From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 12 18:44:34 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:44:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: Current: ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Proposed: ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is no logical alternative. Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther wrote: > Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > > wrote: > > > >> Current wording: > >> > >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that > >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > >> reply > >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > >> unmistakable > >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, > or > >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives > one > >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > >> extraneous > >> information. > >> > >> > >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed > >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the > >> current > >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or > >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that > >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated > >> into the 2017 laws. > > > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > > suggested) by the extraneous information. > > > > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". > Recently I had the following case: > Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. > (West had preempted with 3H). > South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. > North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. > > We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from > this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. > > Greetings, Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160712/6b6213d5/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 12 19:17:12 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:17:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Am 12.07.2016 um 18:44 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably > have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless > there is no logical alternative. > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? I think it is at least as clear, maybe clearer, but - while I have some pride in my command of English - I am not a native speaker, so some nuances may well go right pass me. Having said that, there are many TDs who are not native speakers either, and some of them have worse command of English, and there danger lies. I remember when Robert Geller (AFAIK American-born) couldn`t help the Japanese Federation with their translation because he didn`t understand what the English version said.... So if the proposed version is easier to understand for non-native speakers, then it is an improvement for sure, and I can see where this could well be the case. Some parts of the laws used to be called Grattanese by the British and were considered a foreign language. I was always deeply impressed by what Grattan could do with the English language, and what deep knowledge he has, but if (as sometimes happened) native speakers couldn`t understand his postings here, what chance does someone from another country have? Clarity and easy readability must be the goal, and IMO the proposed version looks like a step on the way. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 12 19:48:27 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:48:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Adam Wildavsky Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: Current: ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Proposed: ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is no logical alternative. Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther wrote: Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Current wording: >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> reply >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> unmistakable >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> extraneous >> information. >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> current >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> into the 2017 laws. > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > suggested) by the extraneous information. > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". Recently I had the following case: Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. (West had preempted with 3H). South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. Greetings, Volker Walther I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is unsatisfactory to command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what to do. As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such difficulty is an undue strain upon the player. It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs is not good foundation for lawmaking. regards roger pewick From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 19:49:07 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:49:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is > no logical alternative. > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > Interesting proposal, Adam. The first thought of a Bayesian is likely a wish to name the person or persons who decides the key issues of what "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and "there is no logical alternative." The passive voice hides the identity of the decider. I think the short answer is that the decider is the director. But the methods of the pair matter to the issue, as does the available documentation of those methods. For example, I might choose a different call based on whether or not I have brought documentation of the relevant methods we use. Another case: If I am pretty sure that the director will say that the hesitation suggests extra values, but I think it suggest something else, but the director likely won't agree with, then I should probably assume it shows extra values. Agreed? I sometimes wish I could query the director to find out what he is going to rule was suggested. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160712/4c7f0c29/attachment-0001.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 22:24:56 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:24:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> I think the proposal is an improvement. It?s clearer and it gets away from having to grapple with when players make a choice that we might consider illogical. Gordon Rainsford Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Matthias Berghaus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160712/e7235199/attachment.html From geller at nifty.com Tue Jul 12 22:44:44 2016 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 05:44:44 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi, I'm afraid I haven't been following BLML so much these days, but with regard to the point where I was mentioned, the main issue was not misunderstanding the English, but it was how to translate the English. In other words, whether to literally translate each phrase, or to grasp the overall meaning of the sentence or paragraph and rephrase that into easy-to-understand Japanese. (This is an age-old question in any translation.) A secondary issue was that some of the English was really hard for non-native speakers to understand. My point at that time was that the lawbook was built up over a long period of time in rather idiosyncratic English (Grattanese, Kaplanese) and that it would be a worthwhile project to edit the English with a view to making it easier to translate into all the languages of the various Federations(*). (The counterargument is that everyone is coping with the present lawbook so let's leave it as is....) ------------------------- *This could be done by a professional editor checked by a team of two or three laws experts to make sure the meaning wasn't accidentally changed. Bob On 2016/07/13 5:24, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I think the proposal is an improvement. It?s clearer and it gets away > from having to grapple with when players make a choice that we might > consider illogical. > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Matthias Berghaus > *Sent: *12 July 2016 19:19 > *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject: *Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) > > > > Am 12.07.2016 um 18:44 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: > >> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > >> > >> Current: > >> > >> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > >> could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > >> information. > >> > >> Proposed: > >> > >> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably > >> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless > >> there is no logical alternative. > >> > >> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > > > I think it is at least as clear, maybe clearer, but - while I have some > > pride in my command of English - I am not a native speaker, so some > > nuances may well go right pass me. Having said that, there are many TDs > > who are not native speakers either, and some of them have worse command > > of English, and there danger lies. I remember when Robert Geller (AFAIK > > American-born) couldn`t help the Japanese Federation with their > > translation because he didn`t understand what the English version said.... > > > > So if the proposed version is easier to understand for non-native > > speakers, then it is an improvement for sure, and I can see where this > > could well be the case. Some parts of the laws used to be called > > Grattanese by the British and were considered a foreign language. I was > > always deeply impressed by what Grattan could do with the English > > language, and what deep knowledge he has, but if (as sometimes happened) > > native speakers couldn`t understand his postings here, what chance does > > someone from another country have? > > > > Clarity and easy readability must be the goal, and IMO the proposed > > version looks like a step on the way. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Jul 12 23:10:13 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:10:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Just a little one References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <0AEE84D670FE4B84AAFE8F49228A7294@digitpc> One of the largest clubs in the UK. Biggest night of the week, 2 sections playing an on-going competition scored across the sections. 20 + tables of a v.good club standard. Our (experienced) hero opens a 12-14 NT on a 4342 12 count. LHO calls 2H (natural) Partner had an agreed break of tempo RHO passes Our hero doubles. Hesitater takes it out and plays there. As it happens, this was a very reasonable score for the other side. However, I thought a 20% fine was in order but many disagreed. Thoughts? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160712/d95e0313/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 12 23:16:20 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:16:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Robert, Am 12.07.2016 um 22:44 schrieb Robert Geller: > Hi, > > I'm afraid I haven't been following BLML so much these days, but with > regard to the point where I was mentioned, the main issue was not > misunderstanding the English, but it was how to translate the English. > In other words, whether to literally translate each phrase, or to grasp > the overall meaning of the sentence or paragraph and rephrase that into > easy-to-understand Japanese. (This is an age-old question in any > translation.) looks like I misunderstood what the problem was, sorry. > > A secondary issue was that some of the English was really hard for > non-native speakers to understand. > > My point at that time was that the lawbook was built up over a long > period of time in rather idiosyncratic English (Grattanese, Kaplanese) > and that it would be a worthwhile project to edit the English with a > view to making it easier to translate into all the languages of the > various Federations(*). (The counterargument is that everyone is coping > with the present lawbook so let's leave it as is....) > ------------------------- > *This could be done by a professional editor checked by a team of two or > three laws experts to make sure the meaning wasn't accidentally changed. I have made a suggestion, years ago, which I repeat here and now: get a number (small number, else nothing gets finished) of non-native "Devil`s advocates" who look for ways to misunderstand/mistranslate the proposed texts, looking for wordings which may get non-natives into trouble. I have _no_ idea how anyone could misinterpret a simple sentence of German, except that Germans manage to do so all the time, so (my assumption) native speakers of English have similar difficulties. This is where the Internet is simply wonderful. People from all over the world have no problem in communicating with each other in next to no time... Best regards Matthias > > Bob > From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 12 23:38:04 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:38:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: I prefer positive pronouncements to negative ones in any prose, so we agree to that extent. How would you apply that principle here? On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Wildavsky > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) > > > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is > no > logical alternative. > > > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther > wrote: > > Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > > wrote: > > > >> Current wording: > >> > >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that > >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > >> reply > >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > >> unmistakable > >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, > or > >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives > one > >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > >> extraneous > >> information. > >> > >> > >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed > >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the > >> current > >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or > >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that > >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated > >> into the 2017 laws. > > > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > > suggested) by the extraneous information. > > > > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". > Recently I had the following case: > Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. > (West had preempted with 3H). > South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. > North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. > > We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from > this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. > > Greetings, Volker Walther > > > > > I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is unsatisfactory > to > command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what to do. > As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such > difficulty > is an undue strain upon the player. > > It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications > depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs is not > good foundation for lawmaking. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160712/55ba0f81/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 12 23:40:46 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:40:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: I have the same wish, but it does not seem practical. If the effect is to provide some advantage to those who make their calls in tempo over those who do not, though, then I don't see any great harm. In any case this will not be affected by the proposed change in wording. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: >> >> Current: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that >> could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information. >> >> Proposed: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have >> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is >> no logical alternative. >> >> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? >> > > Interesting proposal, Adam. The first thought of a Bayesian is likely a > wish to name the person or persons who decides the key issues of what "could > demonstrably have been suggested over another" and "there is no logical > alternative." > > The passive voice hides the identity of the decider. I think the short > answer is that the decider is the director. > > But the methods of the pair matter to the issue, as does the available > documentation of those methods. For example, I might choose a different > call based on whether or not I have brought documentation of the relevant > methods we use. > > Another case: If I am pretty sure that the director will say that the > hesitation suggests extra values, but I think it suggest something else, > but the director likely won't agree with, then I should probably assume it > shows extra values. Agreed? > > I sometimes wish I could query the director to find out what he is going > to rule was suggested. > > Jerry Fusselman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160712/d6eedf95/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 12 23:43:41 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:43:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: If I understand you correctly regarding documentation of methods then I agree and have written something to this effect in one of the ACBL casebooks. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: >> >> Current: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that >> could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information. >> >> Proposed: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have >> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is >> no logical alternative. >> >> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? >> > > Interesting proposal, Adam. The first thought of a Bayesian is likely a > wish to name the person or persons who decides the key issues of what "could > demonstrably have been suggested over another" and "there is no logical > alternative." > > The passive voice hides the identity of the decider. I think the short > answer is that the decider is the director. > > But the methods of the pair matter to the issue, as does the available > documentation of those methods. For example, I might choose a different > call based on whether or not I have brought documentation of the relevant > methods we use. > > Another case: If I am pretty sure that the director will say that the > hesitation suggests extra values, but I think it suggest something else, > but the director likely won't agree with, then I should probably assume it > shows extra values. Agreed? > > I sometimes wish I could query the director to find out what he is going > to rule was suggested. > > Jerry Fusselman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160712/85c66a9f/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 12 23:45:40 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:45:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Yes, surely the TD is the decider. That is implicit in every law. I can live with the passive voice here. It's a complex paragraph that has served well enough and I hesitate to tamper too much lest we inadvertently worsen it. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: >> >> Current: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that >> could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information. >> >> Proposed: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have >> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is >> no logical alternative. >> >> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? >> > > Interesting proposal, Adam. The first thought of a Bayesian is likely a > wish to name the person or persons who decides the key issues of what "could > demonstrably have been suggested over another" and "there is no logical > alternative." > > The passive voice hides the identity of the decider. I think the short > answer is that the decider is the director. > > But the methods of the pair matter to the issue, as does the available > documentation of those methods. For example, I might choose a different > call based on whether or not I have brought documentation of the relevant > methods we use. > > Another case: If I am pretty sure that the director will say that the > hesitation suggests extra values, but I think it suggest something else, > but the director likely won't agree with, then I should probably assume it > shows extra values. Agreed? > > I sometimes wish I could query the director to find out what he is going > to rule was suggested. > > Jerry Fusselman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160712/a8176825/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 12 23:47:13 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Can you explain what you mean by non-sequiturs? I don't think I follow. Even better, please suggest an improvement. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Wildavsky > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) > > > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is > no > logical alternative. > > > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther > wrote: > > Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > > wrote: > > > >> Current wording: > >> > >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that > >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > >> reply > >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > >> unmistakable > >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, > or > >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives > one > >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > >> extraneous > >> information. > >> > >> > >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed > >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the > >> current > >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or > >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that > >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated > >> into the 2017 laws. > > > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > > suggested) by the extraneous information. > > > > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". > Recently I had the following case: > Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. > (West had preempted with 3H). > South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. > North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. > > We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from > this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. > > Greetings, Volker Walther > > > > > I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is unsatisfactory > to > command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what to do. > As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such > difficulty > is an undue strain upon the player. > > It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications > depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs is not > good foundation for lawmaking. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160712/8716bf23/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jul 13 03:30:39 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:30:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <67970f76-9fb3-edda-3857-e108332e43bc@alumni.princeton.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160713/1d12b394/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 05:27:40 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:27:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: .....Any further changes to suggest? Richard Hills: "Logical alternative" is a misnomer, since many non-experts (e.g. myself) choose illogical calls. Perhaps change to "justified alternative"? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is > no logical alternative. > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther > wrote: > >> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: >> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Current wording: >> >> >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >> that >> >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> >> reply >> >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> >> unmistakable >> >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, >> or >> >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives >> one >> >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> >> extraneous >> >> information. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> >> current >> >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> >> into the 2017 laws. >> > >> > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that >> > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the >> > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less >> > suggested) by the extraneous information. >> > >> >> I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". >> Recently I had the following case: >> Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. >> (West had preempted with 3H). >> South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. >> North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. >> >> We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from >> this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. >> >> Greetings, Volker Walther >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160713/98eb3050/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Wed Jul 13 11:06:03 2016 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:06:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <1C2AD30B547C433DA1E7D3A2CAB8E9F1@PeachPC> Why do we need ?extraneous? with its own definition and explanation in 16A3? Are two terms for UI needed? 73C uses UI not extraneous info and 75A Jan From: Richard Hills Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:27 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) Adam Wildavsky: .....Any further changes to suggest? Richard Hills: "Logical alternative" is a misnomer, since many non-experts (e.g. myself) choose illogical calls. Perhaps change to "justified alternative"? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Adam Wildavsky wrote: Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: Current: ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Proposed: ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is no logical alternative. Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther wrote: Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Current wording: >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> reply >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> unmistakable >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> extraneous >> information. >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> current >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> into the 2017 laws. > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > suggested) by the extraneous information. > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". Recently I had the following case: Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. (West had preempted with 3H). South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. Greetings, Volker Walther _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Blml at rtflb.org'); http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160713/1a592d3b/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jul 13 11:26:21 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:26:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call Message-ID: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Suppose I make an insufficient bid and change it to pass before director is called, I must repeat the pass if LHO rejects the insufficient bid. Mission accomplished, partner is out of auction :) Now suppose I double partner (illegal, but have seen him play before :)), and then pass before director has been called. Can I now change my bid and bar partner as before? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From sven at svenpran.net Wed Jul 13 11:47:18 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:47:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <003a01d1dceb$8df27f00$a9d77d00$@svenpran.net> Tony Musgrove > Emne: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call > > Suppose I make an insufficient bid and change it to pass before director is called, > I must repeat the pass if LHO rejects the insufficient bid. Mission accomplished, > partner is out of auction :) > > Now suppose I double partner (illegal, but have seen him play before :)), and then > pass before director has been called. Can I now change my bid and bar partner > as before? [Sven Pran] Sure you can, and Law 23 will take away from you (at least) any gain you have from this "mission accomplished". From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 13 13:44:13 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:44:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Am 13.07.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Tony Musgrove: > Suppose I make an insufficient bid and change > it to pass before director is called, I must repeat > the pass if LHO rejects the insufficient bid. Mission > accomplished, partner is out of auction :) > > Now suppose I double partner (illegal, but have > seen him play before :)), and then pass before director > has been called. Can I now change my bid and > bar partner as before? Well, you already barred partner (L36B2). As Sven mentioned, L23 could apply, so could 26 (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?). And no, I would not let you change the pass, and hit you with L23 at the slightest excuse... > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 13 14:15:16 2016 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:15:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Just a little one In-Reply-To: <0AEE84D670FE4B84AAFE8F49228A7294@digitpc> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> <0AEE84D670FE4B84AAFE8F49228A7294@digitpc> Message-ID: <007401d1dd00$37777850$a66668f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Can you tell us what the reason for this disagreement with the penalty was? In my opinion the penalty should have been (much) heavier. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Larry Verzonden: dinsdag 12 juli 2016 23:10 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Just a little one One of the largest clubs in the UK. Biggest night of the week, 2 sections playing an on-going competition scored across the sections. 20 + tables of a v.good club standard. Our (experienced) hero opens a 12-14 NT on a 4342 12 count. LHO calls 2H (natural) Partner had an agreed break of tempo RHO passes Our hero doubles. Hesitater takes it out and plays there. As it happens, this was a very reasonable score for the other side. However, I thought a 20% fine was in order but many disagreed. Thoughts? Thanks. _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2016.0.7640 / Virusdatabase: 4627/12606 - datum van uitgifte: 07/12/16 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160713/2fa6bb68/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Wed Jul 13 14:42:31 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:42:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000901d1dd04$08770300$19650900$@svenpran.net> > Matthias Berghaus > [...] so could 26 (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?)[Sven Pran] [...]. [Sven Pran] I would expect any Director with some experience to at some time having ruled Law 26. It is compulsory whenever a call has been withdrawn by an offender (and replaced by a different call), and the offender eventually becomes a defender. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Wed Jul 13 14:53:19 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:53:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > ? the WBF LC is now considering ? > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is no logical alternative. Better. Now delete ?over another,? change ?could have been? to ?is,? change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? How ?bout this? Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is unauthorized. A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical alternative. A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160713/d6b64bdd/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Wed Jul 13 16:18:14 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:18:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: As I think more about it, it seems the principle involved is, in fact, a negative one, as expressed in 73C: When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. That may be an excellent reason to retain the negative injunction in 16Bb1(a). On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I prefer positive pronouncements to negative ones in any prose, so we > agree to that extent. How would you apply that principle here? > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Wildavsky >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) >> >> >> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: >> >> >> >> Current: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that >> could >> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information. >> >> Proposed: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have >> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is >> no >> logical alternative. >> >> >> >> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther >> wrote: >> >> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: >> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Current wording: >> >> >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >> that >> >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> >> reply >> >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> >> unmistakable >> >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, >> or >> >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives >> one >> >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> >> extraneous >> >> information. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> >> current >> >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> >> into the 2017 laws. >> > >> > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that >> > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the >> > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less >> > suggested) by the extraneous information. >> > >> >> I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". >> Recently I had the following case: >> Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. >> (West had preempted with 3H). >> South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. >> North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. >> >> We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from >> this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. >> >> Greetings, Volker Walther >> >> >> >> >> I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is unsatisfactory >> to >> command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what to >> do. >> As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such >> difficulty >> is an undue strain upon the player. >> >> It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications >> depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs is not >> good foundation for lawmaking. >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160713/60042590/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 13 19:08:49 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:08:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16B1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: For instance 16B1a tells what the player may not do: , the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. What does choose from among mean? Let us say that the player does not choose from among, but only considers from one action. Has he satisfied the law? Certainly. Thus, at 16B3, what does if he considers that an infraction mean? As written it applies to any infraction performed at any time. There is no relation to 16B1a- as in this case, where the player satisfied the requirement. Such is a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said: A non sequitur. Now, as you would have the law read, you require that the player make use of UI in selecting his action. To make the vernacular clear, you require him to cheat in order to satisfy the law. And I submit that it rubs a lot of people the wrong way; it is just that they are not equipped to explain it because they don't understand why it rubs them wrong. That outcome is a long litany of problems on discussion groups. As for offering an alternative, I have done so a very long time ago to Kojak and Endicott. I am quite certain it visited file 13. regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: Adam Wildavsky Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:47 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) Can you explain what you mean by non-sequiturs? I don't think I follow. Even better, please suggest an improvement. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Adam Wildavsky Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: Current: ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Proposed: ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is no logical alternative. Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther wrote: Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Current wording: >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> reply >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> unmistakable >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> extraneous >> information. >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> current >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> into the 2017 laws. > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > suggested) by the extraneous information. > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". Recently I had the following case: Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. (West had preempted with 3H). South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. Greetings, Volker Walther I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is unsatisfactory to command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what to do. As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such difficulty is an undue strain upon the player. It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs is not good foundation for lawmaking. regards roger pewick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160713/780cc371/attachment-0001.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Jul 13 19:47:38 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:47:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Just a little one References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com><0AEE84D670FE4B84AAFE8F49228A7294@digitpc> <007401d1dd00$37777850$a66668f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <9AB7B1544F8F4577B6050327257E2DBD@digitpc> No big deal Ton. I think that I'm the only TD to fine anyone there for many a year. Probably 5 or 6 minimums for disciplinary purposes in 20 yrs. Thoughts were that I was calling them a cheat, was even tried to be justified by the fact that the hand had 4 spades. Will nail them next time. L Can you tell us what the reason for this disagreement with the penalty was? In my opinion the penalty should have been (much) heavier. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Larry Verzonden: dinsdag 12 juli 2016 23:10 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Just a little one One of the largest clubs in the UK. Biggest night of the week, 2 sections playing an on-going competition scored across the sections. 20 + tables of a v.good club standard. Our (experienced) hero opens a 12-14 NT on a 4342 12 count. LHO calls 2H (natural) Partner had an agreed break of tempo RHO passes Our hero doubles. Hesitater takes it out and plays there. As it happens, this was a very reasonable score for the other side. However, I thought a 20% fine was in order but many disagreed. Thoughts? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2016.0.7640 / Virusdatabase: 4627/12606 - datum van uitgifte: 07/12/16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20160713/22090a7c/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 13 20:32:28 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:32:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: <000901d1dd04$08770300$19650900$@svenpran.net> References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> <000901d1dd04$08770300$19650900$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Am 13.07.2016 um 14:42 schrieb Sven Pran: >> Matthias Berghaus >> [...] so could 26 (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?)[Sven > Pran] [...]. > [Sven Pran] > I would expect any Director with some experience to at some time having > ruled Law 26. > > It is compulsory whenever a call has been withdrawn by an offender (and > replaced by a different call), and the offender eventually becomes a Sure. Maybe I found it to unlikely that a side that has enough high cards to double partner would end up declaring, but I can see that this is not necessarilay so. L36 should IMO refer directly to 26B, as a double or redouble of partner`s call does not show a specified suit, but that is no big thing either way > defender. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu Jul 14 05:22:04 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 23:22:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <8BF7BD7A-C71F-46E7-9F0C-071E7C6C8A77@wesleyan.edu> Upon further consideration, I think the key sentence would be clarified by removing the double negative (?unless ? no?) and reordering. I also think ?may not? should be changed to ?must not? (?the strongest prohibition,? according to the Introduction). With those changes, 16B1 could read in full: Extraneous information that might suggest a call or play includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is unauthorized. If there is a logical alternative, then a player must not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his partner. A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. (16D and 73C could be reworded similarly.) Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160714/759ed23e/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 05:50:44 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:50:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <8BF7BD7A-C71F-46E7-9F0C-071E7C6C8A77@wesleyan.edu> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <8BF7BD7A-C71F-46E7-9F0C-071E7C6C8A77@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: I see merit in this suggestion, but the probabilist in me can't help wonder, what if all logical alternatives are demonstrably suggested, but some more than others? Perhaps I should instead ask, what is the probabilistic representation of "demonstrably more suggested?" I'm not suggesting that the laws employ rigorous probabilistic terminology to satisfy the likes of me, but I wonder if the procedure you have in mind is specific enough to be stated in probabilistic terms. For example, if the two LA's are A and B, what relationship between E[A], E[B] (the expected returns assuming no UI) E[A|UI], and E[B|UI] requires the partner who received the UI to choose A? Jerry Fussselman On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > Upon further consideration, I think the key sentence would be clarified by > removing the double negative (?unless ? no?) and reordering. I also think > ?may not? should be changed to ?must not? (?the strongest prohibition,? > according to the Introduction). > > With those changes, 16B1 could read in full: > > Extraneous information that might suggest a call or play includes > remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures > to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, > gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is > unauthorized. > > If there is a logical alternative, then a player must not choose a call or > play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his > partner. > > > A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class > of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would > seriously consider, and some might select. > > > (16D and 73C could be reworded similarly.) > > Tim > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160714/ee7e6c26/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Thu Jul 14 10:36:48 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:36:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> <000901d1dd04$08770300$19650900$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <000f01d1ddaa$df01a1e0$9d04e5a0$@svenpran.net> > Matthias Berghaus {...] > L36 should IMO refer directly to 26B, as a double or redouble of partner`s call > does not show a specified suit, but that is no big thing either way [Sven Pran] We use support doubles and redoubles over intervening calls from RHO after my partner's response bids in his own suit to my own opening bids. These support calls show exactly 3 card support in my partner's suit. So in the auction (example): 1D - pass - 1H - Double Double my inadmissible Double (should have been a redouble) shows exactly 3 hearts. Would you not agree that this inadmissible double refers to hearts only? I think Law 36 is very well written as it is. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 14 14:10:40 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:10:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: <000f01d1ddaa$df01a1e0$9d04e5a0$@svenpran.net> References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> <000901d1dd04$08770300$19650900$@svenpran.net> <000f01d1ddaa$df01a1e0$9d04e5a0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Am 14.07.2016 um 10:36 schrieb Sven Pran: >> Matthias Berghaus > {...] >> L36 should IMO refer directly to 26B, as a double or redouble of > partner`s call >> does not show a specified suit, but that is no big thing either way > [Sven Pran] > We use support doubles and redoubles over intervening calls from RHO after > my partner's response bids in his own suit to my own opening bids. These > support calls show exactly 3 card support in my partner's suit. > > So in the auction (example): > 1D - pass - 1H - Double > Double > my inadmissible Double (should have been a redouble) shows exactly 3 hearts. > > Would you not agree that this inadmissible double refers to hearts only? I agree. Good example, you have a point. I only thought about things like doubling partner, so doubling over a double (or redoubling a redouble) did not occur to me, but you are of course right. > > I think Law 36 is very well written as it is. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 15 00:16:37 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:16:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: A player says "14", everyone recognizing that's his HCP. That is obviously extraneous, by the definition in the lawbook (Extraneous: Not part of the lawful procedures of the game. So to me that has to be extraneous information. Of course, it is not necessarily unauthorized information, right? We all rule that its authorized to the opponents and unauthorized to the player's partner. So perhaps your law should use the term "unauthorized information" instead of "extraneous information." This is just one example -- you can say the same about hesitations. On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:44:34 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is > no logical alternative. > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther wrote: > >> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: >> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Current wording: >> >> >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >> that >> >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> >> reply >> >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> >> unmistakable >> >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, >> or >> >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives >> one >> >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> >> extraneous >> >> information. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> >> current >> >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> >> into the 2017 laws. >> > >> > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that >> > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the >> > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less >> > suggested) by the extraneous information. >> > >> >> I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". >> Recently I had the following case: >> Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. >> (West had preempted with 3H). >> South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. >> North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. >> >> We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from >> this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. >> >> Greetings, Volker Walther >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jul 15 02:23:42 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:23:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <9c8a1e40-7a45-75a5-a49c-73905c3ebb92@nhcc.net> On 2016-07-13 7:44 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Well, you already barred partner (L36B2). As Sven mentioned, L23 could > apply, so could 26 (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?). I might have missed L26, but it's obvious once you point it out. What about 2H-P-x/P-2S-AP ? (2H was a natural weak two, and fourth hand bought the contract in 2S.) I'd use L26A "related to" hearts, but I can see a case for L26B. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jul 15 05:44:47 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:44:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: <9c8a1e40-7a45-75a5-a49c-73905c3ebb92@nhcc.net> References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> <9c8a1e40-7a45-75a5-a49c-73905c3ebb92@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <015801d1de4b$3c5aeb80$b510c280$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Friday, 15 July 2016 10:24 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call > > On 2016-07-13 7:44 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > Well, you already barred partner (L36B2). As Sven mentioned, L23 > could > > apply, so could 26 (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?). > > I might have missed L26, but it's obvious once you point it out. > > What about 2H-P-x/P-2S-AP ? (2H was a natural weak two, and fourth > hand > bought the contract in 2S.) I'd use L26A "related to" hearts, but I can > see a case for L26B. We have had this argument before about changed calls which might "relate" to another call. However L26B is clear. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Fri Jul 15 09:46:01 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:46:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On 2016 Jul 13, at 07:44, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 13.07.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Tony Musgrove: > >> ... suppose I double partner (illegal, but have seen him play before :)) ... As a player I?ve seen a joke inadmissible double a few times (?I eked out a minimum raise, partner took me seriously, and I?ve seen partner play before?), but I don?t recall ever taking a director call on one of these. > ... [Law] 26 could apply (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?) ... Sure. I?ve taken perhaps a dozen director calls over the years for inadmissible doubles. They?re usually takeout requests showing the unbid suits. Sometimes they?re redundant penalty doubles (a bid too far, Double, Pass, Double). Law 26 applies, but how? Here?s one I remember well: One Diamond, Pass, Double (for takeout), ?Director, please,? responder?s inadmissible Double changed to One Spade, Pass, Pass (mandatory), Two Hearts, All Pass. 26A2 should be clearer about the lead restrictions after offender?s withdrawn call specified two or three suits and his legal calls specified one or two, but not all, of those suits. Following what I think is the intended meaning, the first time opener was on lead I allowed declarer to require or prohibit a diamond or to require or prohibit a heart. Opener had a 19-HCP 4=3=2=4 and responder an 8-HCP 5=4=1=3. The room went down one in four spades. Our heroes got the only plus score. No reason to apply Law 23. Score up a top. :) I?ve usually judged a redundant penalty double as not ?solely related to a specified suit or suits? (26B), but I suppose some redundant penalty doubles could be lead-directing (26A). Tim From sven at svenpran.net Fri Jul 15 09:52:12 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:52:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: <9c8a1e40-7a45-75a5-a49c-73905c3ebb92@nhcc.net> References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> <9c8a1e40-7a45-75a5-a49c-73905c3ebb92@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001d1de6d$cf1a3da0$6d4eb8e0$@svenpran.net> Steve Willner [...] > I might have missed L26, but it's obvious once you point it out. > > What about 2H-P-x/P-2S-AP ? (2H was a natural weak two, and fourth hand > bought the contract in 2S.) I'd use L26A "related to" hearts, but I can see a case > for L26B. [Sven Pran] In my example: 1D - Pass - 1H - Double Double the inadmissible double (according to agreements) shows exactly three hearts and indicates nothing about any other suit. As far as Law 26 is concerned this means that Law 26A, not 26B, is the applicable law. In your example the withdrawn double shows nothing in particular solely about hearts and thus Law 26B is the applicable law. From sven at svenpran.net Fri Jul 15 10:25:23 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:25:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000101d1de72$7199adf0$54cd09d0$@svenpran.net> > Timothy N. Hill [...] > As a player I?ve seen a joke inadmissible double a few times (?I eked out a > minimum raise, partner took me seriously, and I?ve seen partner play before?), > but I don?t recall ever taking a director call on one of these. > > > ... [Law] 26 could apply (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?) ... > > Sure. I?ve taken perhaps a dozen director calls over the years for inadmissible > doubles. They?re usually takeout requests showing the unbid suits. Sometimes > they?re redundant penalty doubles (a bid too far, Double, Pass, Double). Law 26 > applies, but how? > > Here?s one I remember well: One Diamond, Pass, Double (for takeout), ?Director, > please,? responder?s inadmissible Double changed to One Spade, Pass, Pass > (mandatory), Two Hearts, All Pass. > > 26A2 should be clearer about the lead restrictions after offender?s withdrawn > call specified two or three suits and his legal calls specified one or two, but not > all, of those suits. Following what I think is the intended meaning, the first time > opener was on lead I allowed declarer to require or prohibit a diamond or to > require or prohibit a heart. [Sven Pran] In the EBL commentary to the bridge laws of 1987 we find (still relevant): quote The Director must consider the meaning of the call that was withdrawn. He must place it in one of two categories - either: (a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than one suit all of which were specified; or (b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit. Examples: a 2NT overcall showing both minors is in category (a) but a cue-bid showing spades and a minor is in category (b). unquote In my experience a takeout double hardly ever shows a specific set of suits (and no other suit) among the unbid suits so it should clearly be in category (b) above. In my opinion you should have ruled Law 26B and not Law 26A (avoiding any difficulty). [...] From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jul 15 10:39:41 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:39:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <018301d1de74$6f46f970$4dd4ec50$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Timothy N. Hill > Sent: Friday, 15 July 2016 5:46 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call > > On 2016 Jul 13, at 07:44, Matthias Berghaus > wrote: > > > Am 13.07.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Tony Musgrove: > > > >> ... suppose I double partner (illegal, but have seen him play before :)) > ... > > As a player I?ve seen a joke inadmissible double a few times (?I eked out a > minimum raise, partner took me seriously, and I?ve seen partner play > before?), but I don?t recall ever taking a director call on one of these. > > > ... [Law] 26 could apply (anybody got an example where 26 would > apply?) ... > > Sure. I?ve taken perhaps a dozen director calls over the years for > inadmissible doubles. They?re usually takeout requests showing the > unbid suits. Sometimes they?re redundant penalty doubles (a bid too far, > Double, Pass, Double). Law 26 applies, but how? > > Here?s one I remember well: One Diamond, Pass, Double (for takeout), > ?Director, please,? responder?s inadmissible Double changed to One > Spade, Pass, Pass (mandatory), Two Hearts, All Pass. > > 26A2 should be clearer about the lead restrictions after offender?s > withdrawn call specified two or three suits and his legal calls specified > one or two, but not all, of those suits. Following what I think is the > intended meaning, the first time opener was on lead I allowed declarer to > require or prohibit a diamond or to require or prohibit a heart. > > Opener had a 19-HCP 4=3=2=4 and responder an 8-HCP 5=4=1=3. The > room went down one in four spades. Our heroes got the only plus score. > No reason to apply Law 23. Score up a top. :) > > I?ve usually judged a redundant penalty double as not ?solely related to a > specified suit or suits? (26B), but I suppose some redundant penalty > doubles could be lead-directing (26A). > > Tim using written bidding as in most of my clubs in OZ, it sometimes occurs that player don?t know how to write redouble! Cheers, Tony (Sydney) [] From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jul 15 10:58:12 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:58:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Change of call after illegal call In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d1dce8$9fbf68e0$df3e3aa0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <018401d1de77$042d09b0$0c871d10$@optusnet.com.au> > I?ve usually judged a redundant penalty double as not ?solely related to a > specified suit or suits? (26B), but I suppose some redundant penalty > doubles could be lead-directing (26A). > > Tim Sorry, my previous reply hard to decipher without some context. The bidding had been 1C 1H x x (then pass substituted) the player had originally intended to redouble not having noticed the 1C opening bid on her left. I allowed her to substitute any call with her partner barred. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 16 09:45:33 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:45:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A strange case of illegal deception Message-ID: <5789E61D.2040407@skynet.be> Yesterday, I was playing in my club (the top one of Flanders), in a reasonable field, against a pair of my strength (= not very good, but no beginners either). I'm playing 4Sp on the following lay-out: S K Q x x H K x x D A J x C K Q x S A x x x x x H x x D x x x C x x x RHO has bid hearts and LHO leads a heart. I play small and RHO wins with the Jack. She goes in a small trance and returns a trump. I cash trumps in two rounds and play a club to the King. She goes in a small trance and ducks. I see that I can now throw her in if she has only two diamonds, so I play DA and a small diamond from the table. She takes the King without any delay. And goes in a long trance. And cashes Ace of Hearts and Ace of clubs. And I claim - convinced that she has to return a heart or a club and my diamond will go on the KH. But she has another diamond. I believe I have been misled. The diamond return is so obvious that my conclusion that she had only two must be valid. And my action (the claim) is based on that deception. Of course any ruling must include a high probability of a diamond return after all, but I believe I could make a case for a 10% weight of 4S-1 rather than the obvious -2. Comments? Herman. From sven at svenpran.net Sat Jul 16 10:08:14 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:08:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A strange case of illegal deception In-Reply-To: <5789E61D.2040407@skynet.be> References: <5789E61D.2040407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901d1df39$369ace60$a3d06b20$@svenpran.net> I fail to see any ILLEGAL deception? > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 16. juli 2016 09:46 > Til: blml > Emne: [BLML] A strange case of illegal deception > > Yesterday, I was playing in my club (the top one of Flanders), in a reasonable > field, against a pair of my strength (= not very good, but no beginners either). > > I'm playing 4Sp on the following lay-out: > > S K Q x x > H K x x > D A J x > C K Q x > > S A x x x x x > H x x > D x x x > C x x x > > RHO has bid hearts and LHO leads a heart. I play small and RHO wins with the > Jack. > She goes in a small trance and returns a trump. > I cash trumps in two rounds and play a club to the King. > She goes in a small trance and ducks. > I see that I can now throw her in if she has only two diamonds, so I play DA and a > small diamond from the table. > She takes the King without any delay. > And goes in a long trance. > And cashes Ace of Hearts and Ace of clubs. > > And I claim - convinced that she has to return a heart or a club and my diamond > will go on the KH. > > But she has another diamond. > > I believe I have been misled. The diamond return is so obvious that my conclusion > that she had only two must be valid. > And my action (the claim) is based on that deception. > > Of course any ruling must include a high probability of a diamond return after all, > but I believe I could make a case for a 10% weight of 4S-1 rather than the > obvious -2. > > Comments? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jul 17 09:07:07 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:07:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hesitation Message-ID: With opponents silent, the auction is N S N PASS - 2H (hearts and a minor, weak) - slow 3H What does the BIT suggest? When asked what 3H shows, specifically if it is invitational or shut-out, North (a quite experienced player in his late 60ies) could only say that he had already passed. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 17 11:08:13 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:08:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hesitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <578B4AFD.8000401@skynet.be> Well, apparently, they have no agreement. So the hesitation shows "I don't know what to bid". Which is of no use. However, North apparently does have an agreement if he hasn't passed. Which one is that. Because in that case, perhaps the meaning is "partner, I could not bid this, since I don't have hat it shows, but since I'm a passed hand, you can work that out for yourself". If the same bid comes quickly, maybe partner will just assume it's what it's supposed to be and bid accordingly. What is the meaning when non-passed? Herman. Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > With opponents silent, the auction is > > N S N > PASS - 2H (hearts and a minor, weak) - slow 3H > > What does the BIT suggest? > When asked what 3H shows, specifically if it is invitational or shut-out, > North (a quite experienced player in his late 60ies) could only say that > he had already passed. > > Regards, > Petrus > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 12:54:35 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:54:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] hesitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A similar situation without any partnership understanding occurred a number of years ago. In a Swiss Teams, a new partner dealt and opened a Multi 2D. RHO passed. I jumped to 3H (non-invitational pass-or-correct). LHO passed. Pard passed, promising a weak two in hearts. Now RHO balanced with an insufficient 3D. I accepted the insufficient bid, rebidding 3H. LHO passed again. Now pard guessed (correctly) that my second 3H bid showed a maximum for my non-invitational values. Since pard held a maximum weak two, he raised to 4H, all pass. Cold for +620. Since pard correctly guessed my intent, did this mean that our first-time partnership had an implicit understanding? I think not, as Law 40C1 has the criterion: "++Repeated++ deviations lead to implicit understandings". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, July 17, 2016, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > With opponents silent, the auction is > > N S N > PASS - 2H (hearts and a minor, weak) - slow 3H > > What does the BIT suggest? > When asked what 3H shows, specifically if it is invitational or shut-out, > North (a quite experienced player in his late 60ies) could only say that > he had already passed. > > Regards, > Petrus > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160717/a897146f/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jul 17 20:09:08 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:09:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] hesitation In-Reply-To: <578B4AFD.8000401@skynet.be> References: <578B4AFD.8000401@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:08:13 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, apparently, they have no agreement. > So the hesitation shows "I don't know what to bid". Which is of no use. > However, North apparently does have an agreement if he hasn't passed. > Which one is that. Because in that case, perhaps the meaning is > "partner, I could not bid this, since I don't have hat it shows, but > since I'm a passed hand, you can work that out for yourself". If the > same bid comes quickly, maybe partner will just assume it's what it's > supposed to be and bid accordingly. > What is the meaning when non-passed? I asked him today: invitational. -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From adam at tameware.com Sun Jul 17 20:26:07 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 14:26:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a proposal along these lines. On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > ? the WBF LC is now considering ? > > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is > no logical alternative. > > > Better. Now > > - delete ?over another,? > - change ?could have been? to ?is,? > - change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that > extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and > - in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? > > > How ?bout this? > > Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes remarks, questions, > replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, > and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is unauthorized. > > A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by > unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical > alternative. > > A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class > of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would > seriously consider, and some might select. > > Tim > -- > Timothy N. Hill > mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 > 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA > Duplicate Bridge Director > American Contract Bridge League: > Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, > Newton Bridge Club: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160717/4b5c56e1/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Sun Jul 17 21:57:42 2016 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:57:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: I applaud Adam?s attempt to clarify laws. The passive tense, sophisticated wording (e.g. ?demonstrably?), the subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.? should?, ?must?, ?may?, ?may not?), and indeterminate fudging e.g. ?could? combine to undermine clarification attempts. UI rulings on simple basic cases with agreed facts split discussion groups down the middle, however, so it?s obvious that drastic clarification is needed. I think rule-makers should radically simplify the rules of Bridge. .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical terms, that players can understand. Below is my suggestion to explain the UI decision process (FWIW ? so far it has attracted ridicule) 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider. 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list. 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list. 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference. 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it?s AI. He asks them to re-order the list in that light 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's chosen call ascends in the average rankings. 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the basis of a thought-experiment. An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds). Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it?s urgently needed. Regards, Nigel g3 at nige1.com +447578626916 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160717/f04ce7bf/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 23:38:46 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 16:38:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <20160717203059.D04E938EEC6A6@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <20160717203059.D04E938EEC6A6@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I applaud Adam?s attempt to clarify laws. > > > > The passive tense, sophisticated wording (e.g. ?demonstrably?), the > subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.? should?, > ?must?, ?may?, ?may not?), and indeterminate fudging e.g. ?could? combine > to undermine clarification attempts. > > > > UI rulings on *simple basic cases with agreed facts * split discussion > groups down the middle, however, so it?s obvious that drastic > clarification is needed. > > > > I think rule-makers should *radically simplify* the rules of Bridge. > .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical terms, > that players can understand. > > > > Below is my suggestion to explain the UI decision process (FWIW ? so far > it has attracted ridicule) > > > 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider. > 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list. > 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list. > 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference. > 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it?s AI. > He asks them to re-order the list in that light > 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's > chosen call ascends in the average rankings. > 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the > basis of a thought-experiment. > > > > An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must > wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds). > > > > Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it?s urgently needed. > > > > Regards, Nigel > g3 at nige1.com > +447578626916 > > > I like the idea of an agreed procedure, even if just a thought experiment. It looks like a stroke of clarity to me. I would like the methods of the pair to be mentioned somehow. In all of these proposals, there has been little or no discussion of what to do for close calls. For example, using Nigel's practical procedure, what would he do if the ordinal ranking with UI treated as AI only increased the average rank from 2.4 to 2.3? Would that be enough to rule guilty of UI use? But I worry about the following case that could be a fatal flaw with Nigel's suggestion. For simplicity, suppose an LA option falls from unanimous first to unanimous last. Shouldn't that be the required action? Any other action he may take is comparatively suggested by the UI. With this example, the use-the-average-ranking idea looks wrong. Yes, it seems clear, but not right in all cases. So I think I like the protocol, except that I don't think the decision metric can be improved. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160717/0c210a4e/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Mon Jul 18 01:28:49 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:28:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)) Message-ID: Thanks for the good wishes! As for the proposed polling procedure, I like it but I think it will encounter difficulties in practice. The TD will not want to return to each player he has polled for a second or third pass. He may not even be able to find them. I also like the ACBL?s Polling Technique . Unfortunately, it?s not always followed. On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I applaud Adam?s attempt to clarify laws. > > > > The passive tense, sophisticated wording (e.g. ?demonstrably?), the > subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.? should?, > ?must?, ?may?, ?may not?), and indeterminate fudging e.g. ?could? combine > to undermine clarification attempts. > > > > UI rulings on *simple basic cases with agreed facts * split discussion > groups down the middle, however, so it?s obvious that drastic > clarification is needed. > > > > I think rule-makers should *radically simplify* the rules of Bridge. > .