From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 1 16:24:08 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:24:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> On 2015-12-30 8:59 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > 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. Exactly. > My questions are two: > 1.? Is 50% the proper cut-off point? Isn't that what "balance of probabilities" in L85A means? > 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" That's an interesting discussion. I'm sure EK wrote about it in his "Appeals Committee" booklets, and I think his answer was "yes." (Anybody want to check that? My booklets are not at hand.) EK wrote a long time ago, but I don't think this aspect has changed. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 1 18:49:40 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:49:40 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> References: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 1, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-12-30 8:59 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> 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. > > Exactly. > >> My questions are two: >> 1.? Is 50% the proper cut-off point? > > Isn't that what "balance of probabilities" in L85A means? > >> 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" > > That's an interesting discussion. I'm sure EK wrote about it in his > "Appeals Committee" booklets, and I think his answer was "yes." > (Anybody want to check that? My booklets are not at hand.) EK wrote a > long time ago, but I don't think this aspect has changed. > Thanks so much, Steve, for being willing to discuss this issue a bit with Bayesian terms. I consider Bayesian language and thinking a great tool for directors. Are Edgar Kaplan's "Appeals Committee" booklets available online? While I'm interested in EK's thoughts on the issue, I'm more interested in yours, Steve. Here's my problem with the position you suspect EK stated: Suppose a pair a direct likes and respects, which he personally considers ethical players, match up against newcomers. If you are correct, EK would tend to rule in favor of the people he likes, because he "knows" them and gives them more favorable priors. Directors, being people, tend to have higher opinions of the honesty of their friends than for people they don't know. (If this needs proof, I imagine Robert Frick has it easily at hand.) EK apparently offers a path to legitimize a tendency to rule in favor of your friends and against people you don't like or have never before met. I detest "know your customers" rulings for two reasons. The first is that they are biased in favor of friends. I would prefer directors eschew "knowing your customers" and instead give all customers that walk through the door that day equal prior probabilities, regardless of whether or not the director imagines they "know" them. Besides, if the conditions of contests are different for different players, in my view, they have a right to know that before the contest starts. Newcomers have right to know they are more likely to lose rulings than the favored regulars, and the disfavored regulars (if any) have a right to know that they are more likely even than newcomers to lose rulings. My second reason: When a director embraces "knowing his customers" and rules Mr. X, a regular, may have used UI, he is announcing that he "knows" that Mr. X is fully capable of cheating by using UI, and that other regulars with the same facts may well have gotten a favorable ruling. Therefore, in my view, it is so much better to give all players the same priors, for then, a UI ruling adverse to Mr. X does nothing to impugn Mr. X. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 06:56:37 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 16:56:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The wait of the avid Ents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: East-West West opens 1NT (15-17), pard passes in tempo, East slooowly passes. You, South, hold: QJ9842 832 75 65 What call do you make? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Richard Hills wrote: > 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/20160102/2d2fd7df/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Sat Jan 2 16:01:12 2016 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:01:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5687E638.4000904@verizon.net> On 1/1/16 12:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: >> On 2015-12-30 8:59 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> 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. >> Exactly. >> >>> My questions are two: >>> 1.? Is 50% the proper cut-off point? >> Isn't that what "balance of probabilities" in L85A means? >> >>> 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" >> That's an interesting discussion. I'm sure EK wrote about it in his >> "Appeals Committee" booklets, and I think his answer was "yes." >> (Anybody want to check that? My booklets are not at hand.) EK wrote a >> long time ago, but I don't think this aspect has changed. >> > Thanks so much, Steve, for being willing to discuss this issue a bit > with Bayesian terms. I consider Bayesian language and thinking a > great tool for directors. > > Are Edgar Kaplan's "Appeals Committee" booklets available online? > > While I'm interested in EK's thoughts on the issue, I'm more > interested in yours, Steve. > > Here's my problem with the position you suspect EK stated: Suppose a > pair a direct likes and respects, which he personally considers > ethical players, match up against newcomers. If you are correct, EK > would tend to rule in favor of the people he likes, because he "knows" > them and gives them more favorable priors. > > Directors, being people, tend to have higher opinions of the honesty > of their friends than for people they don't know. (If this needs > proof, I imagine Robert Frick has it easily at hand.) EK apparently > offers a path to legitimize a tendency to rule in favor of your > friends and against people you don't like or have never before met. > > I detest "know your customers" rulings for two reasons. The first is > that they are biased in favor of friends. I would prefer directors > eschew "knowing your customers" and instead give all customers that > walk through the door that day equal prior probabilities, regardless > of whether or not the director imagines they "know" them. > > Besides, if the conditions of contests are different for different > players, in my view, they have a right to know that before the contest > starts. Newcomers have right to know they are more likely to lose > rulings than the favored regulars, and the disfavored regulars (if > any) have a right to know that they are more likely even than > newcomers to lose rulings. > > My second reason: When a director embraces "knowing his customers" and > rules Mr. X, a regular, may have used UI, he is announcing that he > "knows" that Mr. X is fully capable of cheating by using UI, and that > other regulars with the same facts may well have gotten a favorable > ruling. > > Therefore, in my view, it is so much better to give all players the > same priors, for then, a UI ruling adverse to Mr. X does nothing to > impugn Mr. X. The real question here is whether a TD ruling on an infraction should consider the putative offenders' prior history of similar incidents, to the extent he has it available, in determining the balance of probabilities. If so, however, one must recognize that the mechanisms we have in place to record that history and make it available to TDs as needed are seriously flawed and simply do not work well enough to be generally useful. "Knowing his customers" simply means allowing the TD to use his personal knowledge of some relevant history of similar incidents even if that particular history hasn't been reflected back to him by the formal incident-recording mechanism. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 19:49:21 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 12:49:21 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule slightly of topic In-Reply-To: <5682D723.5000002@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> <568255F4.3030409@vwalther.de> <5682D723.5000002@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 Steve Willner wrote: > 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. Steve, I agree with your framework and your language. But what prior would you assign to a player not using UI? 50%? 90%? 99%? Would you assign different numbers to different players based on "knowing your customers"? For new customers, would you use their age, race, gender, how they look, etc., to assign the number? I am sure that you recognize that this choice would strongly affect the rate of UI rulings. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 21:33:58 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:33:58 -0600 Subject: [BLML] The wait of the avid Ents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > West opens 1NT (15-17), pard passes in tempo, East slooowly passes. You, > South, hold: > > QJ9842 > 832 > 75 > 65 > > What call do you make? > Given that North passed in tempo, South can do whatever he wants and he can even use East's slooow pass to choose his action. Is this a trick question? I wonder---does East have a terrible balanced hand with near zero HCP? Are we to imagine that his slooow pass might be deceptive? Well, I don't see any way that South's actions are hindered by UI, since there is no UI. If I was South, I might be tempted to pass based on East's slowness, and I might object to the director if I passed and East had a balanced hand with near zero HCP. Am I responsive to your question? From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 06:53:10 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 23:53:10 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <5687E638.4000904@verizon.net> References: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> <5687E638.4000904@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, Eric Landau wrote: > On 1/1/16 12:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: >>> On 2015-12-30 8:59 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Exactly. >>> >>>> My questions are two: >>>> 1.? Is 50% the proper cut-off point? >>> Isn't that what "balance of probabilities" in L85A means? >>> >>>> 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" >>> That's an interesting discussion. I'm sure EK wrote about it in his >>> "Appeals