From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 2 19:17:06 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:17:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: "unsubscribed" (dropped) from blml miling list In-Reply-To: <564ED006.9090208@gmail.com> References: <564ECFC1.30005@uijterwaal.nl> <564ED006.9090208@gmail.com> Message-ID: <565F35A2.7010202@nhcc.net> On 2015-11-20 2:47 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > What happens is that the AOL mail server cannot deliver a message to you > and is kind enough to inform the BLML server. The manager of another list I'm on reports that AOL causes more problems than most other ISPs because AOL randomly decides to mark list servers as spammers. Once AOL has done that, all list mail will bounce. Anyone still using AOL should look to switch. According to the same list manager, Yahoo also causes problems but not as frequently as AOL. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 2 19:43:51 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:43:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] played wrong boards Message-ID: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> This is more about practical directing than Laws, but I'll post anyway because the list has been so quiet. Feel free to skip if not interested. At a club game, we had 8 tables and played an 8-round Mitchell movement with tables 1 and 8 sharing boards (boards 1-3 in round 1) and a bye stand between tables 4 and 5 (boards 13-15 in round 1). In the second round, NS4 took boards 16-18 off the bye stand and played them against EW3 instead of playing boards 13-15 as scheduled. Oops! 1. the straightforward solution is that the round-2 scores on boards 16-18 count as played. NS4 get avg- on boards 13-15, which they will never play. For round 3, EW2 get avg+ on boards 16-18, which they can't play against NS4. In round 6, EW3 are supposed to play boards 16-18 at NS8 but can't. NS8 get avg+, and EW3 probably get avg+ also. (You could give them avg if you think they were partially responsible for the round 2 error, but that wouldn't be usual in the ACBL.) Does all that look correct? 2. is there a better solution than the straightforward one? In particular, is there a way to have more boards actually played and fewer artificial scores? From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Dec 2 21:40:47 2015 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:40:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: "unsubscribed" (dropped) from blml miling list In-Reply-To: <565F35A2.7010202@nhcc.net> References: <564ECFC1.30005@uijterwaal.nl> <564ED006.9090208@gmail.com> <565F35A2.7010202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Our experience is that Comcast also causes problems?but they say it?s just protecting us from messages originating from or bring routed through an untrustworthy ISP or node. All of our problems of this sort have been tied to messages originating in Europe?several associated with BLML, 4 from Germany, and 3 cases from Florence that we know of. > On Dec 2, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > On 2015-11-20 2:47 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> What happens is that the AOL mail server cannot deliver a message to you >> and is kind enough to inform the BLML server. > > The manager of another list I'm on reports that AOL causes more problems > than most other ISPs because AOL randomly decides to mark list servers > as spammers. Once AOL has done that, all list mail will bounce. Anyone > still using AOL should look to switch. > > According to the same list manager, Yahoo also causes problems but not > as frequently as AOL. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 22:56:27 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 08:56:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] played wrong boards In-Reply-To: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> References: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: "This is more about practical directing than Laws ..... " Richard Hills: Ii disagree. This scenario clearly falls within the remit of Law, with Law 15A1 stating: "The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board." and Law 15A2 states: "The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later." and Law 15B states: "Iif any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, the second score on the board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of an opportunity to earn a valid score." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, December 3, 2015, Steve Willner wrote: > This is more about practical directing than Laws, but I'll post anyway > because the list has been so quiet. Feel free to skip if not interested. > > At a club game, we had 8 tables and played an 8-round Mitchell movement > with tables 1 and 8 sharing boards (boards 1-3 in round 1) and a bye > stand between tables 4 and 5 (boards 13-15 in round 1). In the second > round, NS4 took boards 16-18 off the bye stand and played them against > EW3 instead of playing boards 13-15 as scheduled. Oops! > > 1. the straightforward solution is that the round-2 scores on boards > 16-18 count as played. NS4 get avg- on boards 13-15, which they will > never play. For round 3, EW2 get avg+ on boards 16-18, which they can't > play against NS4. In round 6, EW3 are supposed to play boards 16-18 at > NS8 but can't. NS8 get avg+, and EW3 probably get avg+ also. (You > could give them avg if you think they were partially responsible for the > round 2 error, but that wouldn't be usual in the ACBL.) Does all that > look correct? > > 2. is there a better solution than the straightforward one? In > particular, is there a way to have more boards actually played and fewer > artificial scores? > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151202/60c3be27/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 3 08:52:59 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 08:52:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] played wrong boards In-Reply-To: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> References: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <565FF4DB.4090602@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > This is more about practical directing than Laws, but I'll post anyway > because the list has been so quiet. Feel free to skip if not interested. > > At a club game, we had 8 tables and played an 8-round Mitchell movement > with tables 1 and 8 sharing boards (boards 1-3 in round 1) and a bye > stand between tables 4 and 5 (boards 13-15 in round 1). In the second > round, NS4 took boards 16-18 off the bye stand and played them against > EW3 instead of playing boards 13-15 as scheduled. Oops! > > 1. the straightforward solution is that the round-2 scores on boards > 16-18 count as played. NS4 get avg- on boards 13-15, which they will > never play. For round 3, EW2 get avg+ on boards 16-18, which they can't > play against NS4. In round 6, EW3 are supposed to play boards 16-18 at > NS8 but can't. NS8 get avg+, and EW3 probably get avg+ also. (You > could give them avg if you think they were partially responsible for the > round 2 error, but that wouldn't be usual in the ACBL.) Does all that > look correct? > No, you missed out one: EW3 have played boards 16-18, so they don't need an Average score. They have a real one. Four pairs cannot play the boards: -NS8 and EW2 cannot play boards 16-18. They should get Av+. The standard way is for pairs EW2 and EW3 to be exchanged on the scoresheet (and in the computer - a program must be able to do this) and then to get Av+ on the round they cannot play -NS4 and EW3 have not played boards 13-15, which they should have, but probably had no more time for. They should get Av- on those boards. Of course it is possible to have these four pairs play these boards in round 9, omitting all non-played boards. The director is empowered to order them to do this by Law 5B. In fact, when this happens, and the players notice it after the first board (which usually happens nowadays, with bridgemates, I order the pairs to complete the three boards they should, and I look for the round where NS8 meet EW2, and give them an extra board (16) in that round. > 2. is there a better solution than the straightforward one? In > particular, is there a way to have more boards actually played and fewer > artificial scores? As described above. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu Dec 3 14:51:51 2015 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 08:51:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] played wrong boards In-Reply-To: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> References: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <22752402-D724-4332-93D4-02B9E0E30128@wesleyan.edu> On 2015 Dec 2, at 13:43, Steve Willner wrote: > This is more about practical directing than Laws, but I'll post anyway > because the list has been so quiet. Feel free to skip if not interested. > > At a club game, we had 8 tables and played an 8-round Mitchell movement > with tables 1 and 8 sharing boards (boards 1-3 in round 1) and a bye > stand between tables 4 and 5 (boards 13-15 in round 1). In the second > round, NS4 took boards 16-18 off the bye stand and played them against > EW3 instead of playing boards 13-15 as scheduled. Oops! ... (In case you?re not aware of it, there?s a difference in terminology between North America and most of the rest of the world. What we in ACBL-land call a ?relay? and a ?bye stand,? others call a ?share? and a ?relay,? respectively.) The first part is easy: as Richard noted, by law you should count the 4-versus-3 scores on boards 16-18. The problems are: ? 4-versus-3 won?t have time to play boards 13-15 until the end, ? 4-versus-2 can?t play boards 16-18 in round 3, and ? 8-versus-3 can?t play boards 16-18 in round 6. Three possible solutions: ? 4-versus-2 sit out round 3. 8-versus-3 sit out round 6. Score 13-15 as average-minus for NS4 and average-plus for EW3. Score 16-18 as average-minus for NS4 and average-plus for NS8, EW2, and EW3. ? 4-versus-2 sit out round 3. 8-versus-3 sit out round 6. 4-versus-3 play 13-15 late. 8-versus-2 play 16-18 late. Give NS4 a procedural penalty. (Note that 4-versus-3 and 8-versus-2 play six boards, while 4-versus-2 and 8-versus-3 play no boards.) ? 4-versus-2 play boards 25-27 in round 3. 8-versus-3 play boards 25-27 in round 6. 25-27 become ?rover boards,? replacing other boards at, ideally, five more tables. You?ll have to print the movement and figure out a scheme. Your goal is to have 24 boards played seven times each (factored up to a 7 or 14 top) and three boards played eight times (7 or 14 top). (If you?re using ACBLscore, you?ll have to spend some quality time with EDMOV. It won?t let you schedule boards 25-27 if it thinks only 24 boards are in play, so you?ll have to use the ?Create your own Mitchell movement? option.) Some ways to reduce risk in the future: ? If you might play 24 boards with 8 or 12 tables, put B pairs at tables 1, 4, 8, and 12 and an unseeded A pair at table 6. (C pairs don?t know enough not to screw up the movement. A pairs don?t care enough not to screw up the movement!) ? When you board the bye stand, carefully instruct North at the table below the bye stand to be sure to take boards in order. ? Carefully supervise the first board movement. ? If possible, use electronic scorepads (e.g., Bridgemates). Among their many advantages, electronic scorepads make it almost impossible to play more than one wrong board. (I have an old set of Bridgemate Pros I?d love to sell for a reasonable price!) Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu Dec 3 15:11:51 2015 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:11:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] played wrong boards In-Reply-To: <22752402-D724-4332-93D4-02B9E0E30128@wesleyan.edu> References: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> <22752402-D724-4332-93D4-02B9E0E30128@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <988C06E2-B00B-4A58-BED4-F8541D1D7FC1@wesleyan.edu> On 2015 Dec 3, at 08:51, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > On 2015 Dec 2, at 13:43, Steve Willner wrote: > >> This is more about practical directing than Laws, but I'll post anyway >> because the list has been so quiet. Feel free to skip if not interested. >> >> At a club game, we had 8 tables and played an 8-round Mitchell movement >> with tables 1 and 8 sharing boards (boards 1-3 in round 1) and a bye >> stand between tables 4 and 5 (boards 13-15 in round 1). In the second >> round, NS4 took boards 16-18 off the bye stand and played them against >> EW3 instead of playing boards 13-15 as scheduled. Oops! ... > > (In case you?re not aware of it, there?s a difference in terminology between North America and most of the rest of the world. What we in ACBL-land call a ?relay? and a ?bye stand,? others call a ?share? and a ?relay,? respectively.) > > The first part is easy: as Richard noted, by law you should count the 4-versus-3 scores on boards 16-18. > > The problems are: > ? 4-versus-3 won?t have time to play boards 13-15 until the end, > ? 4-versus-2 can?t play boards 16-18 in round 3, and > ? 8-versus-3 can?t play boards 16-18 in round 6. > > Three possible solutions: > ? 4-versus-2 sit out round 3. 8-versus-3 sit out round 6. Score 13-15 as average-minus for NS4 and average-plus for EW3. Score 16-18 as average-minus for NS4 and average-plus for NS8, EW2, and EW3. Oops, only NS8 and EW2 get artificial scores (average-plus) on 16-18; NS4 and EW3 keep their real scores! > ? 4-versus-2 sit out round 3. 8-versus-3 sit out round 6. 4-versus-3 play 13-15 late. 8-versus-2 play 16-18 late. Give NS4 a procedural penalty. (Note that 4-versus-3 and 8-versus-2 play six boards, while 4-versus-2 and 8-versus-3 play no boards.) > ? 4-versus-2 play boards 25-27 in round 3. 8-versus-3 play boards 25-27 in round 6. 25-27 become ?rover boards,? replacing other boards at, ideally, five more tables. You?ll have to print the movement and figure out a scheme. Your goal is to have 24 boards played seven times each (factored up to a 7 or 14 top) and three boards played eight times (7 or 14 top). (If you?re using ACBLscore, you?ll have to spend some quality time with EDMOV. It won?t let you schedule boards 25-27 if it thinks only 24 boards are in play, so you?ll have to use the ?Create your own Mitchell movement? option.) > > Some ways to reduce risk in the future: > ? If you might play 24 boards with 8 or 12 tables, put B pairs at tables 1, 4, 8, and 12 and an unseeded A pair at table 6. (C pairs don?t know enough not to screw up the movement. A pairs don?t care enough not to screw up the movement!) > ? When you board the bye stand, carefully instruct North at the table below the bye stand to be sure to take boards in order. > ? Carefully supervise the first board movement. > ? If possible, use electronic scorepads (e.g., Bridgemates). Among their many advantages, electronic scorepads make it almost impossible to play more than one wrong board. (I have an old set of Bridgemate Pros I?d love to sell for a reasonable price!) > > Tim > > -- > Timothy N. Hill > mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 > 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA > Duplicate Bridge Director > American Contract Bridge League: > Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, > Newton Bridge Club: > -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 3 19:24:06 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 13:24:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule Message-ID: From last Saturday, at a club game. Someone asked me if the director could do anything. Question #1: Sitting first seat, both vul, what you open with this hand? A A753 A AKQ10653 Question #2. Did you open 7NT? If not, did you think about opening 7NT? Maybe opening 7NT is a reasonable bid, but I have to admit I'm not seeing it. If it isn't, how do you rule? (Of course it makes.) From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Dec 3 19:47:49 2015 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:47:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule References: Message-ID: > Question #1: Sitting first seat, both vul, what you open with this hand? > > A > A753 > A > AKQ10653 Just about anything you care to name including a psyche. > Question #2. Did you open 7NT? If not, did you think about opening 7NT? No, and no. > > Maybe opening 7NT is a reasonable bid, but I have to admit I'm not seeing > it. If it isn't, how do you rule? (Of course it makes.) > Nothing to rule on !!! If our hero opened 7N and it made, he was very lucky, that's all. Unless there are things that you have not disclosed of course. L _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Fri Dec 4 00:47:50 2015 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (thill75 at wesleyan.edu) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:47:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] played wrong boards In-Reply-To: <22752402-D724-4332-93D4-02B9E0E30128@wesleyan.edu> References: <565F3BE7.1050405@nhcc.net> <22752402-D724-4332-93D4-02B9E0E30128@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <5F3E9B64-A361-4991-85E5-8B71A219DA3A@wesleyan.edu> On 2015 Dec 3, at 08:51, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > ... > ? 4-versus-2 play boards 25-27 in round 3. 8-versus-3 play boards 25-27 in round 6. 25-27 become ?rover boards,? replacing other boards at, ideally, five more tables. You?ll have to print the movement and figure out a scheme. Your goal is to have 24 boards played seven times each (factored up to a 7 or 14 top) and three boards played eight times (7 or 14 top). ... On 2015 Dec 3, at 10:14, Steven Willner replied off-list: > ... I really like your suggestion of "rover boards." The problem is figuring out in real time where they should go. ... Right, but playing 25-27 just at the two tables that can?t play 16-18 is better than simultaneous sitouts, and any additional plays you can get on 25-27 are good. Note that ACBLscore uses normal matchpointing and Neuberg factoring if a board is played at least four times. With less than four plays, ACBLscore assigns variations on average-plus: three plays, 70% top, 50% bottom; two plays, 65% top, 55% bottom; one play, 60%. It should be easy to get at least two more tables, besides 4 and 8, to play 25-27. Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Dec 4 08:52:49 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:52:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25599311.16353872.1449215569877.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Robert Frick" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Jeudi 3 D?cembre 2015 19:24:06 > Objet: [BLML] How do you rule > From last Saturday, at a club game. Someone asked me if the director could do > anything. > Question #1: Sitting first seat, both vul, what you open with this hand? some available forcing opening > A > A753 > A > AKQ10653 > Question #2. Did you open 7NT? no > If not, did you think about opening 7NT? no > Maybe opening 7NT is a reasonable bid, but I have to admit I'm not seeing it. > If it isn't, how do you rule? (Of course it makes.) why is a ruling required? jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151204/be258999/attachment-0001.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 09:04:33 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:04:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 3 Dec 2015, at 18:24, Robert Frick wrote: > > From last Saturday, at a club game. Someone asked me if the director could do anything. > > Question #1: Sitting first seat, both vul, what you open with this hand? > > A > A753 > A > AKQ10653 > > > Question #2. Did you open 7NT? If not, did you think about opening 7NT? > > > > Maybe opening 7NT is a reasonable bid, but I have to admit I'm not seeing it. If it isn't, how do you rule? (Of course it makes.) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Dec 4 09:37:03 2015 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:37:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> von Gordon Rainsford > On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? see Law 16 C1 ... > > On 3 Dec 2015, at 18:24, Robert Frick wrote: > > > > From last Saturday, at a club game. Someone asked me if the director could > do anything. > > > > Question #1: Sitting first seat, both vul, what you open with this hand? > > > > A > > A753 > > A > > AKQ10653 > > > > > > Question #2. Did you open 7NT? If not, did you think about opening 7NT? > > > > > > > > Maybe opening 7NT is a reasonable bid, but I have to admit I'm not > > seeing it. If it isn't, how do you rule? (Of course it makes.) From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 10:24:29 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:24:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: > > von Gordon Rainsford >> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > > see Law 16 C1 ... You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 4 10:29:39 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:29:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001a01d12e76$4d960130$e8c20390$@online.no> Is there any indication in this thread that the player in question has received such extraneous information? The fact that the act may seem suspicious is no evidence. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Peter Eidt > Sendt: 4. desember 2015 09:37 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > > von Gordon Rainsford > > On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > > see Law 16 C1 ... > > > > > On 3 Dec 2015, at 18:24, Robert Frick wrote: > > > > > > From last Saturday, at a club game. Someone asked me if the director > could > > do anything. > > > > > > Question #1: Sitting first seat, both vul, what you open with this hand? > > > > > > A > > > A753 > > > A > > > AKQ10653 > > > > > > > > > Question #2. Did you open 7NT? If not, did you think about opening > 7NT? > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe opening 7NT is a reasonable bid, but I have to admit I'm not > > > seeing it. If it isn't, how do you rule? (Of course it makes.) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Dec 4 11:02:47 2015 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:02:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first seat with 7NT. That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) von Gordon Rainsford > > On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > von Gordon Rainsford > >> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > > > > see Law 16 C1 ... > > You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 4 11:29:20 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:29:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001e01d12e7e$a4becde0$ee3c69a0$@online.no> And who would deliberately incriminate himself if that were the situation? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Peter Eidt > Sendt: 4. desember 2015 11:03 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > > c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first seat with > 7NT. > That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) > > > von Gordon Rainsford > > > On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > > > von Gordon Rainsford > > >> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > > > > > > see Law 16 C1 ... > > > > You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 4 12:50:43 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:50:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <06de6207b95c6c381624a9762cf2b2f9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 03.12.2015 19:24, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > From last Saturday, at a club game. Someone asked me if the director > could do anything. > > Question #1: Sitting first seat, both vul, what you open with this > hand? > > A > A753 > A > AKQ10653 > > > Question #2. Did you open 7NT? If not, did you think about opening 7NT? > Of course not. The hand is surely right for whatever is strong in your system (2C in classical bridge, 2D in French standard). But there are circumstances when I would open 6C. Was partner barred ? This could explain the 7NT bid ; but when partner has incorrectly shown something (BOOt), you are barred, not partner. Now, let's read what follows. Best regards alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 4 14:00:26 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:00:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56618E6A.8050508@skynet.be> Peter Eidt schreef: > c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first seat with > 7NT. Maybe to goad the opponents into rescueing? :) > That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) > > > von Gordon Rainsford >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: >>> >>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? >>> >>> see Law 16 C1 ... >> >> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 16:29:30 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:29:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I wanted to take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: > > c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first seat with > 7NT. > That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) > > > von Gordon Rainsford >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: >>> >>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? >>> >>> see Law 16 C1 ... >> >> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 4 16:29:46 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:29:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <56618E6A.8050508@skynet.be> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <56618E6A.8050508@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 04.12.2015 14:00, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Peter Eidt schreef: >> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first >> seat with >> 7NT. > > Maybe to goad the opponents into rescueing? > :) This problem beats me. I don't understand what on Earth could be going on, except perhaps that there would be hints that the player "knew" the deal ? Like, he heard about a cold 7NT and that was one of the last deals in the tournament. If that's the case, he wasn't very clever ; he could have been proceeded more slowly. Please let un know. There is an old story about Roger Silberwasser, arguably the best player ever in Belgium, who spoke of an extraordinary 6D deal, knowing that some player (who shall remain unnamed) had long ears. Said player banged 6D thrice within the last 10 boards, none of which made, then Roger told him F2F about that wonderful deal ... from another tournament. He claimed he did it on purpose. Knowing him, I'm not sure that's true, but it's a good story anyway. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 4 16:36:31 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:36:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > > If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I wanted to > take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! [Sven Pran] EXACTLY ! > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > > > On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first > > seat with 7NT. > > That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) > > > > > > von Gordon Rainsford > >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: > >>> > >>> von Gordon Rainsford > >>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > >>> > >>> see Law 16 C1 ... > >> > >> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 16:47:25 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:47:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> Message-ID: <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence that there was UI to use. Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Gordon Rainsford >> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule >> >> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I wanted to >> take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! > [Sven Pran] > EXACTLY ! > >> >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief >> >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: >>> >>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first >>> seat with 7NT. >>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) >>> >>> >>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? >>>>> >>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... >>>> >>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 4 17:55:59 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:55:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001701d12eb4$a8081cf0$f81856d0$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:47 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > > In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence that > there was UI to use. [Sven Pran] Another EXACTLY ! > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > > > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Gordon Rainsford > >> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > >> > >> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I > >> wanted to take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! > > [Sven Pran] > > EXACTLY ! > > > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > >> > >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: > >>> > >>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first > >>> seat with 7NT. > >>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) > >>> > >>> > >>> von Gordon Rainsford > >>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> von Gordon Rainsford > >>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > >>>>> > >>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... > >>>> > >>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 5 02:22:41 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 20:22:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 10:47:25 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence that there was UI to use. I didn't find out until today, but the previous table discussed the hand, including that 7NT was making, and they told the director that. The player involved was not that good. Not horrible, not a beginner, but not known as a strong player at the club level. > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > >> On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Gordon Rainsford >>> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule >>> >>> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I wanted to >>> take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! >> [Sven Pran] >> EXACTLY ! >> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief >>> >>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: >>>> >>>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first >>>> seat with 7NT. >>>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? >>>>>> >>>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... >>>>> >>>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 5 02:32:30 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 20:32:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <25599311.16353872.1449215569877.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <25599311.16353872.1449215569877.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 02:52:49 -0500, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre wrote: > why is a ruling required? > jpr > What is the purpose of the laws? I asked people what they would bid with that hand. About 6 people said 2 Clubs (the artificial forcing opening) and one said 1 Club. Asked for a second choice, it was 1 Club (or 2 Clubs). When I asked for at third choice, most people thought I was daft -- there was no third choice. 2 people said they would pass. One had a 4NT convention as a third choice and 5 clubs as a fourth choice. So 7NT was not a logical alternative -- in my sample, it was chosen by no one, considered by no one, and with some pushing, not even conceivable by anyone. No one thought it was a clever bid, and no one thought he was lucky that his partner had the cards needed to make seven. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 06:32:19 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 16:32:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: Law 16C1, conclusion: "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): ..... "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." ..... Richard Hills: Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge Club, on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on preponderance of the evidence. I, North, held: Q98765 --- KQT85 QJ Uncontested auction. Hashmat Ali (South) opened a 15+ strong 1C. I was required by system to respond an artificial negative of 1D, as a positive response required a minimum of one ace or two kings. Hashmat now rebid 1NT (15-18, balanced or semi-balanced), so I tried a 2H transfer to spades. Hashmat bid a simple 2S, denying 4-card spade support. Now I jumped to 6D. Hashmat held: A KQJ6 J964 AKT6 With the ruffing finesse in hearts working 6Dx was a relatively easy make for +1090. At the other table North-South did not even bother trying for slam, instead resting in 3NT. Hence it could be argued that my unilateral leap to slam was not a Logical Alternative. Do the Laws permit a bad player (for what it is worth I have just received my Gold Grand Master certificate, signifying 5000 master points) to make a lucky bid? How would you rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence that > there was UI to use. > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > > > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne av > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > >> > >> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I wanted > to > >> take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! > > [Sven Pran] > > EXACTLY ! > > > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > >> > >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt > wrote: > >>> > >>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first > >>> seat with 7NT. > >>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) > >>> > >>> > >>> von Gordon Rainsford > >>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> von Gordon Rainsford > >>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > >>>>> > >>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... > >>>> > >>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151205/41156b1d/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 5 12:53:27 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 06:53:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5662D037.1080409@nhcc.net> On 2015-12-05 12:32 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > Hence it could be argued that my unilateral leap to slam was not a > Logical Alternative. That's a matter of bridge judgment. (Technically, "logical alternative" isn't a relevant question. Rather its a matter of Bayes' theorem: is a wire more probable than not?) On the given example, I think the jump to slam would receive quite a lot of support, especially if there are "state of match" considerations. The way to find out, though, is to poll players and ask what bids they would consider in the situation that existed. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 5 13:52:49 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 07:52:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 00:32:19 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Law 16C1, conclusion: > > "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of > the information." > > Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): > > ..... > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as > if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge Club, > on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on > preponderance of the evidence. > > I, North, held: > > Q98765 > --- > KQT85 > QJ > > Uncontested auction. Hashmat Ali (South) opened a 15+ strong 1C. I was > required by system to respond an artificial negative of 1D, as a positive > response required a minimum of one ace or two kings. > > Hashmat now rebid 1NT (15-18, balanced or semi-balanced), so I tried a 2H > transfer to spades. Hashmat bid a simple 2S, denying 4-card spade support. > > Now I jumped to 6D. > > Hashmat held: > > A > KQJ6 > J964 > AKT6 > > With the ruffing finesse in hearts working 6Dx was a relatively easy make > for +1090. > > At the other table North-South did not even bother trying for slam, instead > resting in 3NT. Hence it could be argued that my unilateral leap to slam > was not a Logical Alternative. > > Do the Laws permit a bad player (for what it is worth I have just received > my Gold Grand Master certificate, signifying 5000 master points) to make a > lucky bid? How would you rule? Are you saying that: 1. You thought this was a bad bid that was unlikely to succeed but had some small chance of succeeding? 2. There was a much better way of bidding the hand but you choose not to use it? 3. You cannot offer any explanation for why you bid the way you did? If not, then the situations are not comparable. If you genuinely think this is a bad bid that you made anyway with no logical justification, then yes, you probably heard that 6 diamonds makes. There is overwhelming research suggesting that people can be influenced by information that they don't even become conscious of (much less become conscious of and then forget). You should ask the director to change the result. That would be the ethical thing to do, Richard. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 5 14:44:41 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 14:44:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here. You know that your partner has a 16-18 NT hand and he has denied four spades. You hold 10 HCP plus distribution values. I consider your 6D bid to be a (fair) gamble with some merits and, unless evidence of UI is brought forward, the result stands without comments. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 5. desember 2015 06:32 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule Law 16C1, conclusion: "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): ..... "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." ..... Richard Hills: Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge Club, on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on preponderance of the evidence. I, North, held: Q98765 --- KQT85 QJ Uncontested auction. Hashmat Ali (South) opened a 15+ strong 1C. I was required by system to respond an artificial negative of 1D, as a positive response required a minimum of one ace or two kings. Hashmat now rebid 1NT (15-18, balanced or semi-balanced), so I tried a 2H transfer to spades. Hashmat bid a simple 2S, denying 4-card spade support. Now I jumped to 6D. Hashmat held: A KQJ6 J964 AKT6 With the ruffing finesse in hearts working 6Dx was a relatively easy make for +1090. At the other table North-South did not even bother trying for slam, instead resting in 3NT. Hence it could be argued that my unilateral leap to slam was not a Logical Alternative. Do the Laws permit a bad player (for what it is worth I have just received my Gold Grand Master certificate, signifying 5000 master points) to make a lucky bid? How would you rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Gordon Rainsford wrote: In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence that there was UI to use. Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran > wrote: > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne av >> Gordon Rainsford >> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule >> >> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I wanted to >> take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! > [Sven Pran] > EXACTLY ! > >> >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief >> >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt > wrote: >>> >>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first >>> seat with 7NT. >>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) >>> >>> >>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> von Gordon Rainsford >>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? >>>>> >>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... >>>> >>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ 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/20151205/4cc5e459/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 16:03:41 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 10:03:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 16:32:19 +1100, Richard Hills wrote: >Law 16C1, conclusion: > >"the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of >the information." > >Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): > >..... >"if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as >if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >..... > >Richard Hills: > >Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge Club, >on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on >preponderance of the evidence. > OK, if we're into example hands then I can't resist posting a hand which annoyed me intensely at the time. It's from a long time ago, so forgive the approximation of the hand in question. The event was a Swiss Pairs, and you hold 2=3=4=4 shape with 5 or 6 scattered HCPs. Let's call it xx Kxx Jxxx Qxxx and I'm probably not too far out. Now, your system. It's prehistoric Acol, so you have NO game forcing opener as such, but all four of your 2-of-a-suit openers are natural and unlimited strong twos, forcing for one round (the next suit up is your negative response, showing less than an Ace and a King, or 2NT over a 2S opener). First in hand, your partner opens 2S and your RHO passes. Does anyone want to give a rationale for a response other than the systemic 2NT negative? Brian. From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 16:56:01 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 15:56:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> On 5 Dec 2015, at 01:22, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 10:47:25 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence that there was UI to use. > > I didn't find out until today, but the previous table discussed the hand, including that 7NT was making, and they told the director that. So now we have a basis for looking at making a ruling. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Dec 5 18:51:50 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 17:51:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de><1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com><000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de><6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com><001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no><31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> [Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." [Nige1] That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 20:14:41 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 06:14:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: "The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here." Richard Hills: Yes, a bad player making a bad bid which gets lucky is not yet evidence of use-of-UI. One swallow does not make a summer. One weakness in my game is a taste for the spectacular. I frequently startle my three opponents with a leap to slam. And, of course, evidence contradicting the assertion of a "wire" is that a significant number of these slams fail. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Sven Pran wrote: > The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, > and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here. > > > > You know that your partner has a 16-18 NT hand and he has denied four > spades. You hold 10 HCP plus distribution values. > > > > I consider your 6D bid to be a (fair) gamble with some merits and, unless > evidence of UI is brought forward, the result stands without comments. > > > > *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org > ] *P? vegne av* > Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 5. desember 2015 06:32 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] How do you rule > > > > Law 16C1, conclusion: > > > > "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of > the information." > > > > Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): > > > > ..... > > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as > if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > ..... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge Club, > on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on > preponderance of the evidence. > > > > I, North, held: > > > > Q98765 > > --- > > KQT85 > > QJ > > > > Uncontested auction. Hashmat Ali (South) opened a 15+ strong 1C. I was > required by system to respond an artificial negative of 1D, as a positive > response required a minimum of one ace or two kings. > > > > Hashmat now rebid 1NT (15-18, balanced or semi-balanced), so I tried a 2H > transfer to spades. Hashmat bid a simple 2S, denying 4-card spade support. > > > > Now I jumped to 6D. > > > > Hashmat held: > > > > A > > KQJ6 > > J964 > > AKT6 > > > > With the ruffing finesse in hearts working 6Dx was a relatively easy make > for +1090. > > > > At the other table North-South did not even bother trying for slam, > instead resting in 3NT. Hence it could be argued that my unilateral leap to > slam was not a Logical Alternative. > > > > Do the Laws permit a bad player (for what it is worth I have just received > my Gold Grand Master certificate, signifying 5000 master points) to make a > lucky bid? How would you rule? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > > In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence that > there was UI to use. > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > > > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > >> > >> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I wanted > to > >> take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! > > [Sven Pran] > > EXACTLY ! > > > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > >> > >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: > >>> > >>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first > >>> seat with 7NT. > >>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) > >>> > >>> > >>> von Gordon Rainsford > >>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> von Gordon Rainsford > >>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? > >>>>> > >>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... > >>>> > >>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151205/f2870fe8/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 6 23:28:37 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2015 17:28:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 14:14:41 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > > "The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, > and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here." > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, a bad player making a bad bid which gets lucky is not yet evidence of > use-of-UI. One swallow does not make a summer. > > One weakness in my game is a taste for the spectacular. I frequently > startle my three opponents with a leap to slam. And, of course, evidence > contradicting the assertion of a "wire" is that a significant number of > these slams fail. Does everyone you show this auction to at your club think you had UI and used it? If not, the situations are not comparable. What do you mean by "significant"? 80%? You make your slam only 20% of the time? And intentionally bidding a 20% slam -- do you think that violates Law 72A? From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 04:40:49 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:40:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: There are some deals which require slow, super-scientific bidding (the reason that I use the Symmetric Relay system). But when you hold a freak distribution there is a practical reason for bashing a slam. If you have eschewed cuebidding your heart void, it is less likely a defender will find the killing opening lead of a club. Isaac Asimov, The End of Eternity: "We bred out the unusual." Only an incompetent Director would rule that a single unusual action was in and of itself conclusive evidence of use-of-UI. For example, in my case, over the decades there are many witnesses who could provide evidence that I meticulously abided by Laws 73C and 16C1, and that I frequently took unusual actions. Indeed, at the start of each session, one of my partners carefully removes all of my Redouble cards from my bidding box. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Richard Hills > wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > > "The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, > and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here." > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, a bad player making a bad bid which gets lucky is not yet evidence of > use-of-UI. One swallow does not make a summer. > > One weakness in my game is a taste for the spectacular. I frequently > startle my three opponents with a leap to slam. And, of course, evidence > contradicting the assertion of a "wire" is that a significant number of > these slams fail. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Sven Pran wrote: > >> The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, >> and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here. >> >> >> >> You know that your partner has a 16-18 NT hand and he has denied four >> spades. You hold 10 HCP plus distribution values. >> >> >> >> I consider your 6D bid to be a (fair) gamble with some merits and, unless >> evidence of UI is brought forward, the result stands without comments. >> >> >> >> *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne >> av* Richard Hills >> *Sendt:* 5. desember 2015 06:32 >> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Emne:* Re: [BLML] How do you rule >> >> >> >> Law 16C1, conclusion: >> >> >> >> "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient >> of the information." >> >> >> >> Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): >> >> >> >> ..... >> >> "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as >> if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >> >> ..... >> >> >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> >> >> Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge >> Club, on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on >> preponderance of the evidence. >> >> >> >> I, North, held: >> >> >> >> Q98765 >> >> --- >> >> KQT85 >> >> QJ >> >> >> >> Uncontested auction. Hashmat Ali (South) opened a 15+ strong 1C. I was >> required by system to respond an artificial negative of 1D, as a positive >> response required a minimum of one ace or two kings. >> >> >> >> Hashmat now rebid 1NT (15-18, balanced or semi-balanced), so I tried a 2H >> transfer to spades. Hashmat bid a simple 2S, denying 4-card spade support. >> >> >> >> Now I jumped to 6D. >> >> >> >> Hashmat held: >> >> >> >> A >> >> KQJ6 >> >> J964 >> >> AKT6 >> >> >> >> With the ruffing finesse in hearts working 6Dx was a relatively easy make >> for +1090. >> >> >> >> At the other table North-South did not even bother trying for slam, >> instead resting in 3NT. Hence it could be argued that my unilateral leap to >> slam was not a Logical Alternative. >> >> >> >> Do the Laws permit a bad player (for what it is worth I have just >> received my Gold Grand Master certificate, signifying 5000 master points) >> to make a lucky bid? How would you rule? >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >> In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence >> that there was UI to use. >> >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief >> >> > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >> av >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 >> >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule >> >> >> >> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I >> wanted to >> >> take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! >> > [Sven Pran] >> > EXACTLY ! >> > >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief >> >> >> >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> >> >>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first >> >>> seat with 7NT. >> >>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> von Gordon Rainsford >> >>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> von Gordon Rainsford >> >>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... >> >>>> >> >>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20151207/43fb9b6f/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 13:06:49 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 23:06:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> Message-ID: Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." [Nige1] That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. Richard Hills: When Edgar Kaplan first formed his partnership with Alfred Sheinwold their Kaplan-Sheinwold system incorporated controlled / pseudo-psyches. Kaplan later insisted the pseudo-psyches be dropped from their system. This was because Sheinwold would have made a hopeless poker player; whenever Sheinwold opened a pseudo-psyche he gave an infinitesimal twitch (which poker players call a "tell") which Kaplan would read. But I reiterate that one swallow does not make a summer. Edgar Kaplan could not deduce the meaning of Alfred Sheinwold's twitch on the first occasion that it occurred. So when John (MadDog) Probst investigated a potential online cheater, MadDog did not merely analyse one deal, instead MadDog analysed 300 deals. Best wishes, Richard Hills PS The only times that I get "tells" from Hashmat Ali is when he bids much slower than his normally slow pace in the middle of a game-forcing relay auction. This tells me that Hashmat has realised he made an error earlier in the relay auction, and he is pondering how to minimise the damage. However, a secondary advantage of playing a relay system is that ethical use of Law 73C is easy, since there is almost always only one Logical Alternative for the final contract. On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as > if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > [Nige1] > That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely > explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used > UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151207/dee63523/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Dec 7 14:24:03 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:24:03 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> Message-ID: <1609188701.16882022.1449494643307.