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical terms, > that players can understand. > > > > Below is my suggestion to explain the UI decision process (FWIW ? so far > it has attracted ridicule) > > > 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider. > 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list. > 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list. > 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference. > 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it?s AI. > He asks them to re-order the list in that light > 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's > chosen call ascends in the average rankings. > 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the > basis of a thought-experiment. > > > > An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must > wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds). > > > > Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it?s urgently needed. > > > > Regards, Nigel > g3 at nige1.com > +447578626916 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160717/9e328a5e/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 15:44:39 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:44:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I disagree with the ACBL Polling Technique's implicit endorsement of polling several people at the same time. A clarifying question by one person polled could well bias the decision-making process of other persons polled. The (now gravely ill) Chief Director of Australia on one occasion polled only one player, because that player's reasoning was definitive. On another occasion the CTD polled zero players, because the use-of-UI was egregious. The egregious infraction was this: Both sides had been competing in the red suits. Over one side's 4H the other side bid 5D. The player in question passed RHO's 5D, showing some willingness to defend. The player's partner doubled 5D for penalty, confirming the decision to defend. Unfortunately the penalty double was hesitant, demonstrably suggesting removing. Hence the player removed to 5H. The complete deal was sufficiently freaky that both 5D and 5H were cold. So the CTD had a clear cut decision to adjust the score to 5Dx +750. Best wishes, Richard Hills ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Adam Wildavsky* Date: Monday, July 18, 2016 Subject: Re: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)) To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Thanks for the good wishes! As for the proposed polling procedure, I like it but I think it will encounter difficulties in practice. The TD will not want to return to each player he has polled for a second or third pass. He may not even be able to find them. I also like the ACBL?s Polling Technique . Unfortunately, it?s not always followed. On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > I applaud Adam?s attempt to clarify laws. > > > > The passive tense, sophisticated wording (e.g. ?demonstrably?), the > subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.? should?, > ?must?, ?may?, ?may not?), and indeterminate fudging e.g. ?could? combine > to undermine clarification attempts. > > > > UI rulings on *simple basic cases with agreed facts * split discussion > groups down the middle, however, so it?s obvious that drastic > clarification is needed. > > > > I think rule-makers should *radically simplify* the rules of Bridge. > .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical terms, > that players can understand. > > > > Below is my suggestion to explain the UI decision process (FWIW ? so far > it has attracted ridicule) > > > 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider. > 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list. > 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list. > 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference. > 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it?s AI. > He asks them to re-order the list in that light > 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's > chosen call ascends in the average rankings. > 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the > basis of a thought-experiment. > > > > An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must > wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds). > > > > Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it?s urgently needed. > > > > Regards, Nigel > g3 at nige1.com > +447578626916 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160718/d773ceff/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Mon Jul 18 21:42:35 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:42:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that polling should be individual. I learned from William Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" that multiple opinions are most useful when they are formed independently. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > I disagree with the ACBL Polling Technique's implicit endorsement of > polling several people at the same time. A clarifying question by one > person polled could well bias the decision-making process of other persons > polled. > > The (now gravely ill) Chief Director of Australia on one occasion polled > only one player, because that player's reasoning was definitive. On another > occasion the CTD polled zero players, because the use-of-UI was egregious. > > The egregious infraction was this: Both sides had been competing in the > red suits. Over one side's 4H the other side bid 5D. The player in question > passed RHO's 5D, showing some willingness to defend. The player's partner > doubled 5D for penalty, confirming the decision to defend. Unfortunately > the penalty double was hesitant, demonstrably suggesting removing. Hence > the player removed to 5H. > > The complete deal was sufficiently freaky that both 5D and 5H were cold. > So the CTD had a clear cut decision to adjust the score to 5Dx +750. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Adam Wildavsky* > Date: Monday, July 18, 2016 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for > Law 16Bb1(a)) > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > Thanks for the good wishes! > > As for the proposed polling procedure, I like it but I think it will > encounter difficulties in practice. The TD will not want to return to each > player he has polled for a second or third pass. He may not even be able to > find them. > > I also like the ACBL?s Polling Technique > . > Unfortunately, it?s not always followed. > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> I applaud Adam?s attempt to clarify laws. >> >> >> >> The passive tense, sophisticated wording (e.g. ?demonstrably?), the >> subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.? should?, >> ?must?, ?may?, ?may not?), and indeterminate fudging e.g. ?could? combine >> to undermine clarification attempts. >> >> >> >> UI rulings on *simple basic cases with agreed facts * split discussion >> groups down the middle, however, so it?s obvious that drastic >> clarification is needed. >> >> >> >> I think rule-makers should *radically simplify* the rules of Bridge. >> .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical terms, >> that players can understand. >> >> >> >> Below is my suggestion to explain the UI decision process (FWIW ? so far >> it has attracted ridicule) >> >> >> 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider. >> 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list. >> 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list. >> 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference. >> 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it?s >> AI. He asks them to re-order the list in that light >> 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's >> chosen call ascends in the average rankings. >> 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the >> basis of a thought-experiment. >> >> >> >> An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must >> wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds). >> >> >> >> Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it?s urgently needed. >> >> >> >> Regards, Nigel >> g3 at nige1.com >> +447578626916 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160718/c130779c/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Jul 19 00:26:09 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:26:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)) References: Message-ID: <90D3DEF7EE8144B5A27ADA635E0D48E1@digitpc> Quite, you do NOT want a group discussion. Give them a problem as in a newspaper bidding quiz. They will know something is afoot 'cos that's why your asking ! Need the 'right' people. I had one (very experienced) chap said he'd bid 4H. I queried this and he said 'I've played the hand and it makes'. Never asked him again ! L. I agree that polling should be individual. I learned from William Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" that multiple opinions are most useful when they are formed independently. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160718/30e216d9/attachment-0001.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 11:43:11 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:43:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law16Bb1(a)) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure. Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU?s is here) and it?s part of a TD?s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel?s suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement. Gordon Rainsford Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Adam Wildavsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160719/dc183975/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 14:08:08 2016 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:08:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law16Bb1(a)) In-Reply-To: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I've long thought that an online polling system would provide the best of both worlds. Sites like Bridgewinners receive enough traffic that directors could conduct large surveys in near real time. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the > Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that they > could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that to > believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it seems to me > would make them longer and more complicated as well as removing any > allowance for geographical differences in procedure. > > > > Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU?s is here > ) > and it?s part of a TD?s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel?s > suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement. > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Adam Wildavsky > *Sent: *18 July 2016 00:36 > *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject: *Re: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording > for Law16Bb1(a)) > > > > Thanks for the good wishes! > > > > As for the proposed polling procedure, I like it but I think it will > encounter difficulties in practice. The TD will not want to return to each > player he has polled for a second or third pass. He may not even be able to > find them. > > > > I also like the ACBL?s Polling Technique > . > Unfortunately, it?s not always followed. > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > I applaud Adam?s attempt to clarify laws. > > > > The passive tense, sophisticated wording (e.g. ?demonstrably?), the > subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.? should?, > ?must?, ?may?, ?may not?), and indeterminate fudging e.g. ?could? combine > to undermine clarification attempts. > > > > UI rulings on *simple basic cases with agreed facts * split discussion > groups down the middle, however, so it?s obvious that drastic > clarification is needed. > > > > I think rule-makers should *radically simplify* the rules of Bridge. > .