Committee" booklets, and I think his answer was "yes." >>> (Anybody want to check that? My booklets are not at hand.) EK wrote a >>> long time ago, but I don't think this aspect has changed. >>> >> Thanks so much, Steve, for being willing to discuss this issue a bit >> with Bayesian terms. I consider Bayesian language and thinking a >> great tool for directors. >> >> Are Edgar Kaplan's "Appeals Committee" booklets available online? >> >> While I'm interested in EK's thoughts on the issue, I'm more >> interested in yours, Steve. >> >> Here's my problem with the position you suspect EK stated: Suppose a >> pair a direct likes and respects, which he personally considers >> ethical players, match up against newcomers. If you are correct, EK >> would tend to rule in favor of the people he likes, because he "knows" >> them and gives them more favorable priors. >> >> Directors, being people, tend to have higher opinions of the honesty >> of their friends than for people they don't know. (If this needs >> proof, I imagine Robert Frick has it easily at hand.) EK apparently >> offers a path to legitimize a tendency to rule in favor of your >> friends and against people you don't like or have never before met. >> >> I detest "know your customers" rulings for two reasons. The first is >> that they are biased in favor of friends. I would prefer directors >> eschew "knowing your customers" and instead give all customers that >> walk through the door that day equal prior probabilities, regardless >> of whether or not the director imagines they "know" them. >> >> Besides, if the conditions of contests are different for different >> players, in my view, they have a right to know that before the contest >> starts. Newcomers have right to know they are more likely to lose >> rulings than the favored regulars, and the disfavored regulars (if >> any) have a right to know that they are more likely even than >> newcomers to lose rulings. >> >> My second reason: When a director embraces "knowing his customers" and >> rules Mr. X, a regular, may have used UI, he is announcing that he >> "knows" that Mr. X is fully capable of cheating by using UI, and that >> other regulars with the same facts may well have gotten a favorable >> ruling. >> >> Therefore, in my view, it is so much better to give all players the >> same priors, for then, a UI ruling adverse to Mr. X does nothing to >> impugn Mr. X. > > The real question here is whether a TD ruling on an infraction should > consider the putative offenders' prior history of similar incidents, to > the extent he has it available, in determining the balance of > probabilities. If so, however, one must recognize that the mechanisms > we have in place to record that history and make it available to TDs as > needed are seriously flawed and simply do not work well enough to be > generally useful. "Knowing his customers" simply means allowing the TD > to use his personal knowledge of some relevant history of similar > incidents even if that particular history hasn't been reflected back to > him by the formal incident-recording mechanism. > I hope my responses to Steve and Eric prove worthy. I will agree with Eric that "the real question here is whether a TD ruling on an infraction should consider the putative offenders' prior history of similar incidents". My answer is "no". (Disciplinary matters are not our issue here. History matters for disciplinary hearings, of course. But disciplinary issues are not decided based on the 51% threshold, and they are not decided by a single person. Disciplinary matters are not our issue here.) For newcomers to his club, would Eric use age, race, gender, appearance, or likability to determine prior probabilities of his newcomers using UI for illicit gain? I imagine that Eric will state his preference for treating all newcomers equally, but how can he justify equal treatment if he has found that some category of previous newcomers tend to cheat (or make use of UI) more frequently or less frequently than others? I wonder if a principle of equal treatment might apply to all newcomers, no matter how they look. I hope so. But let's now consider how to handle a newcomer pair against a regular pair. Eric has already explicitly stated that he would give "history"-based favoritism to some players at the expense of others, and I wonder how that applies to newcomers. Should newcomers in general be expected to receive more unfavorable rulings at his club when up against his favored regulars? I have experienced that, but I had no idea at the time that some directors found that approach laudable. Another question: If there are two directors in the event, and the nontable director "knows" something negative (or positive) about the history of Mr. and Ms. Smith that the table director does not know, in Eric's world, does the nontable director share his bias about the Smiths with the table director to increase the probability of a ruling against (or for) the Smiths? Are the biases that Eric harbors to be transferred without question to other directors? Maybe I should restate my position to be fair: I would not use any of these things to affect my rulings. I would not use any "knowing my customers" to affect rulings on any particular deal. I would give the same priors to all players, partly because I am modest about my ability to "know" anyone. I would even enshrine this approach in the laws. I would require directors to consider each deal on its own merits, and not use biases or hearsay from previous directors to rule in favor of or against any player or pair. I should be clear also that if I thought I had evidence of cheating, I would attempt to get the player or pair disqualified, or I might ban them from my club, but I would treat all players in the event equally. Those who prefer "know your customer" rulings of course prefer ruling with adverse priors against certain players. Steve has claimed that EK probably endorsed this approach. I also wonder: Do Eric and EK deny any requirement of the director to provide the real reason for adverse rulings? Is the Eric- or EK-endorsed director required to make clear that the adverse ruling was due to the director's low opinion of a player "based on past events" or mere word of mouth from other unnamed directors, which opinion the player is not even allowed to know about or confront or provide evidence against? Is that who we are? If a ruling is appealed, does the director proudly state his "know your customers" basis for his ruling, and is the appeals committee required to abide by the director's bias? If the director keeps his reasons to himself, does that tell you something about the moral weakness of his position? In the entire history of written ACBL appeals, for example, has anyone seen even a single case of a director supplying a "know your customer" bias for the appeals committee to carefully employ in its ruling? I would hope that that shows us just how unjustifiable "know your customer" rulings are. Personally, I would like "know your customers" rulings to be officially rebuked and to become something we did only in the bad old days. I don't care if EK liked them. Some day soon, the laws should state that all contestants are to be treated equally, and the director should never bias his decisions based on anything he imagines or has been told has happened outside the event. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Sun Jan 3 16:06:10 2016 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:06:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> <5687E638.4000904@verizon.net> Message-ID: <568938E2.7060003@verizon.net> On 1/3/16 12:53 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, Eric Landau wrote: >> The real question here is whether a TD ruling on an infraction should >> consider the putative offenders' prior history of similar incidents, to >> the extent he has it available, in determining the balance of >> probabilities. If so, however, one must recognize that the mechanisms >> we have in place to record that history and make it available to TDs as >> needed are seriously flawed and simply do not work well enough to be >> generally useful. "Knowing his customers" simply means allowing the TD >> to use his personal knowledge of some relevant history of similar >> incidents even if that particular history hasn't been reflected back to >> him by the formal incident-recording mechanism. >> > I hope my responses to Steve and Eric prove worthy. I will agree with > Eric that "the real question here is whether a TD ruling on an > infraction should consider the putative offenders' prior history of > similar incidents". My answer is "no". > > (Disciplinary matters are not our issue here. History matters for > disciplinary hearings, of course. But disciplinary issues are not > decided based on the 51% threshold, and they are not decided by a > single person. Disciplinary matters are not our issue here.) > > For newcomers to his club, would Eric use age, race, gender, appearance, > or likability to determine prior probabilities of his newcomers using > UI for illicit gain? I imagine that Eric will state his preference > for treating all newcomers equally, but how can he justify equal > treatment if he has found that some category of previous newcomers > tend to cheat (or make use of UI) more frequently or less frequently > than others? > > I wonder if a principle of equal treatment might apply to all > newcomers, no matter how they look. I hope so. But let's now > consider how to handle a newcomer pair against a regular pair. > > Eric has already explicitly stated that he would give "history"-based > favoritism to some players at the expense of others, and I wonder how > that applies to newcomers. Should newcomers in general be expected to > receive more unfavorable rulings at his club when up against his > favored regulars? I have experienced that, but I had no idea at the > time that some directors found that approach laudable. > > Another question: If there are two directors in the event, and the > nontable director "knows" something negative (or positive) about the > history of Mr. and Ms. Smith that the table director does not know, in > Eric's world, does the nontable director share his bias about the > Smiths with the table director to increase the probability of a ruling > against (or for) the Smiths? Are the biases that Eric harbors to be > transferred without question to other directors? > > Maybe I should restate my position to be fair: I would not use any of > these things to affect my rulings. I would not use any "knowing my > customers" to affect rulings