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Richard Hills" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Lundi 7 D?cembre 2015 13:06:49 > Objet: Re: [BLML] How do you rule > Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." eternal return of the coincidence rule jpr > [Nige1] > That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely > explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used > UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. > Richard Hills: > When Edgar Kaplan first formed his partnership with Alfred Sheinwold their > Kaplan-Sheinwold system incorporated controlled / pseudo-psyches. Kaplan > later insisted the pseudo-psyches be dropped from their system. This was > because Sheinwold would have made a hopeless poker player; whenever > Sheinwold opened a pseudo-psyche he gave an infinitesimal twitch (which > poker players call a "tell") which Kaplan would read. > But I reiterate that one swallow does not make a summer. Edgar Kaplan could > not deduce the meaning of Alfred Sheinwold's twitch on the first occasion > that it occurred. So when John (MadDog) Probst investigated a potential > online cheater, MadDog did not merely analyse one deal, instead MadDog > analysed 300 deals. > Best wishes, > Richard Hills > PS The only times that I get "tells" from Hashmat Ali is when he bids much > slower than his normally slow pace in the middle of a game-forcing relay > auction. This tells me that Hashmat has realised he made an error earlier in > the relay auction, and he is pondering how to minimise the damage. > However, a secondary advantage of playing a relay system is that ethical use > of Law 73C is easy, since there is almost always only one Logical > Alternative for the final contract. > On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Nigel Guthrie < g3 at nige1.com > wrote: > > [Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] > > > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as > > if > > > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > > [Nige1] > > > That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely > > > explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used > > > UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > > > Blml at rtflb.org > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151207/bca14c4e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 7 14:59:25 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 08:59:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 07:06:49 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > [Nige1] > That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely > explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used > UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. > > Richard Hills: > > When Edgar Kaplan first formed his partnership with Alfred Sheinwold their > Kaplan-Sheinwold system incorporated controlled / pseudo-psyches. Kaplan > later insisted the pseudo-psyches be dropped from their system. This was > because Sheinwold would have made a hopeless poker player; whenever > Sheinwold opened a pseudo-psyche he gave an infinitesimal twitch (which > poker players call a "tell") which Kaplan would read. > > But I reiterate that one swallow does not make a summer. Edgar Kaplan could > not deduce the meaning of Alfred Sheinwold's twitch on the first occasion > that it occurred. So when John (MadDog) Probst investigated a potential > online cheater, MadDog did not merely analyse one deal, instead MadDog > analysed 300 deals. I feel like we've walked into a room with a man holding a gun over a dead body and you keep saying one swallow does not make a summer. The laws very rarely require 100% certainty before attempting to protect players who were likely damaged. It (usually) finds gentle ways to protect them. Are you saying that you make a different ruling if some of the players at the club claim this player listens to results from the previous table? Because that's dangerous territory. Go: what are your rulings depending on what the other players tell you about this player. And, you cannot know all of Ali's tells. To be more precise, you can know all of his tells, but you can't know that you know all of his tells. People naturally use cues they are unaware of. You forgot to answer my questions from the last email. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > PS The only times that I get "tells" from Hashmat Ali is when he bids much > slower than his normally slow pace in the middle of a game-forcing relay > auction. This tells me that Hashmat has realised he made an error earlier > in the relay auction, and he is pondering how to minimise the damage. > > However, a secondary advantage of playing a relay system is that ethical > use of Law 73C is easy, since there is almost always only one Logical > Alternative for the final contract. > > > On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] >> "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as >> if >> you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >> >> [Nige1] >> That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely >> explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used >> UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 7 15:08:47 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 09:08:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 22:40:49 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > There are some deals which require slow, super-scientific bidding (the > reason that I use the Symmetric Relay system). But when you hold a freak > distribution there is a practical reason for bashing a slam. If you have > eschewed cuebidding your heart void, it is less likely a defender will find > the killing opening lead of a club. > > Isaac Asimov, The End of Eternity: "We bred out the unusual." Only an > incompetent Director would rule that a single unusual action was in and of > itself conclusive evidence of use-of-UI. Actually, in the usual situations, our laws NEVER require us to say a player has used UI. That's one of the problems here -- the laws give us no way to make this ruling without saying the player cheated. I am sorry I did not explain that problem more clearly. You get your wish. The competent director at that game let that player keep his 7 NT bid. But one player described the situation as "absurd". It makes the laws look incompetent. Is that what we want? And I have taken away a score based on assumed use of UI. You can call that incompetence -- I call it doing the right thing. He opened a normal 18-19 HCP hand with one of a minor, he partner (wife) bid 1 heart, and he rebid 1NT. She had about only 4 HCP and was saving, everyone else was in either 1 Club or 2 NT doing badly, and he got a top. It was his first and last time at the club, if you want to use your one swallow metaphor. I asked him why he bid 1NT, and his only explanation was that he could bid whatever he wanted. So it wasn't a mistake, it was a choice. For example, in my case, over the > decades there are many witnesses who could provide evidence that I > meticulously abided by Laws 73C and 16C1, and that I frequently took > unusual actions. Indeed, at the start of each session, one of my partners > carefully removes all of my Redouble cards from my bidding box. :-) :-) > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> "The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, >> and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yes, a bad player making a bad bid which gets lucky is not yet evidence of >> use-of-UI. One swallow does not make a summer. >> >> One weakness in my game is a taste for the spectacular. I frequently >> startle my three opponents with a leap to slam. And, of course, evidence >> contradicting the assertion of a "wire" is that a significant number of >> these slams fail. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The only (possibly) questionable call in this auction is your jump to 6D, >>> and honestly I see no reason from your story to invoke Law 16 here. >>> >>> >>> >>> You know that your partner has a 16-18 NT hand and he has denied four >>> spades. You hold 10 HCP plus distribution values. >>> >>> >>> >>> I consider your 6D bid to be a (fair) gamble with some merits and, unless >>> evidence of UI is brought forward, the result stands without comments. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne >>> av* Richard Hills >>> *Sendt:* 5. desember 2015 06:32 >>> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> *Emne:* Re: [BLML] How do you rule >>> >>> >>> >>> Law 16C1, conclusion: >>> >>> >>> >>> "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient >>> of the information." >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): >>> >>> >>> >>> ..... >>> >>> "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as >>> if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >>> >>> ..... >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> >>> >>> Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge >>> Club, on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on >>> preponderance of the evidence. >>> >>> >>> >>> I, North, held: >>> >>> >>> >>> Q98765 >>> >>> --- >>> >>> KQT85 >>> >>> QJ >>> >>> >>> >>> Uncontested auction. Hashmat Ali (South) opened a 15+ strong 1C. I was >>> required by system to respond an artificial negative of 1D, as a positive >>> response required a minimum of one ace or two kings. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hashmat now rebid 1NT (15-18, balanced or semi-balanced), so I tried a 2H >>> transfer to spades. Hashmat bid a simple 2S, denying 4-card spade support. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now I jumped to 6D. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hashmat held: >>> >>> >>> >>> A >>> >>> KQJ6 >>> >>> J964 >>> >>> AKT6 >>> >>> >>> >>> With the ruffing finesse in hearts working 6Dx was a relatively easy make >>> for +1090. >>> >>> >>> >>> At the other table North-South did not even bother trying for slam, >>> instead resting in 3NT. Hence it could be argued that my unilateral leap to >>> slam was not a Logical Alternative. >>> >>> >>> >>> Do the Laws permit a bad player (for what it is worth I have just >>> received my Gold Grand Master certificate, signifying 5000 master points) >>> to make a lucky bid? How would you rule? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Gordon Rainsford >>> wrote: >>> >>> In any case we can't rule that he used UI without having any evidence >>> that there was UI to use. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief >>> >>> > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>> av >>> >> Gordon Rainsford >>> >> Sendt: 4. desember 2015 16:30 >>> >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule >>> >> >>> >> If I was in receipt of UI that 7NT was making on this hand and I >>> wanted to >>> >> take advantage of it, the last thing I would do is open 7NT! >>> > [Sven Pran] >>> > EXACTLY ! >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief >>> >> >>> >>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 10:02, Peter Eidt wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> c'mon guys ... who on earth will open with Axxx in hearts in first >>> >>> seat with 7NT. >>> >>> That is not a gamble, that's suicide ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> von Gordon Rainsford >>> >>>>> On 4 Dec 2015, at 08:37, Peter Eidt wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> von Gordon Rainsford >>> >>>>>> On what basis have we been asked for a ruling? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> see Law 16 C1 ... >>> >>>> >>> >>>> You seem to have information not available to the rest of us Peter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 7 17:24:34 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:24:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20c7e341e6a3f4bb74a75035fccf4e4e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 05.12.2015 06:32, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Law 16C1, conclusion: > > "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the > recipient of the information." > > Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): > > ..... > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule > as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge > Club, on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on > preponderance of the evidence. > > I, North, held: > > Q98765 > --- > KQT85 > QJ > > Uncontested auction. Hashmat Ali (South) opened a 15+ strong 1C. I was > required by system to respond an artificial negative of 1D, as a > positive response required a minimum of one ace or two kings. > > Hashmat now rebid 1NT (15-18, balanced or semi-balanced), so I tried a > 2H transfer to spades. Hashmat bid a simple 2S, denying 4-card spade > support. > > Now I jumped to 6D. > Richard is right in asking for caution, but at least some players would have thought of making a slam try in diamonds with this hand, so it isn't the same situation. (probably 3D wouldn't have been forcing after the negative response) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 7 17:27:04 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:27:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <20151205151234.CBCFBB6F0454@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <20151205151234.CBCFBB6F0454@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <95b1529c01d4320cdb232e007168a014@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 05.12.2015 16:03, brian a ?crit?: > On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 16:32:19 +1100, Richard Hills wrote: > >> Law 16C1, conclusion: >> >> "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the >> recipient of >> the information." >> >> Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread): >> >> ..... >> "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule >> as >> if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >> ..... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Last Tuesday night, an imped teams tournament at the Canberra Bridge >> Club, >> on board 22 there was an obvious Law 16C1 infraction ("wire") on >> preponderance of the evidence. >> > > OK, if we're into example hands then I can't resist posting a hand > which annoyed me intensely at the time. It's from a long time ago, so > forgive the approximation of the hand in question. The event was a > Swiss Pairs, and you hold 2=3=4=4 shape with 5 or 6 scattered HCPs. > Let's call it xx Kxx Jxxx Qxxx and I'm probably not too far out. > Now, your system. It's prehistoric Acol, so you have NO game forcing > opener as such, but all four of your 2-of-a-suit openers are natural > and unlimited strong twos, forcing for one round (the next suit up is > your negative response, showing less than an Ace and a King, or 2NT > over a 2S opener). > > First in hand, your partner opens 2S and your RHO passes. > > Does anyone want to give a rationale for a response other than the > systemic 2NT negative? I consider a 4S bid possible. Especially from a client. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 7 17:29:26 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:29:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de><1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com><000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de><6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com><001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no><31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> Message-ID: <56fa6d05492e30453d595cb6f2443818@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 05.12.2015 18:51, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit?: > [Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule > as if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > [Nige1] > That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely > explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately > used > UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. > Yes, but there remaisn a problem. i don't think that a player with a wire would have opened 7NT, so this reasoning doesn't apply. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 17:43:21 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 03:43:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <1609188701.16882022.1449494643307.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> <1609188701.16882022.1449494643307.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." Jean-Pierre Rocafort: eternal return of the coincidence rule jpr Richard Hills: Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: "There ain't no such animal." Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: East-West I, South, hold: AK A7 AKQJ7 9753 After two passes East opens 1NT (14-16), and I choose a boring penalty double. Now West rescues to 2S, passed back to me. 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual, which was first published in the 1980s. It deals with a situation like this when one player takes an overbid and the other player an underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, this Rule can be applied." I took an overbid to 3NT despite pard's bidding being consistent with pard holding a Yarborough. My 1995 ACBL pard had underbid with: Qxx xxxx Tx xxxx so our two actions had worked together to produce a good result. Hence our 1995 ACBL opponents summoned the 1995 ACBL Director. Applying the Rule of Coincidence saw the Director adjust our score from 3NT +400 to Average Minus. But wait, there's more! This hand actually occurred in 2008 in Canberra, so my 2008 Aussie opponents did not bother summoning the 2008 Aussie Director. But wait, there's more! My 2008 Aussie pard had passed perfectly with: xxx Txxxx xxx xx so my overbid to 3NT produced a bad result of -50. This is the logical flaw in the Rule of Coincidence. Its basis is that a lucky overbid MUST be the result of a conspiracy to infract the Laws, ignoring the many counter-examples when that same player's optimistic style is unlucky. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre < jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr> wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > *De: *"Richard Hills" > > *?: *"Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > *Envoy?: *Lundi 7 D?cembre 2015 13:06:49 > *Objet: *Re: [BLML] How do you rule > > Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as > if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > eternal return of the coincidence rule > jpr > > > > [Nige1] > That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely > explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately used > UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. > > Richard Hills: > > When Edgar Kaplan first formed his partnership with Alfred Sheinwold their > Kaplan-Sheinwold system incorporated controlled / pseudo-psyches. Kaplan > later insisted the pseudo-psyches be dropped from their system. This was > because Sheinwold would have made a hopeless poker player; whenever > Sheinwold opened a pseudo-psyche he gave an infinitesimal twitch (which > poker players call a "tell") which Kaplan would read. > > But I reiterate that one swallow does not make a summer. Edgar Kaplan > could not deduce the meaning of Alfred Sheinwold's twitch on the first > occasion that it occurred. So when John (MadDog) Probst investigated a > potential online cheater, MadDog did not merely analyse one deal, instead > MadDog analysed 300 deals. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > PS The only times that I get "tells" from Hashmat Ali is when he bids much > slower than his normally slow pace in the middle of a game-forcing relay > auction. This tells me that Hashmat has realised he made an error earlier > in the relay auction, and he is pondering how to minimise the damage. > > However, a secondary advantage of playing a relay system is that ethical > use of Law 73C is easy, since there is almost always only one Logical > Alternative for the final contract. > > > On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > >> [Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] >> "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule as >> if >> you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >> >> [Nige1] >> That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely >> explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately >> used >> UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Jean-Pierre Rocafort > METEO-FRANCE > DSI/D/BP > 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis > 31057 Toulouse CEDEX > Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) > Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) > e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr > > > Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr > _______________________________________________ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151207/7b13db35/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 7 18:57:06 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 18:57:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> Message-ID: Le 07.12.2015 13:06, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] > "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule > as if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > [Nige1] > That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely > explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately > used > UI.? He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. > > Richard Hills: > > When Edgar Kaplan first formed his partnership with Alfred Sheinwold > their Kaplan-Sheinwold system incorporated controlled / > pseudo-psyches. Kaplan later insisted the pseudo-psyches be dropped > from their system. This was because Sheinwold would have made a > hopeless poker player; whenever Sheinwold opened a pseudo-psyche he > gave an infinitesimal twitch (which poker players call a "tell") which > Kaplan would read.? > > But I reiterate that one swallow does not make a summer. Edgar Kaplan > could not deduce the meaning of Alfred Sheinwold's twitch on the first > occasion that it occurred. So when John (MadDog) Probst investigated a > potential online cheater, MadDog did not merely analyse one deal, > instead MadDog analysed 300 deals. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > PS The only times that I get "tells" from Hashmat Ali is when he bids > much slower than his normally slow pace in the middle of a > game-forcing relay auction. This tells me that Hashmat has realised he > made an error earlier in the relay auction, and he is pondering how to > minimise the damage. AG : one partner once said to me, after the bidding had begun : 1H (2D) 3C by me after some delay : 'I knew you were going to raise me in some way' Indeed, competitive raises are rather complex in our system, other bids being easier. 3C was a transfer-cue, hence a raise. So, partner had UI from my tempo (I'm usually a quick bidder). However, he immediately recieved AI which perfectly matched UI, so we decided this wasn't going to be a problem in the future. (or do you think that the tempo helps partner know that I didn't forget my system ?) The most problematic quasi-UI hints are from the way a player reaches for the cards in his BB. No problem, of course, behind screenes, but else, it is the equivalent of a firm/hesitating bid. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 7 18:59:53 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 18:59:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <413643A9-06ED-4676-BEE7-4499DB8B7269@gmail.com> <1EBF7F4E7CF44F3294ED905F86B37AF8@G3> Message-ID: <63ce47098e82e40ff1950c186838d6a3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 07.12.2015 14:59, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 07:06:49 -0500, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> Steve Willner (posting on earlier thread)] >> "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done we rule >> as if >> you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >> >> [Nige1] >> That seems reasonable where UI is the overwhelmingly most likely >> explanation. IMO that doesn't imply the putative offender deliberately >> used >> UI. He may be unaware of subliminal or unconscious clues. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> When Edgar Kaplan first formed his partnership with Alfred Sheinwold >> their >> Kaplan-Sheinwold system incorporated controlled / pseudo-psyches. >> Kaplan >> later insisted the pseudo-psyches be dropped from their system. This >> was >> because Sheinwold would have made a hopeless poker player; whenever >> Sheinwold opened a pseudo-psyche he gave an infinitesimal twitch >> (which >> poker players call a "tell") which Kaplan would read. >> >> But I reiterate that one swallow does not make a summer. Edgar Kaplan >> could >> not deduce the meaning of Alfred Sheinwold's twitch on the first >> occasion >> that it occurred. So when John (MadDog) Probst investigated a >> potential >> online cheater, MadDog did not merely analyse one deal, instead MadDog >> analysed 300 deals. > > > I feel like we've walked into a room with a man holding a gun over a > dead body and you keep saying one swallow does not make a summer. The culprit fled, and the guy only picked the gun. Impossible ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 7 19:05:23 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 19:05:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: Le 07.12.2015 15:08, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 22:40:49 -0500, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> There are some deals which require slow, super-scientific bidding (the >> reason that I use the Symmetric Relay system). But when you hold a >> freak >> distribution there is a practical reason for bashing a slam. If you >> have >> eschewed cuebidding your heart void, it is less likely a defender will >> find >> the killing opening lead of a club. >> >> Isaac Asimov, The End of Eternity: "We bred out the unusual." Only an >> incompetent Director would rule that a single unusual action was in >> and of >> itself conclusive evidence of use-of-UI. > > Actually, in the usual situations, our laws NEVER require us to say a > player has used UI. That's one of the problems here -- the laws give > us no way to make this ruling without saying the player cheated. I am > sorry I did not explain that problem more clearly. > > You get your wish. The competent director at that game let that player > keep his 7 NT bid. But one player described the situation as "absurd". > It makes the laws look incompetent. Is that what we want? > > And I have taken away a score based on assumed use of UI. You can call > that incompetence -- I call it doing the right thing. He opened a > normal 18-19 HCP hand with one of a minor, he partner (wife) bid 1 > heart, and he rebid 1NT. She had about only 4 HCP and was saving, > everyone else was in either 1 Club or 2 NT doing badly, and he got a > top. It was his first and last time at the club, if you want to use > your one swallow metaphor. I asked him why he bid 1NT, and his only > explanation was that he could bid whatever he wanted. So it wasn't a > mistake, it was a choice. I think we were there before. It isn't conclusive to me. What would you have said if that were the bidding behind screens ? That he heard his partner hesitate ? It is quite possible that his reaction was epidermic (what are you messing with ?) and that there was an explanation. Perhaps they play an uncommon system (like 1D then 1NT = 12-14, 1C then 1NT = 18-20) and the player didn't know that this is what he should have answered ? After all, you said you didn't know him. So, you would have penalized him for not knowing how to defend himself. Badly wrong. You should, at the very last, have asked him what his 1NT meant in his system, before concluding anything. Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 14:18:25 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 00:18:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche Message-ID: Reviving last year's thread. Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: South, Vul: North-South. In an uncontested auction you, North, hold: 984 AJ AQ9 AQ852 South opens 1H and you elect to respond a non-systemic but lead-discouraging 1S. Alas, South jumps to 3S. To prevent a debacle in a spade contract you convert to 6NT, all pass (although South spends some time pondering the merits of 7S). East holds: KQ 8742 T742 KJ3 and chooses the opening lead of the king of spades. Then dummy displays: AT62 K9653 KJ83 --- Declarer ducks the first trick. Given the auction, East naturally believed that a spade continuation would be futile. So at trick two East switched to the three of clubs, a serious error which conceded the twelfth trick. However, East's serious error was related to the infraction, if there was an infraction. Thus as Director would you rule Concealed Partnership Understanding and/or Rule of Coincidence? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151208/96fb0727/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 8 17:31:03 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 17:31:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05e27deeb6ceab1530f9cabede8395d2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 08.12.2015 14:18, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Reviving last year's thread. > > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: South, Vul: North-South. In an uncontested > auction you, North, hold: > > 984 > AJ > AQ9 > AQ852 > > South opens 1H and you elect to respond a non-systemic but > lead-discouraging 1S. Alas, South jumps to 3S. To prevent a debacle in > a spade contract you convert to 6NT, all pass (although South spends > some time pondering the merits of 7S). > > East holds: > > KQ > 8742 > T742 > KJ3 > > and chooses the opening lead of the king of spades. Then dummy > displays: > > AT62 > K9653 > KJ83 > --- > > Declarer ducks the first trick. Given the auction, East naturally > believed that a spade continuation would be futile. So at trick two > ?East switched to the three of clubs, a serious error which conceded > the twelfth trick. > > However, East's serious error was related to the infraction, if there > was an infraction. Thus as Director would you rule Concealed > Partnership Understanding and/or Rule of Coincidence? > Infraction ? Which infraction ? Since when is a psyche an infraction ? And yes, when the player blasts 6NT, partner is allowed to deduce that something has happened (from a psyche to a slip of the bidding box to thinking one was playing Kokish inversion). The bid is odd enough to awaken partner. Also, in pairs, 6NT is a very definitive bid. Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Dec 9 00:02:26 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:02:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: <05e27deeb6ceab1530f9cabede8395d2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <05e27deeb6ceab1530f9cabede8395d2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asked: Since when is a psyche an infraction? Richard Hills: When it is a pseudo-psyche. Law 40A3 gives a player a mere *conditional* right to psyche and false-card, as that Law concludes with the caveat "(see Law 40C1)". Alain Gottcheiner: Also, in pairs, 6NT is a very definitive bid. Richard Hills: Not relevant. Alain shares the common misapprehension that it is the so-called "fielding" of a pseudo-psyche which is the infraction. Rather Law 40C1 states: "...Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed..." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, December 9, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 08.12.2015 14:18, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Reviving last year's thread. > > > > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: South, Vul: North-South. In an uncontested > > auction you, North, hold: > > > > 984 > > AJ > > AQ9 > > AQ852 > > > > South opens 1H and you elect to respond a non-systemic but > > lead-discouraging 1S. Alas, South jumps to 3S. To prevent a debacle in > > a spade contract you convert to 6NT, all pass (although South spends > > some time pondering the merits of 7S). > > > > East holds: > > > > KQ > > 8742 > > T742 > > KJ3 > > > > and chooses the opening lead of the king of spades. Then dummy > > displays: > > > > AT62 > > K9653 > > KJ83 > > --- > > > > Declarer ducks the first trick. Given the auction, East naturally > > believed that a spade continuation would be futile. So at trick two > > East switched to the three of clubs, a serious error which conceded > > the twelfth trick. > > > > However, East's serious error was related to the infraction, if there > > was an infraction. Thus as Director would you rule Concealed > > Partnership Understanding and/or Rule of Coincidence? > > > > > Infraction ? Which infraction ? Since when is a psyche an infraction ? > > And yes, when the player blasts 6NT, partner is allowed to deduce that > something has happened (from a psyche to a slip of the bidding box to > thinking one was playing Kokish inversion). The bid is odd enough to > awaken partner. > > Also, in pairs, 6NT is a very definitive bid. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151208/69c27d3a/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Dec 9 23:30:12 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:30:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While I have a general reputation for unusual bidding (yes, I was North), I carefully arrange for my psyches to suffer a sea change into something rare and strange. Hence my psyches are too infrequent to create Law 40C1 implicit partnership understandings. So I avoided a pseudo-ethical summoning of the Director against myself. Eric Landau has repeatedly asserted that the ACBL has a policy of "one psyche in a lifetime". Is this an illegal policy, contrary to the 2007 Lawbook? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, December 9, 2015, Richard Hills wrote: > Reviving last year's thread. > > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: South, Vul: North-South. In an uncontested auction > you, North, hold: > > 984 > AJ > AQ9 > AQ852 > > South opens 1H and you elect to respond a non-systemic but > lead-discouraging 1S. Alas, South jumps to 3S. To prevent a debacle in a > spade contract you convert to 6NT, all pass (although South spends some > time pondering the merits of 7S). > > East holds: > > KQ > 8742 > T742 > KJ3 > > and chooses the opening lead of the king of spades. Then dummy displays: > > AT62 > K9653 > KJ83 > --- > > Declarer ducks the first trick. Given the auction, East naturally believed > that a spade continuation would be futile. So at trick two East switched > to the three of clubs, a serious error which conceded the twelfth trick. > > However, East's serious error was related to the infraction, if there was > an infraction. Thus as Director would you rule Concealed Partnership > Understanding and/or Rule of Coincidence? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151209/befb17f5/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 10 05:58:13 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:58:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:05:23 -0500, agot wrote: > Le 07.12.2015 15:08, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 22:40:49 -0500, Richard Hills >> wrote: >> >>> There are some deals which require slow, super-scientific bidding (the >>> reason that I use the Symmetric Relay system). But when you hold a >>> freak >>> distribution there is a practical reason for bashing a slam. If you >>> have >>> eschewed cuebidding your heart void, it is less likely a defender will >>> find >>> the killing opening lead of a club. >>> >>> Isaac Asimov, The End of Eternity: "We bred out the unusual." Only an >>> incompetent Director would rule that a single unusual action was in >>> and of >>> itself conclusive evidence of use-of-UI. >> >> Actually, in the usual situations, our laws NEVER require us to say a >> player has used UI. That's one of the problems here -- the laws give >> us no way to make this ruling without saying the player cheated. I am >> sorry I did not explain that problem more clearly. >> >> You get your wish. The competent director at that game let that player >> keep his 7 NT bid. But one player described the situation as "absurd". >> It makes the laws look incompetent. Is that what we want? >> >> And I have taken away a score based on assumed use of UI. You can call >> that incompetence -- I call it doing the right thing. He opened a >> normal 18-19 HCP hand with one of a minor, he partner (wife) bid 1 >> heart, and he rebid 1NT. She had about only 4 HCP and was saving, >> everyone else was in either 1 Club or 2 NT doing badly, and he got a >> top. It was his first and last time at the club, if you want to use >> your one swallow metaphor. I asked him why he bid 1NT, and his only >> explanation was that he could bid whatever he wanted. So it wasn't a >> mistake, it was a choice. > > > I think we were there before. It isn't conclusive to me. What would you > have said if that were the bidding behind screens ? That he heard his > partner hesitate ? > > It is quite possible that his reaction was epidermic (what are you > messing with ?) and that there was an explanation. > > Perhaps they play an uncommon system (like 1D then 1NT = 12-14, 1C then > 1NT = 18-20) and the player didn't know that this is what he should have > answered ? After all, you said you didn't know him. > > So, you would have penalized him for not knowing how to defend himself. > Badly wrong. > You should, at the very last, have asked him what his 1NT meant in his > system, before concluding anything. He played Standard American. It was a normal club game and he was an ordinary player. The only justification he could provide for his bid was "I'm allowed to bid whatever I want." I had never seen him before and haven't seen him since. And that's the laws -- you can open 1C planning on rebidding 2NT, then change your mind and bid 1NT (12-14) with 18-19. And if anyone wants to play the one swallow game, I've seen it twice and both times the player caught his partner saving with a subminimal hand and only made 1 NT. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 10 14:13:19 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:13:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de><1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com><000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de><6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com><001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no><31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com><000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> [Robert Frick] And that's the laws -- you can open 1C planning on rebidding 2NT, then change your mind and bid 1NT (12-14) with 18-19. And if anyone wants to play the one swallow game, I've seen it twice and both times the player caught his partner saving with a subminimal hand and only made 1 NT. [Nigel] I agree with Robert that arguments dismissing "The rule of coincidence" and appealing to the "One swallow" analogy will remain spurious until directors assiduously maintain records of relevant cases from Club, National, and international competition. They would also have to search those records, whenever a new case arose. A global database is highly unlikely because, currently, in practice, such incidents don't attract adverse rulings: hence, there's scant incentive for directors to undertake the task of recording them, systematically; also, there's little prospect of the WBF and NBOs co-ordinating such an initiative. IMO, this approach is impracticable. It would require too much organisation and hard work. It might also contravene privacy legislation. The problem is that, understandably, directors want to avoid hassle. even when that entails victims suffering and law-breakers prospering. Unfortunately, the "no deterrence" principle seems to be enshrined as a foundation of so-called "Equity" law. Nevertheless, In other areas of Bridge law, the Director is still empowered to rely on his judgement of the *balance of probability*, without implication that the putative law-breaker is a deliberate cheat. For the kind of cases under discussion, you might put the bar slightly higher. Perhaps just under *beyond reasonable doubt*; but there seems nothing in the letter of the law to forbid such rulings. Such rulings certainly are within the spirit of the law. Especially as Bridge law has more affinity with *Civil* law (with equal antagonists) than *Criminal* law (with one criminal). Please note that Richard Hills et al might still be able to influence the director's judgement by citing their historical record of previous *similar but unsuccessful* off-the-wall" actions. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Dec 10 15:46:46 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:46:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> Message-ID: Many climate change deniers base their argument upon cherry-picking a single data point. For example, an American senator "proved" that global warming did not exist by taking a snowball to the floor of the senate. On the other hand, Law 40C1 exhorts the Director to avoid ruling on a single data point. A criterion of Law 40C1 is "Repeated [ie more than one] deviations". In my opinion Nigel Guthrie's qualms about the Director determining "repeated" are exaggerated. 99% of bridge players play against the same opponents over and over. It could be a non-expert player repeatedly playing against the same non-expert opponents at her local club. Or it could be a world-class expert repeatedly playing the same world-class expert opponents at the ACBL Nationals. No doubt Nigel writing "Richard Hills et al might still be able to influence the Director's judgement" was merely due to Nigel being careless in the proof-reading of his post. But if an American blmler again questions my ethics, then either the American or myself will resign from blml. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, December 11, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > And that's the laws -- you can open 1C planning on rebidding 2NT, then > change your mind and bid 1NT (12-14) with 18-19. And if anyone wants to > play > the one swallow game, I've seen it twice and both times the player caught > his partner saving with a subminimal hand and only made 1 NT. > > [Nigel] > I agree with Robert that arguments dismissing "The rule of coincidence" and > appealing to the "One swallow" analogy will remain spurious until directors > assiduously maintain records of relevant cases from Club, National, and > international competition. They would also have to search those records, > whenever a new case arose. A global database is highly unlikely because, > currently, in practice, such incidents don't attract adverse rulings: > hence, there's scant incentive for directors to undertake the task of > recording them, systematically; also, there's little prospect of the WBF > and NBOs co-ordinating such an initiative. IMO, this approach is > impracticable. It would require too much organisation and hard work. It > might also contravene privacy legislation. > > The problem is that, understandably, directors want to avoid hassle. even > when that entails victims suffering and law-breakers prospering. > Unfortunately, the "no deterrence" principle seems to be enshrined as a > foundation of so-called "Equity" law. > > Nevertheless, In other areas of Bridge law, the Director is still empowered > to rely on his judgement of the *balance of probability*, without > implication that the putative law-breaker is a deliberate cheat. For the > kind of cases under discussion, you might put the bar slightly higher. > Perhaps just under *beyond reasonable doubt*; but there seems nothing in > the > letter of the law to forbid such rulings. Such rulings certainly are within > the spirit of the law. Especially as Bridge law has more affinity with > *Civil* law (with equal antagonists) than *Criminal* law (with one > criminal). > > Please note that Richard Hills et al might still be able to influence the > director's judgement by citing their historical record of previous *similar > but unsuccessful* off-the-wall" actions. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151210/b537d7f8/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 10 17:39:19 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> Message-ID: <5669AAB7.7050101@skynet.be> The problem with this "repeated" thing is that no action is ever a repeat, since the cards are never exactly the same. And if you wait for a repeat to strike with the utmost force, you end up with an ACBL-like "once a lifetime" rule. The answer is that the Director must use his judgement. He should look at the action and the reason why it was purportedly done. And he should decide, all by himself, what possible information the partner might have (often in the style of "this action occurs twice a year") and then decide what the opponents might have done differently if they had that information. Many times a TD will hear an opponent "if I had known that ...", where the ... represent "he has psyched this time'. The TD should point out that only the frequency might be something discloseable, and that this would probably mean the opponents would take the same action. Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > Many climate change deniers base their argument upon cherry-picking a > single data point. For example, an American senator "proved" that global > warming did not exist by taking a snowball to the floor of the senate. > > On the other hand, Law 40C1 exhorts the Director to avoid ruling on a > single data point. A criterion of Law 40C1 is "Repeated [ie more than > one] deviations". > > In my opinion Nigel Guthrie's qualms about the Director determining > "repeated" are exaggerated. 99% of bridge players play against the same > opponents over and over. It could be a non-expert player repeatedly > playing against the same non-expert opponents at her local club. Or it > could be a world-class expert repeatedly playing the same world-class > expert opponents at the ACBL Nationals. > > No doubt Nigel writing "Richard Hills et al might still be able to > influence the Director's judgement" was merely due to Nigel being > careless in the proof-reading of his post. But if an American blmler > again questions my ethics, then either the American or myself will > resign from blml. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > > [Robert Frick] > And that's the laws -- you can open 1C planning on rebidding 2NT, then > change your mind and bid 1NT (12-14) with 18-19. And if anyone wants > to play > the one swallow game, I've seen it twice and both times the player > caught > his partner saving with a subminimal hand and only made 1 NT. > > [Nigel] > I agree with Robert that arguments dismissing "The rule of > coincidence" and > appealing to the "One swallow" analogy will remain spurious until > directors > assiduously maintain records of relevant cases from Club, National, and > international competition. They would also have to search those records, > whenever a new case arose. A global database is highly unlikely > because, > currently, in practice, such incidents don't attract adverse rulings: > hence, there's scant incentive for directors to undertake the task of > recording them, systematically; also, there's little prospect of > the WBF > and NBOs co-ordinating such an initiative. IMO, this approach is > impracticable. It would require too much organisation and hard work. It > might also contravene privacy legislation. > > The problem is that, understandably, directors want to avoid hassle. > even > when that entails victims suffering and law-breakers prospering. > Unfortunately, the "no deterrence" principle seems to be enshrined as a > foundation of so-called "Equity" law. > > Nevertheless, In other areas of Bridge law, the Director is still > empowered > to rely on his judgement of the *balance of probability*, without > implication that the putative law-breaker is a deliberate cheat. For the > kind of cases under discussion, you might put the bar slightly higher. > Perhaps just under *beyond reasonable doubt*; but there seems > nothing in the > letter of the law to forbid such rulings. Such rulings certainly are > within > the spirit of the law. Especially as Bridge law has more affinity with > *Civil* law (with equal antagonists) than *Criminal* law (with one > criminal). > > Please note that Richard Hills et al might still be able to > influence the > director's judgement by citing their historical record of previous > *similar > but unsuccessful* off-the-wall" actions. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 10 18:00:44 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:00:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: <05e27deeb6ceab1530f9cabede8395d2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 09.12.2015 00:02, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Alain Gottcheiner asked: > > Since when is a psyche an infraction? > > Richard Hills: > > When it is a pseudo-psyche. Law 40A3 gives a player a mere > *conditional* right to psyche and false-card, as that Law concludes > with the caveat "(see Law 40C1)". > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > Also, in pairs, 6NT is a very definitive bid. > > Richard Hills: > > Not relevant. Alain shares the common misapprehension that it is the > so-called "fielding" of a pseudo-psyche which is the infraction. > Rather Law 40C1 states: "...Repeated deviations lead to implicit > understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods?and > must be disclosed..." Not quite. there is nothing in the post to suppose that this is an usual deviation, or even simply a repeated one (what you seem to mean by "pseudo-psyche"). On the evidence given, no problem. If you tell me it happened thrice in a year, that's another kettle of fish. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 10 18:08:59 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:08:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> Message-ID: <7d24c68020a593dae28a3cfc30bc5dc9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 10.12.2015 05:58, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:05:23 -0500, agot wrote: > He played Standard American. It was a normal club game and he was an > ordinary player. The only justification he could provide for his bid > was "I'm allowed to bid whatever I want." I had never seen him before > and haven't seen him since. > > And that's the laws -- you can open 1C planning on rebidding 2NT, then > change your mind and bid 1NT (12-14) with 18-19. And if anyone wants > to play the one swallow game, I've seen it twice and both times the > player caught his partner saving with a subminimal hand and only made > 1 NT. To be honest, the reason why I'm so circumspect about this case (the two cases were by different players, right ?) is that my partner once did it ... The bidding went 1C p 1H 1S and she bid 1NT with 18, under the (false, in our system) assumption that the free bid couldn't show a weak (11-13) NT type. For a top, or there wouldn't be any story to tell. Also, since it would be so easy to find another reason which wouldn't be controversial, the "I do what I want" bit in a way lowers my level uf suspicion. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 10 18:16:51 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:16:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de><1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com><000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de><6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com><001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no><31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com><000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> Message-ID: <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 10.12.2015 14:13, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit?: > Nevertheless, In other areas of Bridge law, the Director is still > empowered > to rely on his judgement of the *balance of probability*, without > implication that the putative law-breaker is a deliberate cheat. For > the > kind of cases under discussion, you might put the bar slightly higher. > Perhaps just under *beyond reasonable doubt*; but there seems nothing > in the > letter of the law to forbid such rulings. Such rulings certainly are > within > the spirit of the law. Especially as Bridge law has more affinity with > *Civil* law (with equal antagonists) than *Criminal* law (with one > criminal). That's perhaps why I don't like all this. We're clearly in cases where only one side might have done wrong, whence "equal antagonists" shouldn't be the standard. Remember, we're speaking about cheating, not a small matter. Notice that there exists, even in criminal matters, what the French call "a bundle of matching presumptions", which are enough to condemn. And that's what I would like to be the BL standard : needing several similar cases before taking action, but in that case doing it strongly. In the Fantunes case, there are hundreds of leads under scrutiny. In the board placing case, hundreds of such moves. In the Racecars affair, only one event, and I still feel they shouldn't have been punished on that basis, feeble defense or not. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 10 18:23:56 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:23:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> Message-ID: Le 10.12.2015 15:46, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Many climate change deniers base their argument upon cherry-picking a > single data point. For example, an American senator "proved" that > global warming did not exist by taking a snowball to the floor of the > senate. And, extending the analogy, the most extensive attemps at falsifying climate change were based on one (genuine) error in reasoning by a climate expert (wrong statistical tool for the case under study). But this one error doesn't void the hundreds of other arguments showing climate change. Similarly, one strange action by a player shouldn't attract doubt on all one's actions. Because strange actions are more often caused by reasoning errors than any other cause, and we all make such errors. The so-called rule of coincidence gainsays this obvious fact, by telling us that, if it worked, it must be evil. Stated that way, it looks as ridiculous as it is. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Fri Dec 11 01:59:53 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:59:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de><1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com><000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de><6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com><001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no><31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com><000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no><3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] No doubt Nigel writing "Richard Hills et al might still be able to influence the Director's judgement" was merely due to Nigel being careless in the proof-reading of his post. But if an American blmler again questions my ethics, then either the American or myself will resign from blml. [Nige1] Happy Christmas! More straw men , Richard :( If you read what i wrote, I questioned nobody?s ethics. On the contrary, I anticipated that red-herring by stipulating that the director should *avoid imputation of deliberate law-breaking*. Robert Frick and I have both argued, repeatedly, and at length, that players can *unconsciously and subliminally* acquire unauthorised information. Furthermore, I carefully explained that the director can take into account a history of *previous off-the-wall actions that were less successful*. Finally, I'm a *Scot* :). From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 08:12:31 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:12:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> Message-ID: Merry Christmas and Happy Hogmanay to Nigel Guthrie, Yes I am fully aware that Nigel is a Scot, not an American. And yes, I am perhaps over-sensitive in thinking that Nigel's word "influence" implied "undue influence"; I fully accept that that was not Nigel's intent. To answer Nigel's main argument, I may be the only person at the table receiving +subtle+ UI (to which I would ethically apply either Law 16C1 or Law 73C), but - in Edgar Kaplan's elegant phrase - there ain't no such animal as +unconscious+ UI. For what it is worth: 1. I never attempt to influence the Dirctor to change his originally intended ruling. 2. Even if I wanted to it would be futile, because the Chief Director of the Canberra Bridge Club is also Chief Director of Australia, hence is not susceptible to influence. 