You decide to bid 2NT. Partner bids 3NT. What do you do?". I am quite certain that, when asked this way, most of the polled players would say "I interpret this as partner not having understood I have the minors.' Whether they would bid 4Di with the hand you give them is open to question, but the fact that they interpret it like that means the suggestion has fallen away (has become AI) and therefore, I would rule that Tony's partner is free to bid 4Di. My point: don't just tell the pollees what the system (apparently) is, give them the situation as the players experienced it at the table (minus the non-alert, of course). Herman. Tony Musgrove schreef: > Today I played with a partner with absolutely no system discussion, so > the bidding went: > > LHO CHO RHO Me > 2H (wk) 2NT pass 3NT > pass 4D all pass > > of course, at 4D, I immediately offered to alert 2NT because it was > "for the minors" > evidently. At the table my mind went blank wondering what Richard > would do, and whether I was allowed to bid 5D (making), or indeed, > whether I was even allowed to pass. > > Since it was a bad board anyway, I didn't think much more about it > until I got home when I realised that I should have adjusted the board > back to 3NT down a few, since partner has so clearly "used" the UI of > my non alert. So, I find that I cannot direct sitting down as I am > sure that I would have got it right standing up with my director's hat > on. > A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to partner's system if > partner makes an impossible bid in my universe? I am sure that David > Stevenson had an article on his webpage at one stage on the subject, > but it seems to have gone now. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat May 24 01:22:11 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 09:22:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <00d701cf76dd$d38f5630$7aae0290$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of ton > Sent: Saturday, 24 May 2014 2:01 AM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Remembering the system > > DQ: > Since the apparent system is "minors", the non-alert is UI. > > ton: > Even if their system is 15-18 (so no alert) and the bid is done with the > minors the non-alert is UI. So your shown statement is wrong. > > And to make your following reasoning acceptable the player should have > taken > a piece of paper to write down that he would bid 4D even if partner would > bid 3NT. So it is all close to nonsense once more. > > tony: I spent a sleepless night worrying about this problem, which actually caused little angst at the table as we ended up with a poor result in any case. My partner should have continued bidding in her universe as though I had alerted her 2NT as "for the minors". She therefore had no excuse but to pass 3NT. I, on the other hand, can work out that partner has used UI bid 4D, in an attempt to get me back on track. I would realise that any competent director will rule the contract back to 3NT (unless it makes), so I can bid on to 5D hoping that 3NT and 5D both make, but more likely we are in crash and burn territory. And so it happened. Our 4D contract greatly gruntled the opposition so no director call. Had I bid 5D with 3NT going down 2, I am not sure that at the table I would have the Richardian masochism to call myself to adjust the score, unless the opponents complained. As I have said, I find it hard to think like a director while sitting at the table. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 25 15:24:07 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 09:24:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <00d701cf76dd$d38f5630$7aae0290$@optusnet.com.au> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <00d701cf76dd$d38f5630$7aae0290$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:22:11 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of ton >> Sent: Saturday, 24 May 2014 2:01 AM >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Remembering the system >> >> DQ: >> Since the apparent system is "minors", the non-alert is UI. >> >> ton: >> Even if their system is 15-18 (so no alert) and the bid is done with > the >> minors the non-alert is UI. So your shown statement is wrong. >> >> And to make your following reasoning acceptable the player should have >> taken >> a piece of paper to write down that he would bid 4D even if partner > would >> bid 3NT. So it is all close to nonsense once more. >> >> > tony: I spent a sleepless night worrying about this problem, which > actually > caused little angst at the table as we ended up with a poor result in > any > case. My partner should have continued bidding in her universe as > though > I had alerted her 2NT as "for the minors". Is this true? I have been told the opposite, I believe -- that your partner has to bid as if you are behind a screen and he has heard nothing. > She therefore had no excuse > but > to pass 3NT. I, on the other hand, can work out that partner has used > UI bid 4D, in an attempt to get me back on track. I would realise that > any > competent director will rule the contract back to 3NT (unless it makes), > so > I can bid on to 5D hoping that 3NT and 5D both make, but more likely we > are > in crash and burn territory. > > And so it happened. Our 4D contract greatly gruntled the opposition so > no > director call. Had I bid 5D with 3NT going down 2, I am not sure that > at > the table I would have the Richardian masochism to call myself to adjust > the score, unless the opponents complained. > As I have said, I find it hard to think like a director while sitting at > the > table. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 25 15:26:49 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 09:26:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 May 2014 12:01:13 -0400, ton wrote: > DQ: > Since the apparent system is "minors", the non-alert is UI. > > ton: > Even if their system is 15-18 (so no alert) and the bid is done with the > minors the non-alert is UI. So your shown statement is wrong. > > And to make your following reasoning acceptable the player should have > taken > a piece of paper to write down that he would bid 4D even if partner would > bid 3NT. So it is all close to nonsense once more. Does writing something on a piece of paper protect against an L16 rectification? > > > > > > > > But in order to find out LAs, you need to poll players. And it is wrong > to > poll them using the words "you bid 2NT for the minors", because that is > not > the situation Tony's partner was in. > What you should ask the polled players is: "you want to show your minors > but > you are uncertain of your system. You decide to bid 2NT. Partner bids > 3NT. > What do you do?". > I am quite certain that, when asked this way, most of the polled players > would say "I interpret this as partner not having understood I have the > minors.' Whether they would bid 4Di with the hand you give them is open > to > question, but the fact that they interpret it like that means the > suggestion > has fallen away (has become AI) and therefore, I would rule that Tony's > partner is free to bid 4Di. > > My point: don't just tell the pollees what the system (apparently) is, > give > them the situation as the players experienced it at the table (minus the > non-alert, of course). > > Herman. > > Tony Musgrove schreef: >> Today I played with a partner with absolutely no system discussion, so >> the bidding went: >> >> LHO CHO RHO Me >> 2H (wk) 2NT pass 3NT >> pass 4D all pass >> >> of course, at 4D, I immediately offered to alert 2NT because it was >> "for the minors" >> evidently. At the table my mind went blank wondering what Richard >> would do, and whether I was allowed to bid 5D (making), or indeed, >> whether I was even allowed to pass. >> >> Since it was a bad board anyway, I didn't think much more about it >> until I got home when I realised that I should have adjusted the board >> back to 3NT down a few, since partner has so clearly "used" the UI of >> my non alert. So, I find that I cannot direct sitting down as I am >> sure that I would have got it right standing up with my director's hat >> on. >> A side problem is: am I allowed to wake up to partner's system if >> partner makes an impossible bid in my universe? I am sure that David >> Stevenson had an article on his webpage at one stage on the subject, >> but it seems to have gone now. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony (Sydney) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun May 25 15:43:12 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 15:43:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <005e01cf781f$45ce21d0$d16a6570$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert: Does writing something on a piece of paper protect against an L16 rectification? ton: This question is put too generally and L 16 is too 'big' to answer it with a 'yes' or 'no'. What I can say about this case is that if you proof that your action was prepared before it was possible to receive UI about it there was no LA for it? Don't you agree? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 25 20:22:28 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 14:22:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: <005e01cf781f$45ce21d0$d16a6570$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au> <537F04D8.10009@skynet.be> <00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <005e01cf781f$45ce21d0$d16a6570$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 May 2014 09:43:12 -0400, ton wrote: > > Robert: > Does writing something on a piece of paper protect against an L16 > rectification? > > > ton: > This question is put too generally and L 16 is too 'big' to answer it > with a > 'yes' or 'no'. > > What I can say about this case is that if you proof that your action was > prepared before it was possible to receive UI about it there was no LA > for > it? Don't you agree? > > I have never read the laws that way. A logical alternative is defined in terms of what similar players would consider doing and would do. When a player says, "I decided to bid 3 diamonds even before my partner hesitated," I don't say "I don't believe you," or "You have insufficient evidence for that claim." I always say, "That's not relevant." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 26 01:15:32 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 23:15:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9B456@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL cut the best bit. Our discussion afterwards went as follows: me: sorry pard, I always play it as natural there CHO: so do I , but I thought you might play for the minors Is this what "implicit" means? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) The late great Keith McNeil was the ringmaster of Australian Bridge magazine's Bidding Forum for twenty years. He observed that some experts solved their bidding problems by using what Keith called the "Chameleon System". A bid's meaning would vary according to the cards the expert held. Likewise, I suspect that CHO used the Chameleon System. CHO bid 2NT because CHO held 5/5 in the minors. But if CHO held 15-18 hcp balanced, CHO's Chameleon System would permit CHO to again overcall 2NT. In a Bidding Forum problem many years ago the scenario was that you were dealer and held 13 hcp and 4=4=3=2 (in that order). Bidding Forum used the Aussie Standard American system, so you were forced to open the bidding with your three-card diamond suit. LHO passed, partner passed, and RHO doubled. The Ivory Tower experts passed (oblivious to LHO maybe holding a diamond stack), the sensible experts removed to 1H, and then there was Richard Hills: "2C. Then redouble for rescue to find my best spot." Keith McNeil: "Your best spot is miles from any bridge table." Cheers, Richard (Canberra) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140525/02d0e205/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 26 01:56:41 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 00:56:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system In-Reply-To: References: <006801cf7641$68042e50$380c8af0$@optusnet.com.au><537F04D8.10009@skynet.be><00ea01cf76a0$38bd9ff0$aa38dfd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <1D53EE3799A34C6BAF20B4FB7F024BF4@G3> [Robert Frick] Does writing something on a piece of paper protect against an L16 rectification? [Groundhog] This is a recurring BLML theme. One problem is that there is no prescribed legal rectification if you decide to tear up your promissory note. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 26 06:31:36 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 04:31:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9B6C3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel "Groundhog" Guthrie: >This is a recurring BLML theme. [Writing down the call that you >would "always" make.] One problem is that there is no prescribed >legal rectification if you decide to tear up your promissory note. Richard "Python" Hills: The second problem is that it is completely irrelevant whether or not you would "always" make a particular call. The issue of Law that the Director must decide is whether a "significant proportion" of your peers would give "serious consideration" to an alternative call, "of whom it is judged some might select it". Law 16B1(b). Monty Python's Life of Brian: Brian: "Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!" A significant proportion of Brian's followers, after serious consideration, in unison: "Yes, we're all individuals!" 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/20140526/7cd3b8d5/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 26 22:54:01 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 16:54:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9B6C3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9B6C3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Hi Richard. The question is what happens when you declare to opponents what you are going to do before your partner even hesitates. As you imply in your answer, that is not the issue of Law >> UNOFFICIAL >Nigel ?Groundhog? Guthrie: > >> This is a recurring BLML theme. [Writing down the call that you >> would ?always? make.] One problem is that there is no prescribed >> legal rectification if you decide to tear up your promissory note. >Richard ?Python? Hills: >The second problem is that it is completely irrelevant whether or > not you would ?always? make a particular call. The issue of Law > that the Director must decide is whether a ?significant proportion? > of your peers would give ?serious consideration? to an alternative > call, ?of whom it is judged some might select it?. Law 16B1(b). >Monty Python?s Life of Brian: >Brian: ?Look. You?ve got it all wrong. You don?t need to follow > me. You don?t need to follow anybody! You?ve got to think for > yourselves. You?re all individuals!? >A significant proportion of Brian?s followers, after serious > consideration, in unison: ?Yes, we?re all individuals!? > 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/20140526/88b313b3/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue May 27 12:23:48 2014 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 12:23:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A9B6C3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1014356495.17559355.1401186228299.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Robert Frick" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Lundi 26 Mai 2014 22:54:01 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hi Richard. The question is what happens when you declare to opponents what > you are going to do before your partner even hesitates. blml had a long debate on this issue in a thread called "UI insurance" jpr > > As you imply in your answer, that is not the issue of Law > > > > > UNOFFICIAL > Nigel ?Groundhog? Guthrie: > >This is a recurring BLML theme. [Writing down the call that you > >would ?always? make.] One problem is that there is no prescribed > >legal rectification if you decide to tear up your promissory note. > Richard ?Python? Hills: > The second problem is that it is completely irrelevant whether or > not you would ?always? make a particular call. The issue of Law > that the Director must decide is whether a ?significant proportion? > of your peers would give ?serious consideration? to an alternative > call, ?of whom it is judged some might select it?. Law 16B1(b). > Monty Python?s Life of Brian: > Brian: ?Look. You?ve got it all wrong. You don?t need to follow > me. You don?t need to follow anybody! You?ve got to think for > yourselves. You?re all individuals!? > A significant proportion of Brian?s followers, after serious > consideration, in unison: ?Yes, we?re all individuals!? > UNOFFICIAL -- _______________________________________________ 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 29 00:40:38 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 22:40:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA37D7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >blml had a long debate on this issue in a thread called ?UI insurance? >jpr Richard Hills: In March 2003 Jean-Pierre quoted an earlier post from Grattan Endicott: ++++ Hi Vitold (and others); thank you for the private email. I am responding to part of it with a published note. The player?s remark is a gratuitous comment, not part of the action on the hand, and may be penalized if it affects the play. Say it puts opponent off doubling and the contract goes two down. A breach of Law 74A2 may be adjudged, and there is certainly a breach of 74B2 and consequently 74A3. There is no power by which the director can require the player at his turn to make good his stated intention. You will understand that I am not entering into any debate as to what is desirable. My purpose here is simply not to let the law as it stands become submerged, lost to sight. The discussion has tended to centre on what individuals feel the law should be and has been mis- represented in some of the postings. Where we go next is a matter for the WBFLC and I have no wish to pre-empt any corporate action of the Committee if it did feel inclined to change anything (not impossible, but I would be slightly surprised). When the player?s turn comes any UI available from partner affects what he may choose to do. The law stands apart from his illegal wriggles to try to avoid the situation, and whatever he may have known previously, he now has the extra knowledge that his partner would welcome whatever action the UI suggests. The law applies objective criteria which have nothing to do with what is in the player?s mind, his intentions, the basis for his action; these things are not the criteria for the application of the law which is based solely on the fact that he has been given UI and what he may now do assessed upon an objective comparison of his desired action with what other players would regard as LAs. ~ 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/20140528/2264e22e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 29 03:21:10 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:21:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Remembering the system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA386C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott (some years before March 2003): >>++++ Hi Vitold (and others); thank you for the private email. I am >>responding to part of it with a published note. The player?s remark is >>a gratuitous comment, not part of the action on the hand, and may be >>penalized if it affects the play. Say it puts opponent off doubling and >>the contract goes two down. A breach of Law 74A2 may be adjudged, >>and there is certainly a breach of 74B2 and consequently 74A3. >> There is no power by which the director can require the player >>at his turn to make good his stated intention. [snip] Ton Kooijman (March 2003): >I remember the thread yes, but I am sure I was not among those >rejecting this solution. And I still don?t see the unlawful (what is worse >than that?) action, though it is against regulations (description of the >auction procedure when using screens). I then described what happened >in a match with the Dutch ladies bidding to a slam in spades. After >cueing for the grand and having pushed the tray Marijke van der Pas >realized she only asked for trouble and should have bid 7 herself. So >she waved the 7S card on the table and waited for the tray to return. >That took indeed a considerable time. Opponents accepted. > >It doesn?t win the beauty contest, but I liked it. > >ton David Burn (March 2003): [snip] As I have said, if the officials make stupid rules, the players will just ignore them and get on with the game. David Burn London, England UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140529/28863bc9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 30 04:16:57 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 02:16:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Donquichotterie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331AA3D33@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Don Quixote: >>..... >>since no penalty is described, I do not interpret the WBFLC >>minute as making the [Don Quixote School] illegal. >>..... Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!" Strange Richard on blml with distribution of sword-sharp post: >In times past the Don has argued that because the DQS gives >an "intangible" benefit - its effect is that the Don's faithful >squire, Sancho Panza, avoids Law 75A constraints - there >would not be any Director who would adjust the score. Law 12A1: "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." Grattan Endicott, December 2009 [with ** by RH]: +=+ So it hinges on the interpretation of "indemnity". It is true that the dictionary states "compensation for loss or injury". But it also defines the word as "security from damage or loss". I consider this definition to be sufficient to cover protection from losses of all kinds **including intangible losses**. ~ 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/20140530/df19c5a0/attachment.html