on any particular deal. I would give the > same priors to all players, partly because I am modest about my > ability to "know" anyone. > > I would even enshrine this approach in the laws. I would require > directors to consider each deal on its own merits, and not use biases > or hearsay from previous directors to rule in favor of or against any > player or pair. > > I should be clear also that if I thought I had evidence of cheating, I > would attempt to get the player or pair disqualified, or I might ban > them from my club, but I would treat all players in the event equally. > > Those who prefer "know your customer" rulings of course prefer ruling > with adverse priors against certain players. Steve has claimed that > EK probably endorsed this approach. > > I also wonder: Do Eric and EK deny any requirement of the director to > provide the real reason for adverse rulings? Is the Eric- or > EK-endorsed director required to make clear that the adverse ruling > was due to the director's low opinion of a player "based on past > events" or mere word of mouth from other unnamed directors, which > opinion the player is not even allowed to know about or confront or > provide evidence against? > > Is that who we are? > > If a ruling is appealed, does the director proudly state his "know > your customers" basis for his ruling, and is the appeals committee > required to abide by the director's bias? If the director keeps his > reasons to himself, does that tell you something about the moral > weakness of his position? > > In the entire history of written ACBL appeals, for example, has anyone > seen even a single case of a director supplying a "know your customer" > bias for the appeals committee to carefully employ in its ruling? I > would hope that that shows us just how unjustifiable "know your > customer" rulings are. > > Personally, I would like "know your customers" rulings to be > officially rebuked and to become something we did only in the bad old > days. I don't care if EK liked them. Some day soon, the laws should > state that all contestants are to be treated equally, and the director > should never bias his decisions based on anything he imagines or has > been told has happened outside the event. I think Jerry may be reading more into my argument than I intended. Consider our discussion of the player who inexplicably opened 7NT, claiming he was just "taking a shot", but raising the natural suspicion of having had a wire that 7NT was cold. In evaluating the balance of probabilities, surely the TD is allowed to "remember" having investigated two similar previous incidents by the same player. If I give two different rulings to two different players in identical circumstances, and the one who got the harsher ruling asks why, I am perfectly comfortable telling him that it's because he had done the same thing in the past and been warned that if he did it again he'd get the book thrown at him. I merely argue that what a TD knows of a player's history of similar incidents from his own memory is no less useful (or usable) than what he knows from having read an official recorder's report. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 20:23:46 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:23:46 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: <568938E2.7060003@verizon.net> References: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> <5687E638.4000904@verizon.net> <568938E2.7060003@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 1/3/16 12:53 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, Eric Landau wrote: >>> The real question here is whether a TD ruling on an infraction should >>> consider the putative offenders' prior history of similar incidents, to >>> the extent he has it available, in determining the balance of >>> probabilities. If so, however, one must recognize that the mechanisms >>> we have in place to record that history and make it available to TDs as >>> needed are seriously flawed and simply do not work well enough to be >>> generally useful. "Knowing his customers" simply means allowing the TD >>> to use his personal knowledge of some relevant history of similar >>> incidents even if that particular history hasn't been reflected back to >>> him by the formal incident-recording mechanism. >>> >> I hope my responses to Steve and Eric prove worthy. I will agree with >> Eric that "the real question here is whether a TD ruling on an >> infraction should consider the putative offenders' prior history of >> similar incidents". My answer is "no". >> >> (Disciplinary matters are not our issue here. History matters for >> disciplinary hearings, of course. But disciplinary issues are not >> decided based on the 51% threshold, and they are not decided by a >> single person. Disciplinary matters are not our issue here.) >> >> For newcomers to his club, would Eric use age, race, gender, appearance, >> or likability to determine prior probabilities of his newcomers using >> UI for illicit gain? I imagine that Eric will state his preference >> for treating all newcomers equally, but how can he justify equal >> treatment if he has found that some category of previous newcomers >> tend to cheat (or make use of UI) more frequently or less frequently >> than others? >> >> I wonder if a principle of equal treatment might apply to all >> newcomers, no matter how they look. I hope so. But let's now >> consider how to handle a newcomer pair against a regular pair. >> >> Eric has already explicitly stated that he would give "history"-based >> favoritism to some players at the expense of others, and I wonder how >> that applies to newcomers. Should newcomers in general be expected to >> receive more unfavorable rulings at his club when up against his >> favored regulars? I have experienced that, but I had no idea at the >> time that some directors found that approach laudable. >> >> Another question: If there are two directors in the event, and the >> nontable director "knows" something negative (or positive) about the >> history of Mr. and Ms. Smith that the table director does not know, in >> Eric's world, does the nontable director share his bias about the >> Smiths with the table director to increase the probability of a ruling >> against (or for) the Smiths? Are the biases that Eric harbors to be >> transferred without question to other directors? >> >> Maybe I should restate my position to be fair: I would not use any of >> these things to affect my rulings. I would not use any "knowing my >> customers" to affect rulings on any particular deal. I would give the >> same priors to all players, partly because I am modest about my >> ability to "know" anyone. >> >> I would even enshrine this approach in the laws. I would require >> directors to consider each deal on its own merits, and not use biases >> or hearsay from previous directors to rule in favor of or against any >> player or pair. >> >> I should be clear also that if I thought I had evidence of cheating, I >> would attempt to get the player or pair disqualified, or I might ban >> them from my club, but I would treat all players in the event equally. >> >> Those who prefer "know your customer" rulings of course prefer ruling >> with adverse priors against certain players. Steve has claimed that >> EK probably endorsed this approach. >> >> I also wonder: Do Eric and EK deny any requirement of the director to >> provide the real reason for adverse rulings? Is the Eric- or >> EK-endorsed director required to make clear that the adverse ruling >> was due to the director's low opinion of a player "based on past >> events" or mere word of mouth from other unnamed directors, which >> opinion the player is not even allowed to know about or confront or >> provide evidence against? >> >> Is that who we are? >> >> If a ruling is appealed, does the director proudly state his "know >> your customers" basis for his ruling, and is the appeals committee >> required to abide by the director's bias? If the director keeps his >> reasons to himself, does that tell you something about the moral >> weakness of his position? >> >> In the entire history of written ACBL appeals, for example, has anyone >> seen even a single case of a director supplying a "know your customer" >> bias for the appeals committee to carefully employ in its ruling? I >> would hope that that shows us just how unjustifiable "know your >> customer" rulings are. >> >> Personally, I would like "know your customers" rulings to be >> officially rebuked and to become something we did only in the bad old >> days. I don't care if EK liked them. Some day soon, the laws should >> state that all contestants are to be treated equally, and the director >> should never bias his decisions based on anything he imagines or has >> been told has happened outside the event. > > I think Jerry may be reading more into my argument than I intended. > Consider our discussion of the player who inexplicably opened 7NT, > claiming he was just "taking a shot", but raising the natural suspicion > of having had a wire that 7NT was cold. In evaluating the balance of > probabilities, surely the TD is allowed to "remember" having > investigated two similar previous incidents by the same player. > > If I give two different rulings to two different players in identical > circumstances, and the one who got the harsher ruling asks why, I am > perfectly comfortable telling him that it's because he had done the same > thing in the past and been warned that if he did it again he'd get the > book thrown at him. > > I merely argue that what a TD knows of a player's history of similar > incidents from his own memory is no less useful (or usable) than what he > knows from having read an official recorder's report. > Given Eric's high status in BLML, I appreciate Eric's clarification. I'll try to be brief this time, for I am a little confused in a few specifics as to what Eric is saying. I'll simply ask a few questions relating to Eric's careful hypothetical. 1. In the "two similar previous incidents by the same player" Eric previously investigated (in Eric's hypothetical), Eric apparently did not rule against the player. (Otherwise, why the need for the two warnings?) Instead, apparently, Eric ruled in the player's favor the first two times, but Eric gave the player some kinds of warnings. That means that Eric's Bayesian probability of the player illicitly using UI was under 51% in Eric's eyes both times, but Eric gave the player warnings anyway. That is, it sounds to me like Eric decided that the two previous successful 7NT opening bids were legal, but they nevertheless did warrant two warnings. Am I right so far? 2. Eric explained, "If I give two different rulings to two different players in identical circumstances, and the one who got the harsher ruling asks why, I am perfectly comfortable telling him that it's because he had done the same thing in the past and been warned that if he did it again he'd get the book thrown at him." If Eric knows that the player "did the same thing in the past," why not rule against that player those previous times? 