3. All good Directors know their customers, so the Chief Director is well acquainted with my bidding style. 4. Likewise my opponents are well aware of my abhorrence of use-of-UI, so they do not bother summoning the Director because of a fictional Rule of Coincidence. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, December 11, 2015, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > [Richard Hills] > No doubt Nigel writing "Richard Hills et al might still be able to > influence > the Director's judgement" was merely due to Nigel being careless in the > proof-reading of his post. But if an American blmler again questions my > ethics, then either the American or myself will resign from blml. > [Nige1] > Happy Christmas! > > More straw men , Richard :( If you read what i wrote, I questioned nobody?s > ethics. On the contrary, I anticipated that red-herring by stipulating > that > the director should *avoid imputation of deliberate law-breaking*. Robert > Frick and I have both argued, repeatedly, and at length, that players can > *unconsciously and subliminally* acquire unauthorised information. > Furthermore, I carefully explained that the director can take into account > a > history of *previous off-the-wall actions that were less successful*. > Finally, I'm a *Scot* :). > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151211/d750e5e1/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 11 14:00:13 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:00:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> Message-ID: <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 11.12.2015 08:12, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Merry Christmas and Happy Hogmanay to Nigel Guthrie, > > Yes I am fully aware that Nigel is a Scot, not an American. And yes, I > am perhaps over-sensitive in thinking that Nigel's word "influence" > implied "undue influence"; I fully accept that that was not Nigel's > intent. > > To answer Nigel's main argument, I may be the only person at the table > receiving +subtle+ UI (to which I would ethically apply either Law > 16C1 or Law 73C), but - in Edgar Kaplan's elegant phrase - there ain't > no such animal as +unconscious+ UI. > > For what it is worth: > 1. I never attempt to influence the Dirctor to change his originally > intended ruling. > 2. Even if I wanted to it would be futile, because the Chief Director > of the Canberra Bridge Club is also Chief Director of Australia, hence > is not susceptible to influence. > 3. All good Directors know their customers, so the Chief Director is > well acquainted with my bidding style. > 4. Likewise my opponents are well aware of my abhorrence of use-of-UI, > so they do not bother summoning the Director because of a fictional > Rule of Coincidence. Point 4 is very interesting. It tells us that a "possible UI" case shall not be adjudged alone. Away goes the singlzton coincidence rule. Of course, one should not try to influence the TD, but one is allowed to tell him the truth, if it helps our cause. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 11 16:43:46 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:43:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> I think I've understood why the so-called coincidence rule feels so wrong to me. Not many players shuffle their cards before returning them to the boards. Hence, there is always a possibility of a small amount of UI coming from the order in which you get your cards. Hence, whenever a weird action works, unless the board is played for the first time, one might imagine a possible wire, and the action could (according to that rule) be cancelled. Now, bridge would become a completely different game if being lucky was disallowed. The second point is that crooks usually give better arguments than innocents, because they've readied them. Whence poor defence like "I felt like it" could be more a sign of *not* having done wrong. And when you hear a plausible argument, how do you ascertain whetehr it's the truth ? Qxxx x KQxxxx xx Partner opens a Multi 2D. Ignoring the risk of a strong balanced hand, you decide to pass. It turns out to work for an unexpected reason : partner has an Acol-type hand in clubs, but no game wins (3NT and 5C are both playable, but clubs are foul). You score 12 IMPs on the board. That was from a good player (member of the Belgian Ladies team), well-known for her occasional strikes of fancy. She explained that, this being the second deal of the second halftime of a match in which they were down 40-odd at halftime, she had felt the urge of doing something and this was a goos opportunity. Do you believe her ? You'd rather do, because the board hadn't been played at any other table, so no wire, and there were screens, so no facial UI. Also, knowing the player, you know the explanation is right. But imagine this was a multi-team event, the board has already been played, and you get the same answer, from an unknown player. Now some of you want to state firmly that the player had a wire ? No way. Because it would be inconcievable if the fact that the board is played at several tables could handicap the player. And if she just said "I felt like it", no way either. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 14 17:44:17 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:44:17 -0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3><2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> [Alain] I think I've understood why the so-called coincidence rule feels so wrong to me. Not many players shuffle their cards before returning them to the boards. Hence, there is always a possibility of a small amount of UI coming from the order in which you get your cards. Hence, whenever a weird action works, unless the board is played for the first time, one might imagine a possible wire, and the action could (according to that rule) be cancelled.Now, bridge would become a completely different game if being lucky was disallowed. The second point is that crooks usually give better arguments than innocents, because they've readied them. Whence poor defence like "I felt like it" could be more a sign of *not* having done wrong. And when you hear a plausible argument, how do you ascertain whether it's the truth ? [Nigel] We're not discussing good luck or deliberate crookery. We're concerned with an unlikely successful action by a player who can't provide a plausible explanation for his decision. As usual, what is plausible is a matter of director judgement. A history of such events would be more conclusive but isn't always available. Even in an isolated case, however, the director should be allowed to impose a sanction, when he judges there to be an adequate balance of probability of infraction. A familiar EBU example is the "red" psych. As I understand it: when partner psyches, and you take a peculiar action that seems to cater successfully for that psych, the director can rule against you. Such rectification seems reasonable and sensible to me. Again there is no implication that the infraction is deliberate. Cases are recorded to assess long term-pattern but a single incident can suffice for an adverse ruling. Until the WBF provide clarification, this will remain another contentious grey area. For example there's is a problem with consistency, when some directors adopt a laissez-faire attitude to such putative infractions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 14 18:05:09 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:05:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3><2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> Message-ID: <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 14.12.2015 17:44, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit?: Two small quibbles : > > [Nigel] > We're not discussing good luck or deliberate crookery. We're concerned > with > an unlikely successful action by a player who can't provide a plausible > explanation for his decision. AG : but the problem is that, when he can, it is more probable that he has done something wrong, not less probable. Because silly decisions can't be explained, and UI use can be rationalized. [Nigel] As usual, what is plausible is a matter of > director judgement. A history of such events would be more conclusive > but > isn't always available. Even in an isolated case, however, the > director > should be allowed to impose a sanction, when he judges there to be an > adequate balance of probability of infraction. A familiar EBU example > is > the "red" psych. As I understand it: when partner psyches, and you > take a > peculiar action that seems to cater successfully for that psych, the > director can rule against you. AG : indeed, because the fact that the player catered for a psyche is an element of proof that there probably exists an history of psyches. But the players who takes a bizarre underbid or overbid -for any reason- might do this for several reasons, or possibly for no reason at all. I'm a notorious underbidder when it comes to looking for slams, because I feel that the theoretical limit of 50+% doesn't take into account several strange things that might have happenend at the other table. Last tuesday, our teammates' effort towards which ended at 6D wasn't a good idea given that the other table played in a partial. This changes the odds heavily. In Shanga? 2007, only 36% of small slams and 28% of grand slams made. So ... when I "miss" a slam, and it fails, will you tell them I had a wire ? Or should I write on my CC "not many slams" ? Notice that I won't have any explanation to give, except "bidding slam in such a situation just isn't me". Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 21:53:42 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:53:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: ".....A familiar EBU example is the 'red' psych....." Richard Hills: A familiar EBU misnomer is the Red Psyche, which should more correctly be described as a Law 40C1 pseudo-psyche / undisclosed partnership implicit understanding. However, apart from the misnomer, the EBU's Amber Psyche is good policy. If the Director is undecided whether a dubious call is a true psyche (Law 40A3), or a pseudo-psyche (Law 40C1), then the Director defines the dubious call as Amber. And if the partnership perpetrates a second dubious call in the same session then Law 40C1: ".....Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings....." so there is now convincing evidence to redefine both dubious calls as Red pseudo-psyches. Nigel Guthrie: ".....Even in an isolated case, however, the Director should be allowed to impose a sanction, when he judges there to be an adequate balance of probability of infraction.....Until the WBF provides clarification....." WBF clarification of the meaning of "balance of probabilities", Law 85A1: "which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he [the Director] is able to collect." Richard Hills: If and only if Nigel is suggesting the Director may impose a sanction based merely upon the Director's gut feeling, then and only then Nigel's idea is illegally contrary to Law 85A1. A gut feeling is not evidence. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Alain] > I think I've understood why the so-called coincidence rule feels so wrong > to > me. Not many players shuffle their cards before returning them to the > boards. Hence, there is always a possibility of a small amount of UI coming > from the order in which you get your cards. Hence, whenever a weird action > works, unless the board is played for the first time, one might imagine a > possible wire, and the action could (according to that rule) be > cancelled.Now, bridge would become a completely different game if being > lucky was disallowed. > > The second point is that crooks usually give better arguments than > innocents, because they've readied them. Whence poor defence like "I felt > like it" could be more a sign of *not* having done wrong. And when you hear > a plausible argument, how do you ascertain whether it's the truth ? > > [Nigel] > We're not discussing good luck or deliberate crookery. We're concerned > with > an unlikely successful action by a player who can't provide a plausible > explanation for his decision. As usual, what is plausible is a matter of > director judgement. A history of such events would be more conclusive but > isn't always available. Even in an isolated case, however, the director > should be allowed to impose a sanction, when he judges there to be an > adequate balance of probability of infraction. A familiar EBU example is > the "red" psych. As I understand it: when partner psyches, and you take a > peculiar action that seems to cater successfully for that psych, the > director can rule against you. Such rectification seems reasonable and > sensible to me. Again there is no implication that the infraction is > deliberate. Cases are recorded to assess long term-pattern but a single > incident can suffice for an adverse ruling. > > Until the WBF provide clarification, this will remain another contentious > grey area. For example there's is a problem with consistency, when some > directors adopt a laissez-faire attitude to such putative infractions. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151214/2441d975/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 15 06:03:38 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:03:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:05:09 -0500, agot wrote: > Le 14.12.2015 17:44, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > Two small quibbles : > >> >> [Nigel] >> We're not discussing good luck or deliberate crookery. We're concerned >> with >> an unlikely successful action by a player who can't provide a plausible >> explanation for his decision. > > > AG : but the problem is that, when he can, it is more probable that he > has done something wrong, not less probable. Because silly decisions > can't be explained, and UI use can be rationalized. Are you saying that you might decide to play in game after discovering that you and your partner have a combined total of 36 HCP? And you want to be protected when everything goes wrong and there is no slam? 1NT(15-17) P 3NT (with 21 HCP) Also, I note that you claim cheaters can construct a convincing reason for their actions, but you seem to feel that, even though you have a good reason, you cannot? From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 15 08:56:59 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:56:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> I've changed the subject, but I'm starting from something Robert wrote in the "How do you rule" thread: Robert Frick schreef: > > > Also, I note that you claim cheaters can construct a convincing > reason for their actions, but you seem to feel that, even though you > have a good reason, you cannot? This reminds me of a recent case. Behind screens, West hesitates for some time. Yet East goes on. South calls the Director. North makes no moves whatsoever, even after the director has been at the table. The Director ruled against East-West (quite correctly if ther had been UI). East-West appeal, stating that there was no hesitation. I'm chairing the appeal committee. We find that: a) North's inaction is evidence that NE have not noticed the delay; b) East's action is so clearly illegal after UI, would not be happening is East had noticed the delay. We rule in favour of East-West. (just to complete the story, North/South ask for a cassation on a technicality, which is granted. A new appeal committee re-confirms the original director's ruling) Anyway, the reasoning b) above is a similar one to the one Alain mentionied: someone who is using UI will try to find a good reason for his actions; whereas someone who hasn't noticed UI may by sheer chance take a successful action, and have no other explanation than "I felt like it". Of course good actors can use this as a bluff. But at least Alain and I are on a similar page. Yes, a Belgian one, no need to make the joke. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 15 10:05:17 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 04:05:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> Message-ID: There is something illogical about the argument that he looks guilty therefore he must be innocent. There is a murder. If the suspect does not have an alibi for where they were at the time of the murder, do you assume he's innocent (because if he really committed the murder he would have found a good alibi)? If the murder weapon is found in his house, is that another good sign that he is not the murderer (because the murdered would not keep a murder weapon in his house)? You also have the problem that humans just naturally use information without being aware they are using it. They can even use information that they were never consciously aware of. One name for this at bridge is "table feel". So, we must protect against the unconscious use of UI. I'm not sure your particular ruling is wrong, because you also have North's behavior. I am saying the general principles are wrong. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 15 11:35:57 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:35:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > There is something illogical about the argument that he looks guilty > therefore he must be innocent. There is a murder. If the suspect does > not have an alibi for where they were at the time of the murder, do > you assume he's innocent (because if he really committed the murder > he would have found a good alibi)? > > If the murder weapon is found in his house, is that another good sign > that he is not the murderer (because the murdered would not keep a > murder weapon in his house)? > Exactly such reasoning is often used in TV-drama's. If a logical suspect fails to do away with the murder weapon, would that not indicate he did not know the murder weapon was where it was found? > > You also have the problem that humans just naturally use information > without being aware they are using it. They can even use information > that they were never consciously aware of. One name for this at > bridge is "table feel". > > So, we must protect against the unconscious use of UI. > But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. When a player uses "table feel", and we cannot identify any information that was transmitted, surely we cannot rule UI, or every single good decision can be overturned. > > I'm not sure your particular ruling is wrong, because you also have > North's behavior. I am saying the general principles are wrong. It is the combination of both which lead me to the conclusion I came to. Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Dec 15 14:48:33 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:48:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. When a player uses "table feel", and we cannot identify any information that was transmitted, surely we cannot rule UI, or every single good decision can be overturned. Richard Hills: I agree with Herman on this point. Take, for example, these North cards: Point-a-board (board-a-match) teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West You, North, hold: 5 QJ8753 Q43 754 Do you or don't you? As North I chose to pass as dealer. Obviously I was illegally using Rule-of-Coincidence unconscious UI. :-) :-) Due to the uncontested auction East-West arrived at the normal but inferior 4S contract, so we scored +100 thanks to pard's trump stack. If my mental coin-flip had gone the other way, causing me to open a weak two, then we would either have scored -300 declaring 2Hx, or have scored -600 defending 3NT. Therefore I must be, to quote a famous Doonesbury strip: "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Robert Frick schreef: > > There is something illogical about the argument that he looks guilty > > therefore he must be innocent. There is a murder. If the suspect does > > not have an alibi for where they were at the time of the murder, do > > you assume he's innocent (because if he really committed the murder > > he would have found a good alibi)? > > > > If the murder weapon is found in his house, is that another good sign > > that he is not the murderer (because the murdered would not keep a > > murder weapon in his house)? > > > > Exactly such reasoning is often used in TV-drama's. If a logical suspect > fails to do away with the murder weapon, would that not indicate he did > not know the murder weapon was where it was found? > > > > > You also have the problem that humans just naturally use information > > without being aware they are using it. They can even use information > > that they were never consciously aware of. One name for this at > > bridge is "table feel". > > > > So, we must protect against the unconscious use of UI. > > > > But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there > can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule > of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. > > When a player uses "table feel", and we cannot identify any information > that was transmitted, surely we cannot rule UI, or every single good > decision can be overturned. > > > > > I'm not sure your particular ruling is wrong, because you also have > > North's behavior. I am saying the general principles are wrong. > > It is the combination of both which lead me to the conclusion I came to. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151215/917f28cb/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 15 15:23:12 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:23:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:48:33 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there > can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule > of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. > > When a player uses "table feel", and we cannot identify any information > that was transmitted, surely we cannot rule UI, or every single good > decision can be overturned. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Herman on this point. Take, for example, these North cards: > > Point-a-board (board-a-match) teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > You, North, hold: > > 5 > QJ8753 > Q43 > 754 > > Do you or don't you? > > As North I chose to pass as dealer. Obviously I was illegally using > Rule-of-Coincidence unconscious UI. :-) :-) Hi Richard. The previous topic involved cases where the use of UI was obvious. I don't think you meet that criteria here. I would say pass would be people's second or first choice with this hand. In contrast, the opening bid of 7NT was inconceivable to most players. Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you obviously used UI and think it's funny. I don't see how this fits the topic of counter-intuitive reasoning either. Can you explain? > > Due to the uncontested auction East-West arrived at the normal but inferior > 4S contract, so we scored +100 thanks to pard's trump stack. If my mental > coin-flip had gone the other way, causing me to open a weak two, then we > would either have scored -300 declaring 2Hx, or have scored -600 defending > 3NT. > > Therefore I must be, to quote a famous Doonesbury strip: "Guilty! Guilty! > Guilty!" > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> >> Robert Frick schreef: >> > There is something illogical about the argument that he looks guilty >> > therefore he must be innocent. There is a murder. If the suspect does >> > not have an alibi for where they were at the time of the murder, do >> > you assume he's innocent (because if he really committed the murder >> > he would have found a good alibi)? >> > >> > If the murder weapon is found in his house, is that another good sign >> > that he is not the murderer (because the murdered would not keep a >> > murder weapon in his house)? >> > >> >> Exactly such reasoning is often used in TV-drama's. If a logical suspect >> fails to do away with the murder weapon, would that not indicate he did >> not know the murder weapon was where it was found? >> >> > >> > You also have the problem that humans just naturally use information >> > without being aware they are using it. They can even use information >> > that they were never consciously aware of. One name for this at >> > bridge is "table feel". >> > >> > So, we must protect against the unconscious use of UI. >> > >> >> But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there >> can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule >> of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. >> >> When a player uses "table feel", and we cannot identify any information >> that was transmitted, surely we cannot rule UI, or every single good >> decision can be overturned. >> >> > >> > I'm not sure your particular ruling is wrong, because you also have >> > North's behavior. I am saying the general principles are wrong. >> >> It is the combination of both which lead me to the conclusion I came to. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 15 15:38:31 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:38:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <567025E7.60500@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I agree with Herman on this point. Take, for example, these North >> cards: >> (I simply cannot skip this sentence. I'd rather frame it. > > Hi Richard. The previous topic involved cases where the use of UI was > obvious. I don't think you meet that criteria here. I would say pass > would be people's second or first choice with this hand. In contrast, > the opening bid of 7NT was inconceivable to most players. > The topic has since drifted somewhat. The point everyone is trying to make is that you simply cannot rule against a bidder because his choice would not be the first one of the majority of players. How small the minority he's in does not matter, even if he's in a minority of 0. Of course in the original we cn deduce from the opening bid that there must be UI. It's inconceivable otherwise. But in all other cases, including Richard's, there is no way you can deduce the UI from the bid, chosen by a minority. Which some people are trying to do. > Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you > obviously used UI and think it's funny. > Sarcasm, Sheldon! > I don't see how this fits the topic of counter-intuitive reasoning > either. Can you explain? > I'll leave that one to Richard. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 15 17:10:28 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:10:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <890d23b7654f611820de1e21b4f515ce@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 15.12.2015 06:03, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:05:09 -0500, agot wrote: > >> Le 14.12.2015 17:44, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : >> >> Two small quibbles : >> >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> We're not discussing good luck or deliberate crookery. We're >>> concerned >>> with >>> an unlikely successful action by a player who can't provide a >>> plausible >>> explanation for his decision. >> >> >> AG : but the problem is that, when he can, it is more probable that he >> has done something wrong, not less probable. Because silly decisions >> can't be explained, and UI use can be rationalized. > > Are you saying that you might decide to play in game after discovering > that you and your partner have a combined total of 36 HCP? And you > want to be protected when everything goes wrong and there is no slam? > 1NT(15-17) P 3NT (with 21 HCP) Sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. What I said is that, if there is any doubt as to whether bidding a slam is wise, then I'll decide that it isn't. And if I happen to be right, I'm allowed to get full advantage for my clever tactics. > > > Also, I note that you claim cheaters can construct a convincing reason > for their actions, but you seem to feel that, even though you have a > good reason, you cannot? Of couorse. I'm not a cheat... From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 15 17:19:18 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:19:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 15.12.2015 11:35, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Robert Frick schreef: >> There is something illogical about the argument that he looks guilty >> therefore he must be innocent. There is a murder. If the suspect does >> not have an alibi for where they were at the time of the murder, do >> you assume he's innocent (because if he really committed the murder >> he would have found a good alibi)? >> >> If the murder weapon is found in his house, is that another good sign >> that he is not the murderer (because the murdered would not keep a >> murder weapon in his house)? >> > > Exactly such reasoning is often used in TV-drama's. If a logical > suspect > fails to do away with the murder weapon, would that not indicate he did > not know the murder weapon was where it was found? > >> >> You also have the problem that humans just naturally use information >> without being aware they are using it. They can even use information >> that they were never consciously aware of. One name for this at >> bridge is "table feel". >> >> So, we must protect against the unconscious use of UI. >> > > But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there > can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule > of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. > > When a player uses "table feel", and we cannot identify any information > that was transmitted, surely we cannot rule UI, or every single good > decision can be overturned. Of course, and for a simple reason. That table feel may come from an opponent's subliminals, which would make the decision allowed, and we can't decide between the two cases. If a player says to you "I felt, from RHO's behavior, that he had a trump stack", how can one rule that the player had any *other* information available ? Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Dec 15 22:35:52 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:35:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: > Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you > obviously used UI and think it's funny. > Herman De Wael: Sarcasm, Sheldon! Monty Python: Vercotti: "I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug." Interviewer: "What did he do?" Vercotti: "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> I agree with Herman on this point. Take, for example, these North > >> cards: > >> > > (I simply cannot skip this sentence. I'd rather frame it. > > > > > Hi Richard. The previous topic involved cases where the use of UI was > > obvious. I don't think you meet that criteria here. I would say pass > > would be people's second or first choice with this hand. In contrast, > > the opening bid of 7NT was inconceivable to most players. > > > > The topic has since drifted somewhat. The point everyone is trying to > make is that you simply cannot rule against a bidder because his choice > would not be the first one of the majority of players. How small the > minority he's in does not matter, even if he's in a minority of 0. > Of course in the original we cn deduce from the opening bid that there > must be UI. It's inconceivable otherwise. But in all other cases, > including Richard's, there is no way you can deduce the UI from the bid, > chosen by a minority. Which some people are trying to do. > > > Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you > > obviously used UI and think it's funny. > > > > Sarcasm, Sheldon! > > > I don't see how this fits the topic of counter-intuitive reasoning > > either. Can you explain? > > > > I'll leave that one to Richard. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151215/e3083d5c/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Dec 16 00:55:07 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:55:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3><2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> Message-ID: [WBF clarification of the meaning of "balance of probabilities", Law 85A1] "which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he [the Director] is able to collect." [Law 40C1] ".....Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings....." [Richard] A familiar EBU misnomer is the Red Psyche, which should more correctly be described as a Law 40C1 pseudo-psyche / undisclosed partnership implicit understanding. however, apart from the misnomer, the EBU's Amber Psyche is good policy. If the Director is undecided whether a dubious call is a true psyche (Law 40A3), or a pseudo-psyche (Law 40C1), then the Director defines the dubious call as Amber. And if the partnership perpetrates a second dubious call in the same session then (by L40C1) there is now convincing evidence to redefine both dubious calls as Red pseudo-psyches If and only if Nigel is suggesting the Director may impose a sanction based merely upon the Director's gut feeling, then and only then Nigel's idea is illegally contrary to Law 85A1. A gut feeling is not evidence. [Nigel] Richard approves of ruling an infraction, based on evidence from two cases: but rejects an adverse ruling based on one case even when the latter is *more convincing*. I agree with Richard if he's saying that the laws of Bridge over-rely on director *whim* (although *judgement* might be a more appropriate term). Typically, IBLF/BLML commentators split on the correct ruling, in a variety of simple cases with agreed facts. Hence, Bridge rulings are notoriously inconsistent. IMO, the laws should be purged/rewritten to rely less on subjective judgement. Notwithstanding, most rulings *must* rely on director judgement, to some extent. For example, in cases like those that we are now discussing the director should grasp the nettle -- he should shoulder his L85A1 obligation to assess the probabilities on available evidence. It's manifestly unfair to the putative victim for the director to postpone his ruling until the suspect repeats the alleged infraction. If that happens, the alleged law-breaker might escape redress again unless the same director is called. Inevitably, the director will make some mistakes, just as he does in most other judgement cases. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Dec 16 15:34:02 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:34:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: Richard approves of ruling an infraction, based on evidence from two cases: but rejects an adverse ruling based on one case even when the latter is *more convincing*. Richard Hills: For many years Nigel has been a respected member of blml. Alas, Nigel's sage (albeit contrarian) comments all too frequently incorporate incorrect paraphrases of other blmlers' positions. On this occasion my exact words in the key posts stating my position were: "One swallow does not make a summer." I did NOT state: "One board does not make a summer." Indeed, a whole flock of swallows (aka pieces of evidence) could be nesting upon a single solitary board. Monty Python: City gent: "I say, those are sheep aren't they?" Rustic: "Ar." City gent: "Yes, yes of course, I thought so...only...er why are they up in the trees?" Rustic: "A fair question and one that in recent weeks has much been on my mind. It's my considered opinion that they're nesting." Richard Hillls: A case in point occurred some years ago, when a WBF Disciplinary Committee was investigating a possible Law 73B2 "gravest possible offence" infraction upon a single solitary board. Swallow #1: After the conclusion of the auction to 6D, dummy's screen-mate observed dummy intentionally peeking at his cards, an infraction of Law 43A2(c). Swallow #2: When the curtain was raised, dummy held up three fingers, which corresponded to the screen-mate's (declarer's RHO) three trumps. Swallow #3: To make 6D declarer needed to bring his nine-card trump suit home without loss. The only significant trump cards held by the defence were the Queen and Ten. Dummy held the Jack of trumps; declarer held the Ace and King of trumps. Without extra information, the percentage line is to cash Ace and King. However, if declarer knows that RHO has three trumps, now the percentage line changes to running the jack (picking up singleton T offside or QTx onside). Declarer did run dummy's J and RHO did hold QTx. Swallow #4: The world-class declarer's excuse was, "Diamonds are breaking badly in this tournament." The WBF Disciplinary Committee ruled that a world-class player did not become a world-class player by being superstitious, hence declarer's statement was self-incriminating. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [WBF clarification of the meaning of "balance of probabilities", Law 85A1] > "which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he [the > Director] is able to collect." > > [Law 40C1] > ".....Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings....." > > [Richard] > A familiar EBU misnomer is the Red Psyche, which should more correctly be > described as a Law 40C1 pseudo-psyche / undisclosed partnership implicit > understanding. however, apart from the misnomer, the EBU's Amber Psyche is > good policy. If the Director is undecided whether a dubious call is a true > psyche (Law 40A3), or a pseudo-psyche (Law 40C1), then the Director defines > the dubious call as Amber. And if the partnership perpetrates a second > dubious call in the same session then (by L40C1) there is now convincing > evidence to redefine both dubious calls as Red pseudo-psyches > > If and only if Nigel is suggesting the Director may impose a sanction based > merely upon the Director's gut feeling, then and only then Nigel's idea is > illegally contrary to Law 85A1. A gut feeling is not evidence. > > [Nigel] > Richard approves of ruling an infraction, based on evidence from two cases: > but rejects an adverse ruling based on one case even when the latter is > *more convincing*. I agree with Richard if he's saying that the laws of > Bridge over-rely on director *whim* (although *judgement* might be a more > appropriate term). Typically, IBLF/BLML commentators split on the correct > ruling, in a variety of simple cases with agreed facts. Hence, Bridge > rulings are notoriously inconsistent. IMO, the laws should be > purged/rewritten to rely less on subjective judgement. > > Notwithstanding, most rulings *must* rely on director judgement, to some > extent. For example, in cases like those that we are now discussing the > director should grasp the nettle -- he should shoulder his L85A1 obligation > to assess the probabilities on available evidence. It's manifestly unfair > to the putative victim for the director to postpone his ruling until the > suspect repeats the alleged infraction. If that happens, the alleged > law-breaker might escape redress again unless the same director is called. > Inevitably, the director will make some mistakes, just as he does in most > other judgement cases. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151216/ba68a731/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 09:22:13 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:22:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South You, South, hold: T7432 7542 T4 J8 You elect to pass as dealer. West opens 1D. East responds 2C. West rebids 2D. Now East jumps to 4NT, notionally Keycard Blackwood in diamonds. West bids 5D, showing 1 (or 4) keycards. Now East signs off in 7NT. Pard doubles. East redoubles. You, West and North elect to pass. What is your opening lead? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Richard Hills wrote: > > Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you > > obviously used UI and think it's funny. > > > > Herman De Wael: > > Sarcasm, Sheldon! > > Monty Python: > > Vercotti: "I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen > grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was > frightened of Doug." > Interviewer: "What did he do?" > Vercotti: "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, > metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >> >> >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> >> >> I agree with Herman on this point. Take, for example, these North >> >> cards: >> >> >> >> (I simply cannot skip this sentence. I'd rather frame it. >> >> > >> > Hi Richard. The previous topic involved cases where the use of UI was >> > obvious. I don't think you meet that criteria here. I would say pass >> > would be people's second or first choice with this hand. In contrast, >> > the opening bid of 7NT was inconceivable to most players. >> > >> >> The topic has since drifted somewhat. The point everyone is trying to >> make is that you simply cannot rule against a bidder because his choice >> would not be the first one of the majority of players. How small the >> minority he's in does not matter, even if he's in a minority of 0. >> Of course in the original we cn deduce from the opening bid that there >> must be UI. It's inconceivable otherwise. But in all other cases, >> including Richard's, there is no way you can deduce the UI from the bid, >> chosen by a minority. Which some people are trying to do. >> >> > Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you >> > obviously used UI and think it's funny. >> > >> >> Sarcasm, Sheldon! >> >> > I don't see how this fits the topic of counter-intuitive reasoning >> > either. Can you explain? >> > >> >> I'll leave that one to Richard. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151217/d5b28aa9/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 17 12:48:19 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:48:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> Message-ID: <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 16.12.2015 15:34, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Nigel Guthrie: > > Richard approves of ruling an infraction, based on evidence from two > cases: > but rejects an adverse ruling based on one case even when the latter > is > *more convincing*. > > Richard Hills: > > For many years Nigel has been a respected member of blml. Alas, > Nigel's sage (albeit contrarian) comments all too frequently > incorporate incorrect paraphrases of other blmlers' positions. > > On this occasion my exact words in the key posts stating my position > were: > > "One swallow does not make a summer." > > I did NOT state: > > "One board does not make a summer." > > Indeed, a whole flock of swallows (aka pieces of evidence) could be > nesting upon a single solitary board. > > Monty Python: > > City gent: "I say, those are sheep aren't they?" > > Rustic: "Ar." > City gent: "Yes, yes of course, I thought so...only...er why are they > up in the trees?" > Rustic: "A fair question and one that in recent weeks has much been on > my mind. It's my considered opinion that they're nesting." > > Richard Hillls: > > A?case in point occurred some years ago, when a WBF Disciplinary > Committee was investigating a possible Law 73B2 "gravest possible > offence" infraction upon a single solitary board. > > Swallow #1: After the conclusion of the auction to 6D, dummy's > screen-mate observed dummy intentionally peeking at his cards,?an > infraction of Law 43A2(c). > Swallow #2: When the curtain was raised, dummy held up three fingers, > which corresponded to the screen-mate's (declarer's RHO) three trumps. > Swallow #3: To make 6D declarer needed to bring his nine-card trump > suit home without loss. The only significant trump cards held by the > defence were the Queen and Ten. Dummy held the Jack of trumps; > declarer held the Ace and King of trumps. Without extra information, > the percentage line is to cash Ace and King. However, if declarer > knows that RHO has three trumps, now the percentage line changes to > running the jack (picking up singleton T offside or QTx onside). > Declarer did run dummy's J and RHO did hold QTx. > Swallow #4: The world-class declarer's excuse was, "Diamonds are > breaking badly in this tournament." The WBF Disciplinary Committee > ruled that a world-class player did not become a world-class player by > being superstitious, hence declarer's statement was > self-incriminating. Didn't it occur to anyone that swallows # 1 and 2 were based on the testimony of one non-neutral person ? I mean, somabody who could be interested in testing that way ? Testis unus, testis nullius. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 17 13:54:13 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:54:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 03:22:13 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > You, South, hold: > > T7432 > 7542 > T4 > J8 > > You elect to pass as dealer. West opens 1D. East responds 2C. West rebids > 2D. Now East jumps to 4NT, notionally Keycard Blackwood in diamonds. West > bids 5D, showing 1 (or 4) keycards. Now East signs off in 7NT. Pard > doubles. East redoubles. You, West and North elect to pass. > > What is your opening lead? club, second choice a diamond > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> > Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you >> > obviously used UI and think it's funny. >> > >> >> Herman De Wael: >> >> Sarcasm, Sheldon! >> >> Monty Python: >> >> Vercotti: "I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen >> grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was >> frightened of Doug." >> Interviewer: "What did he do?" >> Vercotti: "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, >> metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>> >> >>> >> Richard Hills: >>> >> >>> >> I agree with Herman on this point. Take, for example, these North >>> >> cards: >>> >> >>> >>> (I simply cannot skip this sentence. I'd rather frame it. >>> >>> > >>> > Hi Richard. The previous topic involved cases where the use of UI was >>> > obvious. I don't think you meet that criteria here. I would say pass >>> > would be people's second or first choice with this hand. In contrast, >>> > the opening bid of 7NT was inconceivable to most players. >>> > >>> >>> The topic has since drifted somewhat. The point everyone is trying to >>> make is that you simply cannot rule against a bidder because his choice >>> would not be the first one of the majority of players. How small the >>> minority he's in does not matter, even if he's in a minority of 0. >>> Of course in the original we cn deduce from the opening bid that there >>> must be UI. It's inconceivable otherwise. But in all other cases, >>> including Richard's, there is no way you can deduce the UI from the bid, >>> chosen by a minority. Which some people are trying to do. >>> >>> > Or, I don't know why you are admitting on a public forum that you >>> > obviously used UI and think it's funny. >>> > >>> >>> Sarcasm, Sheldon! >>> >>> > I don't see how this fits the topic of counter-intuitive reasoning >>> > either. Can you explain? >>> > >>> >>> I'll leave that one to Richard. >>> >>> Herman. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 15:11:01 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:11:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: "Testis unus, testis nullius." Original 2005 WBF press release: http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05tenerife/Bulletins/28TuePg3.htm Monty Python: "It's my belief that these sheep are laborin' under the misapprehension that they're birds. Observe their behaviour. Take for a start the sheeps' tendency to 'op about the field on their back legs. Now witness their attempts to fly from tree to tree. Notice that they do not so much fly as...plummet." Richard Hills: In almost every Law 85 Ruling on Disputed Facts the Director (and in this case the Disciplinary Committee) receive testimony from non-neutral players. But this not does mean, as Alain suggests, that each and every non-neutral swallow (aka piece of evidence) must be null and void. Rather, Law 85A1 requires the Director / Disciplinary Committee to weigh the credibility of each swallow. And arguing that the credibility of declarer and dummy is on a par with the credibility of declarer's RHO is equivalent to arguing that the above Monty Python paragraph is a credible statement of zoological facts. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, December 17, 2015, agot > wrote: > Le 16.12.2015 15:34, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Nigel Guthrie: > > > > Richard approves of ruling an infraction, based on evidence from two > > cases: > > but rejects an adverse ruling based on one case even when the latter > > is > > *more convincing*. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > For many years Nigel has been a respected member of blml. Alas, > > Nigel's sage (albeit contrarian) comments all too frequently > > incorporate incorrect paraphrases of other blmlers' positions. > > > > On this occasion my exact words in the key posts stating my position > > were: > > > > "One swallow does not make a summer." > > > > I did NOT state: > > > > "One board does not make a summer." > > > > Indeed, a whole flock of swallows (aka pieces of evidence) could be > > nesting upon a single solitary board. > > > > Monty Python: > > > > City gent: "I say, those are sheep aren't they?" > > > > Rustic: "Ar." > > City gent: "Yes, yes of course, I thought so...only...er why are they > > up in the trees?" > > Rustic: "A fair question and one that in recent weeks has much been on > > my mind. It's my considered opinion that they're nesting." > > > > Richard Hillls: > > > > A case in point occurred some years ago, when a WBF Disciplinary > > Committee was investigating a possible Law 73B2 "gravest possible > > offence" infraction upon a single solitary board. > > > > Swallow #1: After the conclusion of the auction to 6D, dummy's > > screen-mate observed dummy intentionally peeking at his cards, an, > > infraction of Law 43A2(c). > > Swallow #2: When the curtain was raised, dummy held up three fingers, > > which corresponded to the screen-mate's (declarer's RHO) three trumps. > > Swallow #3: To make 6D declarer needed to bring his nine-card trump > > suit home without loss. The only significant trump cards held by the > > defence were the Queen and Ten. Dummy held the Jack of trumps; > > declarer held the Ace and King of trumps. Without extra information, > > the percentage line is to cash Ace and King. However, if declarer > > knows that RHO has three trumps, now the percentage line changes to > > running the jack (picking up singleton T offside or QTx onside). > > Declarer did run dummy's J and RHO did hold QTx. > > Swallow #4: The world-class declarer's excuse was, "Diamonds are > > breaking badly in this tournament." The WBF Disciplinary Committee > > ruled that a world-class player did not become a world-class player by > > being superstitious, hence declarer's statement was > > self-incriminating. > > > Didn't it occur to anyone that swallows # 1 and 2 were based on the > testimony of one non-neutral person ? I mean, somabody who could be > interested in testing that way ? > > Testis unus, testis nullius. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151217/257c4cf5/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 17 17:15:46 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:15:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 17.12.2015 15:11, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > "Testis unus, testis nullius." > > Original 2005 WBF press release: > > http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05tenerife/Bulletins/28TuePg3.htm > [2] > > Monty Python: > > "It's my belief that these sheep are laborin' under the > misapprehension that they're birds. Observe their behaviour. Take for > a start the sheeps' tendency to 'op about the field on their back > legs. Now witness their attempts to fly from tree to tree.?Notice > that they do not so much fly as...plummet." > > Richard Hills: > > In almost every Law 85 Ruling on Disputed Facts the Director (and in > this case the Disciplinary Committee) receive testimony from > non-neutral players.? But this not?does mean, as Alain suggests, > that each and every non-neutral swallow (aka piece of evidence) must > be null and void. > > Rather, Law 85A1 requires the Director / Disciplinary Committee to > weigh the credibility of each swallow. And arguing that the > credibility of declarer and dummy is on a par with the credibility of > declarer's RHO is equivalent to arguing that the above Monty Python > paragraph is a credible statement of zoological facts. I want to be sure of the meaning of this, and don't want it to be twisted. So correct me if I'm wrong. Do you mean that, when A says "B cheated against me" and B says "I didn't", then A is to be believed, because he is more credible than B ? IMO saying that B is less credible is calling them cheats by advance, whence using the thesis to prove itself. Isn't there just a possibility that A are the cheats and try to get back their bad board at all costs ? (I don't know the dramatis personae, it's just a theoretical question. But principles are important here) From nistler at bridgehands.com Fri Dec 18 02:52:36 2015 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:52:36 -0800 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <3770ACDB-5BE7-48F9-835F-0F831BD7F139@bridgehands.com> On Dec 17, 2015, at 8:15 AM, agot wrote: > > Le 17.12.2015 15:11, Richard Hills a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >> "Testis unus, testis nullius." >> >> Original 2005 WBF press release: >> >> http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05tenerife/Bulletins/28TuePg3.htm >> [2] >> >> Monty Python: >> >> "It's my belief that these sheep are laborin' under the >> misapprehension that they're birds. Observe their behaviour. Take for >> a start the sheeps' tendency to 'op about the field on their back >> legs. Now witness their attempts to fly from tree to tree. Notice >> that they do not so much fly as...plummet." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In almost every Law 85 Ruling on Disputed Facts the Director (and in >> this case the Disciplinary Committee) receive testimony from >> non-neutral players. But this not does mean, as Alain suggests, >> that each and every non-neutral swallow (aka piece of evidence) must >> be null and void. >> >> Rather, Law 85A1 requires the Director / Disciplinary Committee to >> weigh the credibility of each swallow. And arguing that the >> credibility of declarer and dummy is on a par with the credibility of >> declarer's RHO is equivalent to arguing that the above Monty Python >> paragraph is a credible statement of zoological facts. > > > I want to be sure of the meaning of this, and don't want it to be > twisted. So correct me if I'm wrong. > > Do you mean that, when A says "B cheated against me" and B says "I > didn't", then A is to be believed, because he is more credible than B ? > > IMO saying that B is less credible is calling them cheats by advance, > whence using the thesis to prove itself. > > Isn't there just a possibility that A are the cheats and try to get back > their bad board at all costs ? (I don't know the dramatis personae, > it's just a theoretical question. Point well taken. Just this week in a club game I had a 10,000+ point player call me with a hostile tone toward their Non-Life master opponents for bidding Stayman without a four card major (no, they were not playing four way transfers, Minor Suit Stayman, etc.). The GLM insisted she was an injured NOS Who prevented her from finding the best line of play, perhaps hoping I would not cite L40A.3. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Dec 18 03:02:36 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:02:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Original 2005 WBF press release: http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05tenerife/Bulletins/28TuePg3.htm Alain Gottcheiner asked: "Do you mean that when A says 'B cheated against me' and B says 'I didn't', then A is to be believed, because he is more credible than B?" Richard Hills answers: No, not at all. In the above WBF press release Alain should read the paragraph about the Committee's reasons. Alain's Belgian compatriot Hercule Poirot weaves the various strands of evidence together to form an aesthetic and convincing identification of the murderer. Identifying declarer's RHO as the murderer (aka a cheat making a false accusation) is both unaesthetic and also unconvincing. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, December 18, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 17.12.2015 15:11, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > "Testis unus, testis nullius." > > > > Original 2005 WBF press release: > > > > http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05tenerife/Bulletins/28TuePg3.htm > > [2] > > > > Monty Python: > > > > "It's my belief that these sheep are laborin' under the > > misapprehension that they're birds. Observe their behaviour. Take for > > a start the sheeps' tendency to 'op about the field on their back > > legs. Now witness their attempts to fly from tree to tree. Notice > > that they do not so much fly as...plummet." > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In almost every Law 85 Ruling on Disputed Facts the Director (and in > > this case the Disciplinary Committee) receive testimony from > > non-neutral players. But this not does mean, as Alain suggests, > > that each and every non-neutral swallow (aka piece of evidence) must > > be null and void. > > > > Rather, Law 85A1 requires the Director / Disciplinary Committee to > > weigh the credibility of each swallow. And arguing that the > > credibility of declarer and dummy is on a par with the credibility of > > declarer's RHO is equivalent to arguing that the above Monty Python > > paragraph is a credible statement of zoological facts. > > > I want to be sure of the meaning of this, and don't want it to be > twisted. So correct me if I'm wrong. > > Do you mean that, when A says "B cheated against me" and B says "I > didn't", then A is to be believed, because he is more credible than B ? > > IMO saying that B is less credible is calling them cheats by advance, > whence using the thesis to prove itself. > > Isn't there just a possibility that A are the cheats and try to get back > their bad board at all costs ? (I don't know the dramatis personae, > it's just a theoretical question. But principles are important here) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151218/d8414eec/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 18 14:37:30 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:37:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <621f1e0de174a42383c306e5c35a1435@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 18.12.2015 03:02, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Original 2005 WBF press release: > > http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05tenerife/Bulletins/28TuePg3.htm > [1] > > Alain Gottcheiner asked: > > "Do you mean that when A says 'B cheated against me' and B says 'I > didn't', then A is to be believed, because he is more credible than > B?" > > Richard Hills answers: > > No, not at all. In the above WBF press release Alain should read the > paragraph about the Committee's reasons. > AG : sorry, still unconvinced. If you take away the testimony about the three fingers -and this testimony is not valid IMOBO-. what remains is a bizarre line of play by a good player, and a bizarre explanation. On those two swallows only, you can't shout "cheat". If this word was activated every time a wrong line of play succedes, bridge would quickly resemble hell. One last notice : bridge players are more superstitious than you might think. And it might even be right to feign being superstitious, just in case opponents are (credits to Victor Mollo). Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Dec 18 15:52:08 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 01:52:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] counter-intuitive reasoning In-Reply-To: <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <358981183c8cf9f9b54d1437ea923db4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <566FC7CB.1050108@skynet.be> <566FED0D.4000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: > So, we must protect against the unconscious use of UI. > Herman De Wael: But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. Richard Hills: Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South You, South, hold: T7432 7542 T4 J8 You elect to pass as dealer. West opens 1D. East responds 2C. West rebids 2D. Now East jumps to 4NT, notionally Keycard Blackwood in diamonds. West bids 5D, showing 1 (or 4) keycards. Now East signs off in 7NT. Pard doubles. East redoubles. You, West and North elect to pass. What is your opening lead? Well, on 10 out of your possible 13 opening leads your side is -2280. So obviously there is 10 to 3 evidence that a successful opening lead is illegally based upon Rule-of-Coincidence unconscious UI. :-) :-) Details for the curious are: 1. Leading a major card sees pard squeezed in the minors. 2. Leading the 8 of clubs performs a "coup de sausage" against pard's Txxx of clubs. Declarer holds AKQ9xx opposite dummy's singleton. 3. Leading the jack of clubs cuts the communication necessary for the squeeze to operate. 4. Leading a diamond cashes pard's ace. Monty Python: "As for flight, its body is totally unadapted to the problems of aviation. Trouble is, sheep are very dim." Richard Hills: Yes, the 1995 ACBL powers-that-be who created the "ain't no such animal" Rule of Coincidence were very dim. Fortunately the 2007 version of Law 85 proves that a gut feeling RoC adjusted score is a Director's Error. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > Robert Frick schreef: > > There is something illogical about the argument that he looks guilty > > therefore he must be innocent. There is a murder. If the suspect does > > not have an alibi for where they were at the time of the murder, do > > you assume he's innocent (because if he really committed the murder > > he would have found a good alibi)? > > > > If the murder weapon is found in his house, is that another good sign > > that he is not the murderer (because the murdered would not keep a > > murder weapon in his house)? > > > > Exactly such reasoning is often used in TV-drama's. If a logical suspect > fails to do away with the murder weapon, would that not indicate he did > not know the murder weapon was where it was found? > > > > > You also have the problem that humans just naturally use information > > without being aware they are using it. They can even use information > > that they were never consciously aware of. One name for this at > > bridge is "table feel". > > > > So, we must protect against the unconscious use of UI. > > > > But that creates a crime which does not exist. If there is no I, there > can be no use of UI. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the rule > of coincidence: he chose a correct action, so he must have used UI. > > When a player uses "table feel", and we cannot identify any information > that was transmitted, surely we cannot rule UI, or every single good > decision can be overturned. > > > > > I'm not sure your particular ruling is wrong, because you also have > > North's behavior. I am saying the general principles are wrong. > > It is the combination of both which lead me to the conclusion I came to. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151218/d6b7ccce/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Dec 19 13:20:39 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:20:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <621f1e0de174a42383c306e5c35a1435@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <621f1e0de174a42383c306e5c35a1435@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Original 2005 EBL Appeals Booklet: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/Appeals_Material/EBL%20Appeals/Appeals2005.pdf See pages 33 to 36. Alain Gottcheiner: AG : sorry, still unconvinced. If you take away the testimony about the three fingers -and this testimony is not valid IMOBO-. Richard Hills: The great (but alas retired) blml commentator David Stevenson correctly observed that self-serving evidence has little weight, but it does NOT have zero weight. Alain Gottcheiner: what remains is a bizarre line of play by a good player, and a bizarre explanation. On those two swallows only, you can't shout "cheat". Richard Hills: But are these two swallows African or European? Is it plausible to believe that these swallows gripped coconuts by the husks? The WBF press release was necessarily a mere summary; another swallow was declarer asserting that he had to take an anti-percentage line in 6D because he had suffered two bad boards at the start of the match. The more detailed appeals booklet above proved declarer's assertion to be false; the first two boards were neutral for his side. Alain Gottcheiner: If this word was activated every time a wrong line of play succedes, bridge would quickly resemble hell. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Yes, I do not want to play in a hellish ACBL session where an expert browbeats a novice because the novice has used Stayman without any logical reason. No, I do not want to play against a hellish world-class cheat because a Disciplinary Committee has ignored various strands (swallows) of consistent and coherent evidence. Alain Gottcheiner: One last notice : bridge players are more superstitious than you might think. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Yes, the average player superstitiously obeys "eight ever, nine never". The average player is unaware that "nine never" is a huge exaggeration; playing for the drop of the queen in a nine-card fit is "a priori" a mere 52% chance. No, a world-class player abandons "nine never" if in receipt of "a posteriori" information about the defenders' distribution. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, December 19, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 18.12.2015 03:02, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Original 2005 WBF press release: > > > > http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05tenerife/Bulletins/28TuePg3.htm > > [1] > > > > Alain Gottcheiner asked: > > > > "Do you mean that when A says 'B cheated against me' and B says 'I > > didn't', then A is to be believed, because he is more credible than > > B?" > > > > Richard Hills answers: > > > > No, not at all. In the above WBF press release Alain should read the > > paragraph about the Committee's reasons. > > > > AG : sorry, still unconvinced. If you take away the testimony about the > three fingers -and this testimony is not valid IMOBO-. what remains is a > bizarre line of play by a good player, and a bizarre explanation. On > those two swallows only, you can't shout "cheat". > > If this word was activated every time a wrong line of play succedes, > bridge would quickly resemble hell. > > One last notice : bridge players are more superstitious than you might > think. And it might even be right to feign being superstitious, just in > case opponents are (credits to Victor Mollo). > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151219/07fdc48d/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 19 16:17:49 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:17:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> On 2015-12-10 12:16 PM, agot wrote: > Remember, we're speaking about cheating, not a small matter. Maybe you are, but I don't think that was the original question in the thread. It was a simple score-adjustment matter. The player might have received and acted on UI, or the player might have taken an unusual action without UI involved. The Director decides between these two possibilities on the balance of evidence. In all examples given in this thread except for the original one, "without UI" seems to me the more likely explanation by far. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 20 02:42:52 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 20:42:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:17:49 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-12-10 12:16 PM, agot wrote: >> Remember, we're speaking about cheating, not a small matter. > > Maybe you are, but I don't think that was the original question in the > thread. It was a simple score-adjustment matter. The player might have > received and acted on UI, or the player might have taken an unusual > action without UI involved. The Director decides between these two > possibilities on the balance of evidence. > > In all examples given in this thread except for the original one, > "without UI" seems to me the more likely explanation by far. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > What about this? The auction is: 1S 2H 3D P P P 3D was forcing and unlimted. In fact, the 3 Diamond bidder stretched and didn't quite the nimimum values for her bid, and 3D was the last makeable contract. The opps complained, and his reason for stopping was that he had a minimum hand, including Kx in hearts which he had been giving full value to. Did he have UI? It was behind screens. He had his wife's facial expressions. He had the style she put down the bidding card, and how long it took her to make that bid. Did he use those? He seems very honest, so I am guessing not on purpose. But the very nature of human beings is to use those cues unconsciously. If she had bid quickly, and confidently, and seemed happy, I think he would have bid 3NT. So, he probably had UI, he probably used it, and the opponents deserved to be protected. If we changed the laws so that he was afraid to pass his partner out in a forcing unlimited bid, I don't see why he or anyone is harmed. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 21 12:54:57 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:54:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <2a8ce92f7cf7ade5a592868837ea7334@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <18ea43b8799fabbe61705fb1c91e3aa3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <8B61E85AA336499FBBD89121A22A8F3A@G3> <1639870fa4aa7583ccbdf6e3c9649c4f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <621f1e0de174a42383c306e5c35a1435@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <69e374070ec3e2e4bab42c6c180ec5b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 19.12.2015 13:20, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Original 2005 EBL Appeals Booklet: > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/Appeals_Material/EBL%20Appeals/Appeals2005.pdf > [3] > > See pages 33 to 36. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > AG : sorry, still unconvinced. If you take away the testimony about > the > three fingers -and this testimony is not valid IMOBO-. > > Richard Hills: > > The great (but alas retired) blml commentator David Stevenson > correctly observed that self-serving evidence has little weight, but > it does NOT have zero weight. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > ?what remains is a > bizarre line of play by a good player, and a bizarre explanation. On > those two swallows only, you can't shout "cheat". > > Richard Hills: > > But are these two swallows African or European? Is it plausible to > believe that these swallows gripped coconuts by the husks? > > The WBF press release was necessarily a mere summary; another?swallow > was declarer asserting that he had to take an anti-percentage line in > 6D?because he had suffered two bad boards at the start of the match. > The more detailed appeals booklet above proved declarer's assertion to > be false; the first two boards were neutral for his side. > Indeed. And that's the ridiculous thing. The player mentioned "two bad boards at the start of the match" and the Committee looked at the first two boards and found they produced normal results. It didn't happen to them that they could be, say the 4th and 6th boards. This misinterpretation might well be the cause of their decision, and it wasn't an innocuous one. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 21 12:56:48 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:56:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <764ab0b547af0ea189d734322b94f4e6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.12.2015 02:42, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:17:49 -0500, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 2015-12-10 12:16 PM, agot wrote: >>> Remember, we're speaking about cheating, not a small matter. >> >> Maybe you are, but I don't think that was the original question in the >> thread. It was a simple score-adjustment matter. The player might >> have >> received and acted on UI, or the player might have taken an unusual >> action without UI involved. The Director decides between these two >> possibilities on the balance of evidence. >> >> In all examples given in this thread except for the original one, >> "without UI" seems to me the more likely explanation by far. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > What about this? The auction is: > > 1S 2H 3D P > P P > > 3D was forcing and unlimted. In fact, the 3 Diamond bidder stretched > and didn't quite the nimimum values for her bid, and 3D was the last > makeable contract. The opps complained, and his reason for stopping > was that he had a minimum hand, including Kx in hearts which he had > been giving full value to. > > Did he have UI? It was behind screens. He had his wife's facial > expressions. Huh ? How could he ? From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 15:07:39 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 01:07:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <764ab0b547af0ea189d734322b94f4e6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <764ab0b547af0ea189d734322b94f4e6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > > But are these two swallows African or European? Is it plausible to > believe that these swallows gripped coconuts by the husks? > > The WBF press release was necessarily a mere summary; another swallow > was declarer asserting that he had to take an anti-percentage line in > 6D because he had suffered two bad boards at the start of the match. > The more detailed appeals booklet above proved declarer's assertion to > be false; the first two boards were neutral for his side. > Alain Gottcheiner: Indeed. And that's the ridiculous thing. The player mentioned "two bad boards at the start of the match" and the Committee looked at the first two boards and found they produced normal results. It didn't happen to them that they could be, say the 4th and 6th boards. This misinterpretation might well be the cause of their decision, and it wasn't an innocuous one. Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "A five ounce [swallow] could not carry a one pound coconut." Richard Hills: a) It was undisputed evidence that board 23 - the contentious 6D - was the third board of the match at that table. b) Many multiple teams tournaments, whether European Open Teams or Canberra Bridge Club Teams, have Conditions of Contest which require boards to be played in consecutive numerical ascending order. In my opinion equally bad are Director Scylla (who infracts Law 85 by adjusting the score due to non-existent unconscious UI pursuant to the fictional Rule of Coincidence) and Director Charybdis (who infracts Law 85 by doing nothing when in receipt of coherent and convincing evidence). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, December 21, 2015, agot > wrote: > Le 19.12.2015 13:20, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Original 2005 EBL Appeals Booklet: > > > > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/Appeals_Material/EBL%20Appeals/Appeals2005.pdf > > [3] > > > > See pages 33 to 36. > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > AG : sorry, still unconvinced. If you take away the testimony about > > the > > three fingers -and this testimony is not valid IMOBO-. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > The great (but alas retired) blml commentator David Stevenson > > correctly observed that self-serving evidence has little weight, but > > it does NOT have zero weight. > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > what remains is a > > bizarre line of play by a good player, and a bizarre explanation. On > > those two swallows only, you can't shout "cheat". > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > But are these two swallows African or European? Is it plausible to > > believe that these swallows gripped coconuts by the husks? > > > > The WBF press release was necessarily a mere summary; another swallow > > was declarer asserting that he had to take an anti-percentage line in > > 6D because he had suffered two bad boards at the start of the match. > > The more detailed appeals booklet above proved declarer's assertion to > > be false; the first two boards were neutral for his side. > > > > > Indeed. And that's the ridiculous thing. The player mentioned "two bad > boards at the start of the match" and the Committee looked at the first > two boards and found they produced normal results. It didn't happen to > them that they could be, say the 4th and 6th boards. > > This misinterpretation might well be the cause of their decision, and it > wasn't an innocuous one. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151221/4eb336c7/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 21 17:25:21 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:25:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <764ab0b547af0ea189d734322b94f4e6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 21.12.2015 15:07, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > > > a) It was undisputed evidence that board 23 - the contentious 6D - was > the third board of the match at that table. AG : then it should have been said more precisely by the Committee. The text you gave us was ambiguous about that. In such tense cases, making people believe somebody was ill-treated is nearly as bad as ill-treating him. Maybe I'm completely wrong in my judgement, which is based on what was readable about the case. And then many people are, too. And it was avoidable. In the most recent case, excellent information is available. That, along with those being repetitive cases, makes it impossible to disagree. I repeat that, according to what I've heard from some of them, some superstitions are strongly anchored in experts' minds ; the best-known example is the rule of symmetry. If one strong player said to the Committee that he played for Qxx ro his right according to the Rule of Summetry -which isn't rational now that we use computer-dealt hands-, how would you rule ? And BTW how would you react if the player just told you "I called the wrong card from dummy and couldn't change the call ; so what ?" ? If one wants to be allowed to use a player's superstitious statements (whether truth or lie) against him, it should be written in the Laws. (not just in jurisprudency,you know. This matter of doing is nearly unknown outside Anglo-Saxon countries) Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Dec 22 05:55:05 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:55:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <764ab0b547af0ea189d734322b94f4e6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: > a) It was undisputed evidence that board 23 - the contentious 6D - was > the third board of the match at that table. Alain Gottcheiner: AG : then it should have been said more precisely by the Committee. The text you gave us was ambiguous about that. In such tense cases, making people believe somebody was ill-treated is nearly as bad as ill-treating him. Richard Hills: I disagree with Alain. The four-page Committee report was precise and unambiguous because the Scribe to the Committee was Herman De Wael. Unambiguous statements by the Committee: "The Committee rejected the argument that 'Diamonds are always badly divided in this Tournament.'" and "It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent player was self-incriminating." Alain Gottcheiner: If one strong player said to the Committee that he played for Qxx ro his right according to the Rule of Summetry -which isn't rational now that we use computer-dealt hands-, how would you rule ? Richard Hills: In the classic historical novel I, Claudius the child Claudius has a tutor who describes an impossible contingency as "If the Wooden Horse of Troy had foaled...". Likewise Alain's scenario above is a foaling Wooden Horse. So I would rule either: b) the player is not strong, but rather very weak (with the reputation for being strong actually being gained in another field of endeavour, for example the strong President of Russia) or c) the strong player is competent, but his unconvincing lies would deceive only the gullible. On the other hand, a player may be semi-strong. A case in point is the Kiwi / Aussie player Paul Marston. He is a world-class bidding theorist, inventor of the Moscito strong club system. But when Paul is on opening lead sometimes his superstitious hobby-horse will see him less effective than a novice. Suppose Paul holds: Axxx Axxxx xx xx and Paul's RHO opens 1NT, with Paul's LHO raising to 3NT, all pass. Novices would almost universally lead a low heart "fourth best from longest and strongest". Paul, however, would lead a low spade. His contrarian reasoning is based upon pard's average length in spades being slightly higher than pard's average length in hearts. So enamoured was Paul of his hobby-horse that he submitted an article to The Bridge World. Its Editor (also retired professor of mathematics) Jeff Rubens succinctly rejected the article with, "This idea has neither theoretical nor practical merit." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 21.12.2015 15:07, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > > > > > a) It was undisputed evidence that board 23 - the contentious 6D - was > > the third board of the match at that table. > > AG : then it should have been said more precisely by the Committee. The > text you gave us was ambiguous about that. In such tense cases, making > people believe somebody was ill-treated is nearly as bad as ill-treating > him. > > Maybe I'm completely wrong in my judgement, which is based on what was > readable about the case. And then many people are, too. And it was > avoidable. > In the most recent case, excellent information is available. That, along > with those being repetitive cases, makes it impossible to disagree. > > I repeat that, according to what I've heard from some of them, some > superstitions are strongly anchored in experts' minds ; the best-known > example is the rule of symmetry. > > If one strong player said to the Committee that he played for Qxx ro his > right according to the Rule of Summetry -which isn't rational now that > we use computer-dealt hands-, how would you rule ? > > And BTW how would you react if the player just told you "I called the > wrong card from dummy and couldn't change the call ; so what ?" ? > > If one wants to be allowed to use a player's superstitious statements > (whether truth or lie) against him, it should be written in the Laws. > (not just in jurisprudency,you know. This matter of doing is nearly > unknown outside Anglo-Saxon countries) > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151222/3a91375f/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 23 02:45:52 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:45:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> On 2015-12-19 8:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Did he have UI? It was behind screens. He had his wife's facial expressions. Did you mean _not_ behind screens? You'd want to ask some questions, taking each player away from the table and asking privately. Did the opponents notice anything? And what explanation does the player give? Does his partner say anything about having doubts about the 3D bid? If screens, was there anything unusual about the tray timing, or were there unusual sounds? Without screens, and without further answers, it seems possible that something in partner's tempo or facial expression indicated a weak hand. You can rule accordingly if you think that's more probable than the player just taking a gamble. With screens, it's hard to imagine how UI was passed, and taking a gamble seems by far the most likely explanation unless you can find some actual source of UI. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 23 03:42:23 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:42:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:45:52 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-12-19 8:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Did he have UI? It was behind screens. He had his wife's facial expressions. > > Did you mean _not_ behind screens? > > You'd want to ask some questions, taking each player away from the table > and asking privately. Did the opponents notice anything? And what > explanation does the player give? Does his partner say anything about > having doubts about the 3D bid? If screens, was there anything unusual > about the tray timing, or were there unusual sounds? > > Without screens, and without further answers, it seems possible that > something in partner's tempo or facial expression indicated a weak hand. > You can rule accordingly if you think that's more probable than the > player just taking a gamble. > > With screens, it's hard to imagine how UI was passed, and taking a > gamble seems by far the most likely explanation unless you can find some > actual source of UI. Yes, I only direct club games and there was no screen. People are not trained to notice nonverbal expressions, and her husband would be better at them than the opponents. And I am not saying he consciously noticed her expressions, or if he did, he forgot. But they were still in his brain. Here's a link for micro-expressions. http://www.nonverbal-world.com/2011/12/reading-body-language-micro-expressions.html When you say "take a gamble", do you mean taking the percentage bid? Or do you mean taking a nonpercentage bid? I don't understand why anyone does that, but don't they always bid higher than they should? No one passes 3D because they're feeling lucky. The problem is, I hear "I took a gamble" when the person had obvious UI that partner had extra values and it didn't seem like any gamble to me. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 23 11:15:28 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:15:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <764ab0b547af0ea189d734322b94f4e6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <14d7bb2494dd5a1dab00e69b0f134915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 22.12.2015 05:55, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Richard Hills: > >> a) It was undisputed evidence that board 23 - the contentious 6D - > was >> the third board of the match at that table. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > AG : then it should have been said more precisely by the Committee. > The > text you gave us was ambiguous about that. In such tense cases, making > people believe somebody was ill-treated is nearly as bad as > ill-treating > him. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree with Alain. The four-page Committee report was precise and > unambiguous because the Scribe to the Committee was Herman De Wael. > Unambiguous statements?by the Committee: > > "The Committee rejected the argument that 'Diamonds are always badly > divided in this Tournament.'" > > and > > "It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent > player was self-incriminating." It will be no surprise to you if I tell you that I disagree with that. A partner of mine, now deceased, but at the time a good player and a competent TD, once underled an Ace on similar grounds : "today, everything works bizarrely, so I felt I could as well try that'. And it worked. And, for obvious reasons, I know that his partner didn't trannsmit information about the deal. And I hasten to say that he wasn't the kind of guy to be open to superstition. So ... would you have ruled against him ? From g3 at nige1.com Wed Dec 23 12:47:38 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:47:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de><1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com><000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de><6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com><001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no><31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com><000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3><739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0756056488D9414ABF17ACFB9259B57F@G3> [Robert Frick] The problem is, I hear "I took a gamble" when the person had obvious UI that partner had extra values and it didn't seem like any gamble to me. [Nigel] Unfortunately, however, It seems like an innocent gamble to directors who are - blind to the overwhelming likelihood of relevant UI (subliminal or not) and - oblivious to the prevalent and enormous power of rationalization (conscious or not) and - keen to escape avoidable hassle. In some clubs, players seem to consider exchange of UI to have an equal role in partnership-communication to calls and plays. The few masochists who comply with the law suffer a self-imposed handicap :( From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 26 23:34:43 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:34:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> On 12/22/2015 9:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > When you say "take a gamble", do you mean taking the percentage bid? > Or do you mean taking a nonpercentage bid? I mean a bid (actually call) that lacks an obvious explanation. That's what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? > The problem is, I hear "I took a gamble" when the person had obvious > UI Indeed. You ask the player why he made the call in question. If he has a logical or even plausible explanation, that is evidence against the UI hypothesis. If he says "I took a gamble" or similar non- explanation, UI remains a live possibility. Of course you examine all the available evidence before deciding, but ultimately you decide whether "had UI" or "took an honest gamble" is more likely. From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Dec 29 10:44:20 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:44:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic In-Reply-To: <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> In Germany we had a fundamental judgement of the supreme court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on DNA tests. It is allowed do use the result of a test as a proof against a special suspected person. But it is not allowed to use testing of a great group to find the suspects. The court said that using such a test on a great group of people is violating the presumption of innocence. Possibly there have been practical reasons too: Suppose a DNA Test will give a match to a trace with a probability of 1 in a million. It looks acceptable to convict a suspect if a there is a match. But it's obviously ridiculous to use this test to find a guilty person amongst the citizens of New York. If a player for some evidence is suspected of having received UI and this player takes a successful gamble afterwords, this gives further evidence that he in fact received UI and used it. But judging that any successful gamble proofs that there has been UI and it was used means we are acting on the proposition that any player is always suspected to violate the rules. We should avoid to judge on a single fact. "Testis unus, testis nullus." I am personally convinced that the player in the case case that started the thread did use some UI. But the only evidence is the strange, but successful bid. Not enough to change the score. Volker Walther Am 26.12.2015 um 23:34 schrieb Steve Willner: > On 12/22/2015 9:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> When you say "take a gamble", do you mean taking the percentage bid? >> Or do you mean taking a nonpercentage bid? > > I mean a bid (actually call) that lacks an obvious explanation. That's > what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? > >> The problem is, I hear "I took a gamble" when the person had obvious >> UI > > Indeed. You ask the player why he made the call in question. If he has > a logical or even plausible explanation, that is evidence against the UI > hypothesis. If he says "I took a gamble" or similar non- explanation, > UI remains a live possibility. Of course you examine all the available > evidence before deciding, but ultimately you decide whether "had UI" or > "took an honest gamble" is more likely. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 13:09:14 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:09:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The wait of the avid Ents Message-ID: Law 85A - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Director's Assessment When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the wait of the avid Ents he is able to collect. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84 [Rulings on Agreed Facts]. In J.R.R. Tolkien's novel The Two Towers the Ents carefully waited for significant evidence to be received before they avidly went to war against the traitorous wizard Saruman. Indeed the motto of the leader of the Ents, Treebeard, was, "Don't be hasty." Likewise a Director should not hastily determine a disputed fact by superficially seizing a scintilla of evidence which is immediately obvious. Even if a different Director does her diligent duty, by collecting all available evidence (if the ruling permits, some of this evidence might be collected away from the table), it is still possible that she may not be satisfied. In that case she should rule in accordance with Law 85B: "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue." Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151229/0872fe32/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Dec 29 19:55:31 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:55:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic In-Reply-To: <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <5682D723.5000002@nhcc.net> On 12/29/2015 4:44 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > If a player for some evidence is suspected of having received UI and > this player takes a successful gamble afterwords, this gives further > evidence that he in fact received UI and used it. Indeed. Bayes' theorem, which all bridge players should know, quantifies the additional evidence. > But judging that any > successful gamble proofs that there has been UI and it was used means we > are acting on the proposition that any player is always suspected to > violate the rules. Rulings aren't based on proof. They are based on balance of probabilities. In practical terms, the "prior" is strongly that the player is not using UI, but if the evidence is strong enough, it overcomes that presumption. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 30 03:20:28 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:20:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic In-Reply-To: <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> References: <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:44:20 -0500, Volker Walther wrote: > In Germany we had a fundamental judgement of the supreme court > (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on DNA tests. > > It is allowed do use the result of a test as a proof against a special > suspected person. But it is not allowed to use testing of a great group > to find the suspects. > > The court said that using such a test on a great group of people is > violating the presumption of innocence. > > > Possibly there have been practical reasons too: > Suppose a DNA Test will give a match to a trace with a probability of 1 > in a million. > It looks acceptable to convict a suspect if a there is a match. But it's > obviously ridiculous to use this test to find a guilty person amongst > the citizens of New York. > > If a player for some evidence is suspected of having received UI and > this player takes a successful gamble afterwords, this gives further > evidence that he in fact received UI and used it. But judging that any > successful gamble proofs that there has been UI and it was used means we > are acting on the proposition that any player is always suspected to > violate the rules. > We should avoid to judge on a single fact. > "Testis unus, testis nullus." > > I am personally convinced that the player in the case case that started > the thread did use some UI. But the only evidence is the strange, but > successful bid. Not enough to change the score. First, when you play without screens, you have UI. That includes all of your partner's nonverbal signals, including tempo and manner of playing the cards. That includes micro-expressions -- movments too small to be noticed, usually, but nonetheless detected. If he overheard "7 NT makes" and then forgot about it, and never consciously thought of it again, that's UI too. If you try to think what to do about that, one answer is screens. Yes, there is a reason for using screens. At the club, not much you can do. Right, if the director wanted to collect more evidence, the director could find out that the previous table discussed the fact that 7 NT makes. So you have a situation where you believe a player used UI, pretty much everyone else does too, and you don't do anything to protect the damaged pair. What excuse do we find for that? We blame the laws, right? > > Volker Walther > > > > Am 26.12.2015 um 23:34 schrieb Steve Willner: >> On 12/22/2015 9:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> When you say "take a gamble", do you mean taking the percentage bid? >>> Or do you mean taking a nonpercentage bid? >> >> I mean a bid (actually call) that lacks an obvious explanation. That's >> what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? >> >>> The problem is, I hear "I took a gamble" when the person had obvious >>> UI >> >> Indeed. You ask the player why he made the call in question. If he has >> a logical or even plausible explanation, that is evidence against the UI >> hypothesis. If he says "I took a gamble" or similar non- explanation, >> UI remains a live possibility. Of course you examine all the available >> evidence before deciding, but ultimately you decide whether "had UI" or >> "took an honest gamble" is more likely. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 30 03:41:39 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:41:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic In-Reply-To: <5682D723.5000002@nhcc.net> References: <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> <5682D723.5000002@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Declarer simply stopped playing. Eventually people asked him to play. He didn't. Even his partner started yelling at him to play. He didn't. Eventually the director was called. Declarer finally started playing -- very slowly. So only 5 boards were played in a 7 board Swiss match. They never got to the hand where his partners, instead of playing in their making spade slam, went for -1400 in 6 NT. Coincidence? Possibly. People win the lottery, despite the odds. Coins when flipped sometimes end up on edge. Balance of probabilities? Not enough to accuse him of cheating. Certainly enough to rule against him. We do not accuse people of cheating or using UI just because they violate Law 16. We just rule against them. From lskelso at ihug.com.au Wed Dec 30 04:39:48 2015 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:39:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic In-Reply-To: References: <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> <5682D723.5000002@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <56835204.6040701@ihug.com.au> This one is easy. It has already been acknowledged that this particular declarer was responsible for the rate of play that led to only 5 boards being played. In respect to the two unplayed boards the Director just applies Law 86D (which allows him to take into account the favourable result obtained by the non-offending side at the other table). Laurie On 30/12/2015 1:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer simply stopped playing. Eventually people asked him to play. He didn't. Even his partner started yelling at him to play. He didn't. Eventually the director was called. Declarer finally started playing -- very slowly. > > So only 5 boards were played in a 7 board Swiss match. > > They never got to the hand where his partners, instead of playing in their making spade slam, went for -1400 in 6 NT. > > Coincidence? Possibly. People win the lottery, despite the odds. Coins when flipped sometimes end up on edge. > > Balance of probabilities? Not enough to accuse him of cheating. Certainly enough to rule against him. We do not accuse people of cheating or using UI just because they violate Law 16. We just rule against them. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From sven at svenpran.net Wed Dec 30 08:54:44 2015 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:54:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic In-Reply-To: <56835204.6040701@ihug.com.au> References: <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> <5682D723.5000002@nhcc.net> <56835204.6040701@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <000001d142d7$5b6061a0$122124e0$@svenpran.net> I agree, and if the scoring is MP I would award the standard Ave+/AVE- and in addition impose a PP equal to AT LEAST 50% (possibly 100%) of a single board top on this declarer. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Laurie Kelso > Sendt: 30. desember 2015 04:40 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic > > This one is easy. > > It has already been acknowledged that this particular declarer was > responsible for the rate of play that led to only 5 boards being played. In > respect to the two unplayed boards the Director just applies Law 86D > (which allows him to take into account the favourable result obtained by > the non-offending side at the other table). > > Laurie > > On 30/12/2015 1:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > Declarer simply stopped playing. Eventually people asked him to play. He > didn't. Even his partner started yelling at him to play. He didn't. Eventually > the director was called. Declarer finally started playing -- very slowly. > > > > So only 5 boards were played in a 7 board Swiss match. > > > > They never got to the hand where his partners, instead of playing in their > making spade slam, went for -1400 in 6 NT. > > > > Coincidence? Possibly. People win the lottery, despite the odds. Coins > when flipped sometimes end up on edge. > > > > Balance of probabilities? Not enough to accuse him of cheating. Certainly > enough to rule against him. We do not accuse people of cheating or using > UI just because they violate Law 16. We just rule against them. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Dec 30 10:58:37 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:58:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The wait of the avid Ents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An obscure ACBL expert wrote a slim volume describing his interesting and entertaining declarer plays and defences. As a postscript to his description of one board, he correctly criticised the tournament organisers for creating a Suspicion Box. Similar in principle to a suggestion box, the Suspicion Box permitted a player to anonymously cast aspersions against the ethics of another player. (If I had played in that ACBL tournament, my recondite sense of humour would have seen me anonymously cast aspersions against my own ethics.) On the other hand, the ABF Recorder regulation provides natural justice to the accused player. In part the Recorder reg states: "Where the concern is that an action by another player was or might have been unethical or inappropriate and there appears some chance that the concern is justified, inform the other player of the concern and obtain an account of the incident from their perspective." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Richard Hills > wrote: > Law 85A - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Director's Assessment > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation > in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: > > 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the > balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the wait of > the avid Ents he is able to collect. > > 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he > rules as in Law 84 [Rulings on Agreed Facts]. > > In J.R.R. Tolkien's novel The Two Towers the Ents carefully waited for > significant evidence to be received before they avidly went to war against > the traitorous wizard Saruman. Indeed the motto of the leader of the Ents, > Treebeard, was, "Don't be hasty." > > Likewise a Director should not hastily determine a disputed fact by > superficially seizing a scintilla of evidence which is immediately obvious. > Even if a different Director does her diligent duty, by collecting all > available evidence (if the ruling permits, some of this evidence might be > collected away from the table), it is still possible that she may not be > satisfied. In that case she should rule in accordance with Law 85B: > > "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he > makes a ruling that will permit play to continue." > > Best wishes, > > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151230/9ebbfa62/attachment.html From nistler at bridgehands.com Thu Dec 31 02:37:21 2015 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:37:21 -0800 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> References: <004a01d12e6e$f41a4e60$dc4eeb20$@t-online.de> <1F6989B5-9BE1-497A-8AB7-371EDE2AC7FD@gmail.com> <000901d12e7a$edc0fa30$c942ee90$@t-online.de> <6FCCA495-9666-4837-BE38-6EC02CDF4BEC@gmail.com> <001101d12ea9$8dc0d270$a9427750$@online.no> <31A0D719-AB6E-4253-A3A6-D7254E540A63@gmail.com> <000901d12f63$182fab20$488f0160$@online.no> <3BEE3927F9E045B2AB7989D665BF44C4@G3> <739be3f91dc1dd3f191d8c4a72cd879c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5675751D.3090508@nhcc.net> <5679FCD0.2050601@nhcc.net> <567F1603.9020802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0E7D9BEB-E967-4B48-A35E-5CB77CE01DA4@bridgehands.com> > On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 12/22/2015 9:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> When you say "take a gamble", do you mean taking the percentage bid? >> Or do you mean taking a nonpercentage bid? > > I mean a bid (actually call) that lacks an obvious explanation. That's > what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? > >> The problem is, I hear "I took a gamble" when the person had obvious >> UI > > Indeed. You ask the player why he made the call in question. If he has > a logical or even plausible explanation, that is evidence against the UI > hypothesis. If he says "I took a gamble" or similar non- explanation, > UI remains a live possibility. Of course you examine all the available > evidence before deciding, but ultimately you decide whether "had UI" or > "took an honest gamble" is more likely. > __________________________________ And along this line, there is the possibility of detecting and opponents tells or reverse-tells. In my earlier days, I eventually realized when I had a long trump stack or a rock crusher with both opponents bidding, my attempts to look away or bid with a precise even tempo might actually be deceiving my true values. So while these days it is in vogue to perry out unethical behavior or outright cheats, hopefully we are willing to give consideration to table presence and not be entirely blindsided by the Rule of Coincidence. Happy trails, Michael From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 02:59:01 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:01 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule Message-ID: [Steve Willner] [...] Of course you examine all the available evidence before deciding, but ultimately you decide whether "had UI" or "took an honest gamble" is more likely. [Jerry Fusselman] It sounds like Steve is suggesting a Bayesian exercise with the following decision rule: If the director's Bayesian posterior probability of UI exceeds 50%, rule UI, otherwise, don't. My questions are two: 1. Is 50% the proper cut-off point? 2. In terms of this Bayesian framework, how do you determine your prior probabilities? In particular, do you engage in what Eric Landau calls "knowing your customers" to the extent that some customers will get adverse UI rulings and others will get favorable rulings, even if the facts that day are the same in both cases? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151231/ad403ffc/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 31 03:25:07 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:25:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:59:01 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Steve Willner] > > [...] Of course you examine all the available > evidence before deciding, but ultimately you decide whether "had UI" or > "took an honest gamble" is more likely. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > It sounds like Steve is suggesting a Bayesian exercise with the following > decision rule: If the director's Bayesian posterior probability of UI > exceeds 50%, rule UI, otherwise, don't. > > My questions are two: > > 1. Is 50% the proper cut-off point? > > 2. In terms of this Bayesian framework, how do you determine your prior > probabilities? In particular, do you engage in what Eric Landau calls > "knowing your customers" to the extent that some customers will get adverse > UI rulings and others will get favorable rulings, even if the facts that > day are the same in both cases? > It seems to me that the problem occurs when a reasonable player takes an action that would not even be considered by most players. That could be tested by asking other players. Another issue is if the player can construct a bridge reason for the bid or play. Both of those seem somewhat objective. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 04:11:24 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:11:24 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I asked Steve for a Bayesian discussion, but then Robert Frick replied: > > It seems to me that the problem occurs when a reasonable player takes an > action that would not even be considered by most players. That could be > tested by asking other players. > > Another issue is if the player can construct a bridge reason for the bid or play. > > Both of those seem somewhat objective. I'm quite sympathetic to what I think Robert is suggesting. Robert's original post concerned a dealer who opened 7NT with A A753 A AKQ10653 No reasonable player would open this 7NT---unless desperate for a good result near the end of an event with no mechanisms in place to gain relevant information. Assuming a reasonable player, unless the director has convincing evidence of both halves--- 1. Desperation for a good result near the end of an event; 2. No way to gather useful information--- I would say the only valid ruling is UI. What reasonable player has nothing in place to gather information? How about 2C-2D-3NT or 2C-2D-4NT or opening 4NT Blackwood and then asking for kings? Lots of possibilities. Something here is surely far more sensible than opening 7NT---unless Opener already knows that it makes. Waiting for people to come forward admitting they discussed the hand out loud during the event seems to me a dereliction of duty on the part of the director. When 7NT is this remote, opening 7NT is prima facie evidence of UI. Jerry Fusselman