3. Eric, in your hypothetical, on those two previous suspicious times, what was your warning? I'm really curious. I am even more curious as to your meaning of "the book thrown at him" on this third occurrence. Does it refer to how unpleasant and accusatory you choose to make your tone of voice, or to your merely giving an adverse ruling, or perhaps your hinting at a disciplinary hearing? From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jan 4 03:51:21 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 21:51:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you rule In-Reply-To: References: <56869A18.5000902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5689DE29.2030405@nhcc.net> On 2016-01-01 12:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Are Edgar Kaplan's "Appeals Committee" booklets available online? Not that I know of, but you could check bridgeworld.com. > Suppose a > pair a direct likes and respects, which he personally considers > ethical players, match up against newcomers. You've conflated two separate types of prior knowledge. "Likes" and "respects" are irrelevant. "Considers ethical players" may be relevant, depending on how the Director formed that opinion. If he's seen them "using UI" in the past, that's relevant. If he's seen them do the opposite, that's also relevant. Non-bridge factors such as age or appearance are not relevant. Like Jerry, I detest the "home town ruling." Many years ago, I stopped attending a particular club because the Director there was notorious for such rulings. (It was a real sacrifice for me because the club offered free food, and I was a graduate student then.) What Eric (I think) and I are suggesting is a different matter. On 2016-01-02 1:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > what prior would you assign to a player not using UI? 50%? 90%? > 99%? A notorious villain probably can probably only gain on one board per session unless the other players are hopelessly careless, so something like 96% seems in the ballpark. For an ordinary or unknown player, probably something above 99%. In practice, the prior will rarely determine the ruling. There's a world of (quantitative!) difference between Robert Frick's original example -- I doubt one in a million honest players would open 7NT on that hand -- and Richard Hill's pedestrian examples. Probably 5-10% of honest players would take the actions he considered so unusual, though that's a guess. What's not a guess is that those actions, absent UI, have a clear path to gain. Robert's example does not. > Would you assign different numbers to different players based on > "knowing your customers"? Yes, but as above, only on the basis of actual _bridge knowledge_ of the customers. As to the question of two Directors, only one of whom knows the players involved, recall that Directors are expected to consult on all judgment rulings. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 11:09:26 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 21:09:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The wait of the avid Ents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: East-West West opens 1NT (15-17), pard passes in tempo, East slooowly passes. You, South, hold: QJ9842 832 75 65 Law 73D1, concluding two sentences: "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." Note: Some years ago the WBF Laws Committee suggested that the caveat "in itself" might possibly be deleted from the 2017 version of Law 73D1. So if I was South, the inference I would draw at my own risk would be that East was thinking about whether or not to invite game. Hence I would eschew competing for the partscore, as -300 declaring 2Sx is worse than -120 or -150 defending 1NT. But what if I was East and held a balanced Yarborough? Suppose I was daydreaming, thinking about my cat Eightball's habit of sinking his claws into me while purring on my chest. There are two Laws pertaining to Deceptive Information. Law 73E permits deceptive calls or plays which lack both partnership understanding and also partnership experience. But Law 73D2 deals with extraneous Deceptive Information, famously specifically giving the indicative example of hesitating with a singleton (to which hesitating with a Yarborough is obviously analogous). Alas, before the Director could apply Law 73D2 against me my nefarious intent would have to be demonstrated. This is because the Law 73D2 criteria are either "attempt to mislead" or "purposeful deviation". So does my cat Eightball give me an unearned top? Not so fast! Immediately before the Law 73D1 word "Otherwise" is this sentence: "However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." Thus the Director could adjust the score against me on the grounds that my daydream was particularly carelessly timed. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, January 2, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > West opens 1NT (15-17), pard passes in tempo, East slooowly passes. You, > South, hold: > > QJ9842 > 832 > 75 > 65 > > What call do you make? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> 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/20160104/6d30dd60/attachment-0001.html From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Thu Jan 7 09:18:26 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:18:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] membership in blml Message-ID: <568E1F52.9020407@gmx.de> I had (once again) an email stating that I had been "unsubscribed" from the blml mailing list. This seems to happen about twice a year. Is there any way it can be stopped? What is causing these emails? I, of course, wish to remain on the list and would appreciate it if you could manage to stop "unsubscribing" me. Is there anything I can do to help? Is it caused by some problem caused by my providers? I get emails through aol and gmx and there have been problems with aol in the past. Perhaps it would be better to use the gmx email address for the list. My email addresses are: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de and JffEstrsn at aol.com I'd be thankful for any help, it is aggravating to keep getting emails saying that I have been "unsubscribed". Ciao, Jeff Easterson --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jan 14 10:31:39 2016 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 04:31:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself Message-ID: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> Recently on bridgewinners it has been suggested that a player who reached into his bidding box and started to pull out some (unidentified) bidding cards, but did not get them fully out of the box when he was told he was not the dealer and put the back, gave UI not only to his partner, but to himself. This theory is based on Law 16A1, which does not seem to allow that the fact that one has passed UI to partner is not among the list of things that are AI, and Law 16A3, which says whatever?s not in that list (or in 16A2, which again this isn?t) cannot be used as the basis for a call or play. This seems to me to be just the kind of ?angels dancing on a pinhead? question that this forum loves to debate, so I ask for your comments on this principle. I note that if the principle is valid, it is valid for *all* situations in which a player passes UI to his partner, and probably a number of other situations as well. The actual auction, for those who insist, was, East dealer and North starting to make a bid (but not actually making one, ACBL rules), East bids 2 diamonds (weak two), South overcalls 2 hearts on 13 HCP and a five card heart suit, West passes, and North, who has a 4=3=2=4 13 count including king doubleton of clubs, bids a mere(!) 3 hearts. Now the argument goes that South didn?t use UI because he has a legitimate, if minimum, overcall, but *North* used UI ? the UI apparently being that North knows that South knows that North has an opening hand and therefore may have stretched to overcall. Frankly, my reaction to all this is ?you have *got* to be kidding,? but apparently they?re not. The BW thread is here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/atr-assess-this-ruling/ Auction repeated for clarity: 2D-2H-P-3H-all pass. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 12:28:45 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:28:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: Frankly, my reaction to all this is ?you have *got* to be kidding,? but apparently they?re not. The BW thread is here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/atr-assess-this-ruling/ Auction repeated for clarity: 2D-2H-P-3H-all pass. Richard Hills: You have *got* to be kidding. The Director incorrectly advised South to ignore North's UI. Correct advice would be to tell South to take note of North's UI, then select the contraindicated Logical Alternative. In this case South's legal LA was Pass (not 2H) over East's 2D opening. As for the core issue of giving UI to oneself, Law 16A1(c) permits use of "information specified in any law" and Law 7B2 says a player "must [the strongest word in the Lawbook] inspect the faces of his cards". Since accidental creation of UI is not "in itself" an infraction, what's the problem? The hypothetical problem is a hypothetical partnership having a hypothetical understanding of: a) North creates UI b) South overbids, instead of passing, a use-of-UI infraction c) North caters for South's possible infraction with a simple raise d) South passes (but if South's values had corresponded to South's bid, South would raise to game) Of course such a hypothetical partnership understanding is a "gravest possible offence" infraction of Law 73B2. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, January 14, 2016, Ed Reppert wrote: > Recently on bridgewinners it has been suggested that a player who reached > into his bidding box and started to pull out some (unidentified) bidding > cards, but did not get them fully out of the box when he was told he was > not the dealer and put the back, gave UI not only to his partner, but to > himself. This theory is based on Law 16A1, which does not seem to allow > that the fact that one has passed UI to partner is not among the list of > things that are AI, and Law 16A3, which says whatever?s not in that list > (or in 16A2, which again this isn?t) cannot be used as the basis for a call > or play. > > This seems to me to be just the kind of ?angels dancing on a pinhead? > question that this forum loves to debate, so I ask for your comments on > this principle. > > I note that if the principle is valid, it is valid for *all* situations in > which a player passes UI to his partner, and probably a number of other > situations as well. > > The actual auction, for those who insist, was, East dealer and North > starting to make a bid (but not actually making one, ACBL rules), East bids > 2 diamonds (weak two), South overcalls 2 hearts on 13 HCP and a five card > heart suit, West passes, and North, who has a 4=3=2=4 13 count including > king doubleton of clubs, bids a mere(!) 3 hearts. Now the argument goes > that South didn?t use UI because he has a legitimate, if minimum, overcall, > but *North* used UI ? the UI apparently being that North knows that South > knows that North has an opening hand and therefore may have stretched to > overcall. > > Frankly, my reaction to all this is ?you have *got* to be kidding,? but > apparently they?re not. > > The BW thread is here: > http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/atr-assess-this-ruling/ > > Auction repeated for clarity: 2D-2H-P-3H-all pass. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160114/29b73f5d/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jan 14 14:41:43 2016 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:41:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> Message-ID: <92132909.3910262.1452778903927.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Richard Hills" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Jeudi 14 Janvier 2016 12:28:45 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself > Ed Reppert: > Frankly, my reaction to all this is ?you have *got* to be kidding,? but > apparently they?re not. > The BW thread is here: > http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/atr-assess-this-ruling/ > Auction repeated for clarity: 2D-2H-P-3H-all pass. > Richard Hills: > You have *got* to be kidding. The Director incorrectly advised South to > ignore North's UI. Correct advice would be to tell South to take note of > North's UI, then select the contraindicated Logical Alternative. In this > case South's legal LA was Pass (not 2H) over East's 2D opening. > As for the core issue of giving UI to oneself, Law 16A1(c) permits use of > "information specified in any law" and Law 7B2 says a player "must [the > strongest word in the Lawbook] inspect the faces of his cards". > Since accidental creation of UI is not "in itself" an infraction, what's the > problem? > The hypothetical problem is a hypothetical partnership having a hypothetical > understanding of: i rather see the hypothetical problem as: a) north creates UI b) south overcalls c) north infers that it is a very sound overcall as he knows that, were it not the case, south would have bent backwards and passed. jpr > a) North creates UI > b) South overbids, instead of passing, a use-of-UI infraction > c) North caters for South's possible infraction with a simple raise > d) South passes (but if South's values had corresponded to South's bid, South > would raise to game) > Of course such a hypothetical partnership understanding is a "gravest > possible offence" infraction of Law 73B2. > Best wishes, > Richard Hills > On Thursday, January 14, 2016, Ed Reppert < blackshoe at mac.com > wrote: > > Recently on bridgewinners it has been suggested that a player who reached > > into his bidding box and started to pull out some (unidentified) bidding > > cards, but did not get them fully out of the box when he was told he was > > not > > the dealer and put the back, gave UI not only to his partner, but to > > himself. This theory is based on Law 16A1, which does not seem to allow > > that > > the fact that one has passed UI to partner is not among the list of things > > that are AI, and Law 16A3, which says whatever?s not in that list (or in > > 16A2, which again this isn?t) cannot be used as the basis for a call or > > play. > > > This seems to me to be just the kind of ?angels dancing on a pinhead? > > question that this forum loves to debate, so I ask for your comments on > > this > > principle. > > > I note that if the principle is valid, it is valid for *all* situations in > > which a player passes UI to his partner, and probably a number of other > > situations as well. > > > The actual auction, for those who insist, was, East dealer and North > > starting > > to make a bid (but not actually making one, ACBL rules), East bids 2 > > diamonds (weak two), South overcalls 2 hearts on 13 HCP and a five card > > heart suit, West passes, and North, who has a 4=3=2=4 13 count including > > king doubleton of clubs, bids a mere(!) 3 hearts. Now the argument goes > > that > > South didn?t use UI because he has a legitimate, if minimum, overcall, but > > *North* used UI ? the UI apparently being that North knows that South knows > > that North has an opening hand and therefore may have stretched to > > overcall. > > > Frankly, my reaction to all this is ?you have *got* to be kidding,? but > > apparently they?re not. > > > The BW thread is here: > > http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/atr-assess-this-ruling/ > > > Auction repeated for clarity: 2D-2H-P-3H-all pass. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/20160114/eaddf3d9/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu Jan 14 15:21:44 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:21:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: <92132909.3910262.1452778903927.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> <92132909.3910262.1452778903927.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:41:43 +0100, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre wrote: > > i rather see the hypothetical problem as: > a) north creates UI > b) south overcalls > c) north infers that it is a very sound overcall as he knows that, were > it not the case, south would have bent backwards and >passed. > And this is AI: Law 16A1c. Petrus > -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160114/e881da30/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 14 16:51:41 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:51:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> <92132909.3910262.1452778903927.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <5697C40D.50402@skynet.be> Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:41:43 +0100, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre > wrote: > > > i rather see the hypothetical problem as: > a) north creates UI > b) south overcalls > c) north infers that it is a very sound overcall as he knows that, > were it not the case, south would have bent backwards and passed. > > And this is AI: Law 16A1c. > Petrus > If you refer to c) I don't think it is AI. A player is entitled to draw conclusions out of partner's limitations. If you have silenced partner, and he passes, you do not hat to assume he has a yarborough? He can still have 23 points and you are allowed to gamble 3NT. But of course, as many have said, if South overcalls when he has a LA, He has infracted L16. And North should not be punished for it. Of course if he now underbids, this is evidence that North knows South is not the ethical player he should be. Herman. > > > -- > Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu Jan 14 21:20:37 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 21:20:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: <5697C40D.50402@skynet.be> References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> <92132909.3910262.1452778903927.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <5697C40D.50402@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:51:41 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:41:43 +0100, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre >> wrote: >> >> >> i rather see the hypothetical problem as: >> a) north creates UI >> b) south overcalls >> c) north infers that it is a very sound overcall as he knows that, >> were it not the case, south would have bent backwards and passed. >> >> And this is AI: Law 16A1c. >> Petrus >> > > If you refer to c) I don't think it is AI. (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following) That a player may not chose a LA indicated by UI is information you get directly from the Laws. IMO it is proper to assume that partner follows the laws - as he is obliged to do. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 23:34:07 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:34:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> <92132909.3910262.1452778903927.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <5697C40D.50402@skynet.be> Message-ID: Petrus Schuster OSB: ..... That a player may not chose a LA indicated by UI is information you get directly from the Laws. IMO it is proper to assume that partner follows the laws - as he is obliged to do. Richard Hills: But in this case the Director incorrectly interpreted Law 73C's "carefully avoid taking any advantage", and consequently gave South erroneous advice. Should North assume South obeyed Law 73C, or should North assume South obeyed the Director? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, January 15, 2016, Petrus Schuster OSB < petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:51:41 +0100, Herman De Wael > > wrote: > > > Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:41:43 +0100, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> i rather see the hypothetical problem as: > >> a) north creates UI > >> b) south overcalls > >> c) north infers that it is a very sound overcall as he knows that, > >> were it not the case, south would have bent backwards and passed. > >> > >> And this is AI: Law 16A1c. > >> Petrus > >> > > > > If you refer to c) I don't think it is AI. > > > (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be > authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal > procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 > following) > > That a player may not chose a LA indicated by UI is information you get > directly from the Laws. > IMO it is proper to assume that partner follows the laws - as he is > obliged to do. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160114/41b501be/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 15 04:34:36 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:34:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> Message-ID: <569868CC.2030906@nhcc.net> On 2016-01-14 4:31 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > The actual auction, for those who insist, was, East dealer and North > starting to make a bid (but not actually making one, ACBL rules), > East bids 2 diamonds (weak two), South overcalls 2 hearts on 13 HCP > and a five card heart suit, West passes, and North, who has a 4=3=2=4 > 13 count including king doubleton of clubs, bids a mere(!) 3 hearts. There are several complications here. The 3H bid was almost surely illegal but probably didn't cause damage because North has a near- automatic takeout double. That leads to 3H anyway. I suppose there's an argument that West might have raised to 3D had South passed, but I don't buy it. Despite that, nobody likes the result. North has (if one accepts the facts stated) told South "I have opening values," and then bid as though South knows that. Meanwhile South has "used UI" to make the 3H bid, though that's not what caused damage. I think the answer is to notice that North has (almost surely inadvertently) violated L73B1. This has no specified rectification, but it leads to L12A1. In effect, the Director needs to decide what would have happened if North had not made his unfortunate gesture and adjust the score accordingly. This can be weighted in most places, including the ACBL as of Jan 1. I'm not sure what weights I'd use, but I think high weight or even 100% for 4H-1 is reasonable. On 2016-01-14 8:41 AM, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre wrote: > i rather see the hypothetical problem as: > a) north creates UI > b) south overcalls > c) north infers that it is a very sound overcall as he knows that, > were it not the case, south would have bent backwards and passed. This is a good summary of what might have happened if the deal and players had been different. As far as I can tell, there is no clear answer. Frances Hinden (some years ago on r.g.b) wrote that North must take events into account; otherwise we have the problem given in the actual case. Petrus took this view, citing "legal procedures" in L16A1c. David Burn (few months ago on BridgeWinners) took the opposite view, as does HdW here. I am not sure of the argument, but I think it is along the lines of extraneous gestures always being UI unless they come from an opponent. I don't think we can decide the question from first principles. Those say that no player should _on average_ benefit from his own irregularity, but that's inherent already in the UI Laws. However, it's OK if players _occasionally_, in an unpredictable way, benefit from their own irregularities. Examples are bidding 3NT when partner is barred or taking the legal but inferior LA after one has UI. Usually these work badly, but if they work well on a particular deal, the OS keeps the benefit. I don't have a strong opinion myself except for wishing the Laws were clearer on this point. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 08:00:43 2016 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:00:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Giving UI to oneself In-Reply-To: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> References: <80200A52-7EDF-4BC7-ABBA-AA4887D0DAD4@mac.com> Message-ID: Actually, south had a 10-count: Tx AQT9x 8x ATxx, not that it matters much. Agree that this is just an "angels dancing on a pinhead" question, which is of absolutely no interest for me to debate, btw. 2016-01-14 10:31 GMT+01:00 Ed Reppert : > Recently on bridgewinners it has been suggested that a player who reached > into his bidding box and started to pull out some (unidentified) bidding > cards, but did not get them fully out of the box when he was told he was > not the dealer and put the back, gave UI not only to his partner, but to > himself. This theory is based on Law 16A1, which does not seem to allow > that the fact that one has passed UI to partner is not among the list of > things that are AI, and Law 16A3, which says whatever?s not in that list > (or in 16A2, which again this isn?t) cannot be used as the basis for a call > or play. > > This seems to me to be just the kind of ?angels dancing on a pinhead? > question that this forum loves to debate, so I ask for your comments on > this principle. > > I note that if the principle is valid, it is valid for *all* situations in > which a player passes UI to his partner, and probably a number of other > situations as well. > > The actual auction, for those who insist, was, East dealer and North > starting to make a bid (but not actually making one, ACBL rules), East bids > 2 diamonds (weak two), South overcalls 2 hearts on 13 HCP and a five card > heart suit, West passes, and North, who has a 4=3=2=4 13 count including > king doubleton of clubs, bids a mere(!) 3 hearts. Now the argument goes > that South didn?t use UI because he has a legitimate, if minimum, overcall, > but *North* used UI ? the UI apparently being that North knows that South > knows that North has an opening hand and therefore may have stretched to > overcall. > > Frankly, my reaction to all this is ?you have *got* to be kidding,? but > apparently they?re not. > > The BW thread is here: > http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/atr-assess-this-ruling/ > > Auction repeated for clarity: 2D-2H-P-3H-all pass. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160115/8a1ab3c9/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 16 03:07:48 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:07:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Running a suit from the top, can you stop? Message-ID: If you say you are running a suit from the top, can you change your mind? The actual situation was a player revoking on the first trick of the suit, so declarer perhaps wanted to take advantage of the penalty card. Of course it could be just changing his mind, or finding out the suit is breaking badly. From sven at svenpran.net Sat Jan 16 09:33:56 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:33:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Running a suit from the top, can you stop? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301d15038$a687bfc0$f3973f40$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > If you say you are running a suit from the top, can you change your mind? > The actual situation was a player revoking on the first trick of the suit, so > declarer perhaps wanted to take advantage of the penalty card. Of course it > could be just changing his mind, or finding out the suit is breaking badly. > _______________________________________________ [Sven Pran] Yes. Technically any statement to the effect that you shall win a number of future tricks is a claim. So the correct procedure for Declarer is to request one card from the suit at a time. And the correct procedure for Dummy is to await a new request for each single card. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 12:00:29 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:00:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Running a suit from the top, can you stop? In-Reply-To: <000301d15038$a687bfc0$f3973f40$@svenpran.net> References: <000301d15038$a687bfc0$f3973f40$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Sven Pran: Yes. Technically any statement to the effect that you shall win a number of future tricks is a claim. Richard Hills: No. On 12th January 2000 the WBF Laws Committee ruled that declarer's instruction to dummy to run a suit was an irregular violation of proper procedure, but was not a claim. The WBF LC also laid down the circumstances in which declarer could cancel the instruction. Dummy's suit-running card was not irrevocably played unless and until declarer's RHO played a card to the trick. Since "run the suit" is a common irregular instruction, the January 2000 minute should be incorporated into the 2017 revision of the Lawbook. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Sven Pran wrote: > > Robert Frick > > If you say you are running a suit from the top, can you change your mind? > > The actual situation was a player revoking on the first trick of the > suit, > so > > declarer perhaps wanted to take advantage of the penalty card. Of course > it > > could be just changing his mind, or finding out the suit is breaking > badly. > > _______________________________________________ > > [Sven Pran] > Yes. > Technically any statement to the effect that you shall win a number of > future tricks is a claim. > So the correct procedure for Declarer is to request one card from the suit > at a time. > And the correct procedure for Dummy is to await a new request for each > single card. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160116/c5fadfb1/attachment.html From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Tue Jan 26 06:57:48 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:57:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ?? Message-ID: <56A70ADC.5030303@gmx.de> I haven't received any postings on blml for about a week? Have there been none or have I been mysteriously "unsubscribed" again? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jan 26 09:03:29 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:03:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <56A70ADC.5030303@gmx.de> References: <56A70ADC.5030303@gmx.de> Message-ID: <56A72851.5050504@t-online.de> Relax, Jeff, there just was no traffic.... Am 26.01.2016 um 06:57 schrieb Jeff Easterson: > I haven't received any postings on blml for about a week? Have there > been none or have I been mysteriously "unsubscribed" again? > > Ciao, JE > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 11:47:50 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:47:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK Message-ID: Queen Elizabeth rules UK Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion of each Swiss match). North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: AKJ9 Q6 K865 AQ7 South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160126/791d9ec2/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Tue Jan 26 13:47:33 2016 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:47:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Do you have suspicions about that the player had some UI from other tables ? If not, Lucky south If yes, you have to be very sure there has been some UI to adjust score In fact, If you adjust score, you also have to make PP Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Richard Hills" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: ?ri?judagur, 26. Jan?ar, 2016 10:47:50 Efni: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK Queen Elizabeth rules UK Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion of each Swiss match). North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: AKJ9 Q6 K865 AQ7 South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? Best wishes, Richard Hills _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Tue Jan 26 13:52:40 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:52:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <56A72851.5050504@t-online.de> References: <56A70ADC.5030303@gmx.de> <56A72851.5050504@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56A76C18.1010106@gmx.de> okay, thanks, JE Am 26.01.2016 um 09:03 schrieb Matthias Berghaus: > Relax, Jeff, there just was no traffic.... > > Am 26.01.2016 um 06:57 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >> I haven't received any postings on blml for about a week? Have there >> been none or have I been mysteriously "unsubscribed" again? >> >> Ciao, JE >> >> --- >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Tue Jan 26 13:58:50 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:58:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56A76D8A.5060105@gmx.de> Seems (to me) a curious decision to pass. How did he/she explain it? Don't they have alternative bids for such hands, such as 1 club or 1 diamond, etc.? Before deciding I'd like to know more about the player? What is his history/reputation? A gambler? Irrational? Although I am at least a theoretical supporter of the rule of coincidence and have occasionally applied it, one must be very careful and certain. Ciao, JE Am 26.01.2016 um 11:47 schrieb Richard Hills: > Queen Elizabeth rules UK > > Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt > boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion > of each Swiss match). > > North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, > whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. > > With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: > > AKJ9 > Q6 > K865 > AQ7 > > South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, > so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was > passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was > reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and > finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. > > As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you > automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you > automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 26 15:24:44 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:24:44 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hills Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 4:47 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK Queen Elizabeth rules UK Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion of each Swiss match). North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: AKJ9 Q6 K865 AQ7 South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? Best wishes, Richard Hills As I recall ROC, it involves copacetic actions by both partners. Here the action was unilateral. regards roger pewick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160126/1876e7e5/attachment.html From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 26 15:41:32 2016 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:41:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: <56A76D8A.5060105@gmx.de> References: <56A76D8A.5060105@gmx.de> Message-ID: <002f01d15847$a633f400$f29bdc00$@jones1@ntlworld.com> Haven't any of you had that happen to you? You look at your hand - consider a call - decide against it - and automatically put a pass card on the table without bothering to consider all options. This was not a mechanical error, it was a brain failure. There have been 4 passes and the cards are returned to the board. Of the 3/4 times that has happened to me in 35 years, I suspect only once was it a success. Maybe this was his ONCE!! Anne -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:59 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK Seems (to me) a curious decision to pass. How did he/she explain it? Don't they have alternative bids for such hands, such as 1 club or 1 diamond, etc.? Before deciding I'd like to know more about the player? What is his history/reputation? A gambler? Irrational? Although I am at least a theoretical supporter of the rule of coincidence and have occasionally applied it, one must be very careful and certain. Ciao, JE Am 26.01.2016 um 11:47 schrieb Richard Hills: > Queen Elizabeth rules UK > > Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt > boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion > of each Swiss match). > > North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, > whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. > > With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: > > AKJ9 > Q6 > K865 > AQ7 > > South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, > so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was > passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was > reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and > finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. > > As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you > automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you > automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jan 26 15:58:15 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:58:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56A78987.1050904@alumni.princeton.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160126/cf9cd188/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Jan 26 17:10:05 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:10:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK References: <56A76D8A.5060105@gmx.de> <002f01d15847$a633f400$f29bdc00$@jones1@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <7564361634BC4C409740CD7BFF6DA299@digitpc> I certainly remember two occasions. One, deciding between 2H (Acol Strong) and 2C...after several traumatic reconsiderations, I accidentally passed. Two, after pards 1N, I was deciding between a conservative 3N or 4N...again accidentally passed. It 'appens, but, of course, in this case I would be very wary. L Haven't any of you had that happen to you? You look at your hand - consider a call - decide against it - and automatically put a pass card on the table without bothering to consider all options. This was not a mechanical error, it was a brain failure. There have been 4 passes and the cards are returned to the board. Of the 3/4 times that has happened to me in 35 years, I suspect only once was it a success. Maybe this was his ONCE!! Anne -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:59 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK Seems (to me) a curious decision to pass. How did he/she explain it? Don't they have alternative bids for such hands, such as 1 club or 1 diamond, etc.? Before deciding I'd like to know more about the player? What is his history/reputation? A gambler? Irrational? Although I am at least a theoretical supporter of the rule of coincidence and have occasionally applied it, one must be very careful and certain. Ciao, JE Am 26.01.2016 um 11:47 schrieb Richard Hills: > Queen Elizabeth rules UK > > Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt > boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion > of each Swiss match). > > North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, > whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. > > With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: > > AKJ9 > Q6 > K865 > AQ7 > > South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, > so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was > passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was > reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and > finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. > > As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you > automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you > automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jan 26 22:22:50 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:22:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001601d1587f$b693b780$23bb2680$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2016 9:48 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK Queen Elizabeth rules UK Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion of each Swiss match). North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: AKJ9 Q6 K865 AQ7 South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? This is a ?standard? psyche, so computer says no. Cheers Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160126/424e97e1/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 22:37:03 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:37:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was East, and I did not bother summoning the Director. The Mixed Teams was the penultimate event of the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. After a week-and-a-half playing bridge many players were zombies, with fatigue causing them to make random decisions. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, January 26, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > Queen Elizabeth rules UK > > Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt boards > (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion of each > Swiss match). > > North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, whereby a > 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. > > With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: > > AKJ9 > Q6 > K865 > AQ7 > > South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, so > therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was passed out. > At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was reached, which had to > fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and finesses failing. Hence > North-South gained imps on the board. > > As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you > automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you automatically > ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160126/6077fcec/attachment.html From rmlmarques at zonmail.pt Wed Jan 27 12:13:48 2016 From: rmlmarques at zonmail.pt (Rui Lopes Marques) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:13:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009701d158f3$cbea4440$63beccc0$@zonmail.pt> *Why (would a TD adjust the score)?...* Even if you want to follow the ?rule of coincidence?, I don?t think it can be applied to coincidence of two events: ?random decision? and ?good result?. Unless there is evidence that the player knew/heard something on the hand, just the fact that the player passed with a 19 count is not enough ?evidence for coincidence?, IMHO. Rui Marques From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:37 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK I was East, and I did not bother summoning the Director. The Mixed Teams was the penultimate event of the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. After a week-and-a-half playing bridge many players were zombies, with fatigue causing them to make random decisions. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, January 26, 2016, Richard Hills > wrote: Queen Elizabeth rules UK Australian Mixed Teams, 14 adjacent tables sharing computer-dealt boards (permitting the distribution of hand records at the conclusion of each Swiss match). North-South are playing the Aussie version of Standard American, whereby a 1NT opening bid promises 15-18 hcp. With East-West vulnerable, as dealer South held: AKJ9 Q6 K865 AQ7 South correctly determined that his hand was too strong to open 1NT, so therefore South elected to Pass. Unsurprisingly the board was passed out. At the other 13 tables the normal 3NT contract was reached, which had to fail by one or more tricks due to bad breaks and finesses failing. Hence North-South gained imps on the board. As Director would you automatically adjust the score, due to you automatically applying the Rule of Coincidence and/or you automatically ruling that South was in receipt of subconscious UI? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160127/121051b0/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 27 17:25:45 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:25:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> On 2016-01-26 7:47 AM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Do you have suspicions about that the player had some UI from other tables ? > If not, Lucky south "Suspicions" are not evidence, though they may factor into your Bayesian prior. As with any judgment ruling, the Director needs to gather all available evidence. A good start is to ask the player what happened. If this is the last day of a long tournament (as it was), the Director will know that already. The Director should also be aware of how boards are passed and whether comments are likely or unlikely. Tony: passing a balanced 19-count as dealer is a psych I haven't seen before, but I can imagine it working in the right circumstances. > If yes, you have to be very sure there has been some UI to adjust score Why "very sure?" Score adjustments are based on balance of probabilities. > In fact, If you adjust score, you also have to make PP Why? I'd have expected a PP to be based on a higher standard of evidence than balance of probabilities. From zecurado at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 19:39:11 2016 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_J=C3=BAlio_Curado?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:39:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Running scores Message-ID: Hi! I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running scores in Bridge Tournaments? Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? Thank you very much in advance for your input. Jose Julio Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160130/e41ef330/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 30 20:59:10 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 14:59:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, I don't have much of an opinion on that. On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:39:11 -0500, Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: > Hi! > > I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running scores > in Bridge Tournaments? > > Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? > > Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? > > Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? > > Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? > > Thank you very much in advance for your input. > Jose Julio Curado From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 23:06:33 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 16:06:33 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I like it, and I can't imagine why it would be a problem. Knowing the score is not generally considered bad. Jos? J?lio Curado wrote > > I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running scores > in Bridge Tournaments? > > Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? > > Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? > > Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? > > Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 23:34:24 2016 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:34:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pairs who know that there are slightly out of contention might adjust the bidding and play trying to create more action On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Personally, I like it, and I can't imagine why it would be a problem. > Knowing the score is not generally considered bad. > > Jos? J?lio Curado wrote > > > > I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running > scores > > in Bridge Tournaments? > > > > Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? > > > > Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or > not? > > > > Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? > > > > Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160130/9f7f7d07/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 00:25:25 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:25:25 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard willey wrote: > Pairs who know that there are slightly out of contention might adjust the > bidding and play trying to create more action > True, but I don't see a problem. I qualified for the NAOP once based on great boards on the last two rounds that way. :) But seriously, personally, I find Barometer events the most enjoyable, and I can hardly see any trace of a problem with them. Knowing or suspecting the score can hardly be illegal or unethical. From mikedod at frontier.com Sun Jan 31 02:51:57 2016 From: mikedod at frontier.com (mike dodson) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:51:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Running scores Message-ID: Knowing the score changes the game, for better or worse depends on your perspective. My first concern would be for the opponents of someone (pair or team) trying to catch someone else. Always a problem in late rounds but acerbated if the scrore is known. Similar to meeting a pair that is fighting, drunk or in despair, results, good or bad, don't feel deserved. ?On the otherhand, if I am the one trying to catch up or protect a lead, I do want to know! Mike Dodson Sent from Samsung tablet. -------- Original message -------- From: Jos? J?lio Curado Date: 01/30/2016 10:39 AM (GMT-08:00) To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Running scores Hi! I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running scores in Bridge Tournaments? Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? ? ? ? Yes, swiss, RR or knockout, too. I see the fewest ?negatives for knockouts. Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? ? ? ? Not really, who you play when is bigger. Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? ? ? ? No. Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? ? ? ? No, cheaters cheat. ? Thank you very much in advance for your input.Jose Julio Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160131/be776732/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 03:53:31 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:53:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To me the key distinction is between partnerships receiving symmetrical or alternatively asymmetrical information about the progress scores. For example, Australia's premier matchpoint pairs tournament, the Gold Coast Pairs, has a barometer movement. Therefore I support the Tournament Organizer's decision to publicly update each pair's percentage after each three-board round. On the other hand the tiny six-table ACT (Canberra) Open Trials Final is not a barometer, with two sets of boards circulating amongst the tables during each 14-board Butler imped match. As key boards will be played at different times at different tables, therefore I support the Tournament Organizer's decision to configure the bridgemates so that progress scores are unavailable. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, January 31, 2016, mike dodson wrote: > Knowing the score changes the game, for better or worse depends on your > perspective. My first concern would be for the opponents of someone (pair > or team) trying to catch someone else. Always a problem in late rounds but > acerbated if the scrore is known. Similar to meeting a pair that is > fighting, drunk or in despair, results, good or bad, don't feel deserved. > On the otherhand, if I am the one trying to catch up or protect a lead, I > do want to know! > > > Mike Dodson > > Sent from Samsung tablet. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jos? J?lio Curado > > Date: 01/30/2016 10:39 AM (GMT-08:00) > To: BLML > > > Subject: [BLML] Running scores > > Hi! > > I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running scores > in Bridge Tournaments? > > Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? > > > Yes, swiss, RR or knockout, too. I see the fewest negatives for > knockouts. > > Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? > > Not really, who you play when is bigger. > > Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? > > No. > > Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? > > No, cheaters cheat. > > Thank you very much in advance for your input. > Jose Julio Curado > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160131/b6bcd2c6/attachment.html