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical terms, > that players can understand. > > > > Below is my suggestion to explain the UI decision process (FWIW ? so far > it has attracted ridicule) > > > 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider. > 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list. > 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list. > 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference. > 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it?s AI. > He asks them to re-order the list in that light > 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's > chosen call ascends in the average rankings. > 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the > basis of a thought-experiment. > > > > An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must > wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds). > > > > Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it?s urgently needed. > > > > Regards, Nigel > g3 at nige1.com > +447578626916 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- 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/20160719/63cfbb63/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jul 19 15:21:21 2016 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:21:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Local regulation. In-Reply-To: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> Message-ID: {Gordon Rainsford] Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure. Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU?s is here) and it?s part of a TD?s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel?s suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement. [Nigel] This topic merits a separate thread. Currently, you could argue that local regulations are needed in a few areas like system-regulation. IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would benefit from a single set of rules. In principle, such integrated rules would take *less* space. They would be easier for players to understand and to follow. Directors would need only one book of rules. Ruke-makers would be able to distil best practice from the current tower of Babel. Admittedly, , in practice, when rule-makers introduce simpler rules that players and directors can understand, they *might not* save space -- even after they expurgate unnecessary rules. Well-organised, well-structured, comprehensive rules, using short active sentences, and plain unambiguous words, without elegant variation, might end up being longer. IMO, it?s also possible to have uniform system/disclosure rules; but that?s more controversial and a different argument. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160719/45277646/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 19 15:42:35 2016 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:42:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law16Bb1(a)) In-Reply-To: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <36F9C903-8029-4032-B08F-7BAA81C0FE6C@xs4all.nl> Verstuurd vanaf mijn mobiel > Op 19 jul. 2016 om 11:43 heeft Gordon Rainsford het volgende geschreven: > > Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure. > > Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU?s is here) and it?s part of a TD?s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel?s suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement. > > Gordon Rainsford > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Adam Wildavsky > Sent: 18 July 2016 00:36 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law16Bb1(a)) > > Thanks for the good wishes! > > As for the proposed polling procedure, I like it but I think it will encounter difficulties in practice. The TD will not want to return to each player he has polled for a second or third pass. He may not even be able to find them. > > I also like the ACBL?s Polling Technique. Unfortunately, it?s not always followed. > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I applaud Adam?s attempt to clarify laws. > > The passive tense, sophisticated wording (e.g. ?demonstrably?), the subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.? should?, ?must?, ?may?, ?may not?), and indeterminate fudging e.g. ?could? combine to undermine clarification attempts. > > UI rulings on simple basic cases with agreed facts split discussion groups down the middle, however, so it?s obvious that drastic clarification is needed. > > I think rule-makers should radically simplify the rules of Bridge. .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical terms, that players can understand. > > Below is my suggestion to explain the UI decision process (FWIW ? so far it has attracted ridicule) > > 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider. > 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list. > 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list. > 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference. > 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it?s AI. He asks them to re-order the list in that light > 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's chosen call ascends in the average rankings. > 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the basis of a thought-experiment. > > An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds). > > Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it?s urgently needed. > > Regards, Nigel > g3 at nige1.com > +447578626916 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160719/a0432161/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 16:16:00 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:16:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Margarine Message-ID: Tonight and for the next three Tuesday evenings the Canberra Bridge Club is holding a Butler pairs tournament. The format is a Mitchell movement, with three 9-board matches per session. I had arranged to play with Hashmat Ali in this event, but a few days before its start Hashmat informed me that he had the dreaded lurgy. Therefore I had to organise a substitute for the first session. This I did, choosing a forgetful friend. The friend did not forget to turn up. Instead, shortly before the starting time the friend was told by another player that they had entered the tournament, so the fair-weather substitute promptly decamped. Thus I had to get a last-minute second substitute. The new substitute understandably arrived three boards late. But both he and I are very quick players, so we finished the first 9-board match with time to spare. Suppose, however, that we had completed only eight boards. Should we have been awarded Average Minus for the board that we missed, because we were "directly at fault" (Law 12C2)? In my opinion, no. The person directly at fault was the forgetful "first substitute", and he was now part of a rival contestant. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160719/4321f645/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 19 16:36:28 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:36:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Local regulation. In-Reply-To: <20160719132858.CDF9FB3085C9@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> <20160719132858.CDF9FB3085C9@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> Am 19.07.2016 um 15:21 schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > > {Gordon Rainsford] > > Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the > Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that > they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that > to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it > seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as > removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure. > > Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU?s ishere > ) > and it?s part of a TD?s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel?s > suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement. > > [Nigel] > > This topic merits a separate thread. Currently, you could argue that > local regulations are needed in a few areas like system-regulation. > You think knock-out teams have basically the same structure in England, Germany, and whatever country you would like to think of? Dream on.... And what good would it do to have Iceland, where Bridge is played nearly exclusively in Rejkjavik, and Norway, where 2000 km might be the distance to cover, have the same regulation for local encounters? Not to mention the U.S. where 2000 might look like a bargain. Fat lot of good would it do for anybody. Of course I can see where Iceland and China are fundamentally the same... except for the differences.... > IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would > benefit from a single set of rules. > The Australians are going to thank you profusely for your high-headed attempt to foist bidding-boxes on them. Why don`t you learn written bidding, instead? > In principle, such integrated rules would take **less** space. > Rofl > They would be easier for players to understand and to follow. > Oh sure, players would find it easy to follow bidding-box regulations, when they have never seen such a thing, and, more importantly, are not going to do so anytime soon. Do you think they would care to learn regulations that will have _no_ relevance to their way of playing Bridge? And no, the Australians are not alone. Why should they learn abbout bidding-box regulations? Because you use them? Well, so do I, but so what? > Directors would need only one book of rules. Ruke-makers would be able > to distil best practice from the current tower of Babel. > And what, pray, is the best practice to run an event in Monaco? India? Practically the same thing, isn`t it? Both are a couple of 1000 m across. OK, it`s _k_m in the case of India, and slighly more people, but what is factor of 1000 or so for standardization? The fact that England and Germany have 1 language each (let us forget about Yorkshire and Bavarian dialects for the purpose of this discussion, they are not in the regulations anyway), where India has...? 40? 50? Not dialects, _languages_. Even Belgium has 3, even if there is no club in the part where German is spoken. Switzerland has 3, 4 if you count in Rhaeto-Roman (which is probably as relevant to Bridge as German is in Belgium), and those 3 languages are spoken in different parts of the country. Sure, some are bi- or even trilingual, and others are not. Let us try the Belgian way. where English is the official language in the top division. I imagine that is not actually used all the time, people preferring to understand French or Flemish instead, but I might be wrong. Herman can surely tell us. On the other hand, it would be much more fair to let the whole learn some language from a country where Bridge is not played at all. That way no one would be at an advantage, right? > Admittedly, , in practice, when rule-makers introduce simpler rules > that players and directors can understand, they **might not** save > space -- even after they expurgate unnecessary rules. Well-organised, > well-structured, comprehensive rules, using short active sentences, > and plain unambiguous words, without elegant variation, might end up > being longer. > > IMO, it?s also possible to have uniform system/disclosure rules; but > that?s more controversial and a different argument. > Ah, OK, then we have one bloated rulebook, and _still_ another one for e.g. systems regulations. That is a big step forward, giving us _two_ books where previously we had , err, two? If you can read German, or know someone who does, have a look at Austrian and German systems and alert regulations, which are radically different in some areas, even though we can actually talk to each other. I am going to Austria (I would like to go to Australia, too, but it is too far for my liking) to play in 3 weeks, and I am going to take the time to actually look them up and learn the differences, and explain them to my partner on the voyage. And tell you what: those differences are there for a purpose, and they actually make sense for the relevant countries, but not for the other, else they would be the same. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 16:40:01 2016 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:40:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Local regulation. In-Reply-To: <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> <20160719132858.CDF9FB3085C9@relay4.webreus.nl> <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> Message-ID: The day you manage to get various local organizations to follow the laws of the game is the day that you can start to discuss global *regulations*... As a practical example, as I understand matters Psyches are banned in a number of countries in Europe (Austria and Italy come to mind). On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 19.07.2016 um 15:21 schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > > > > {Gordon Rainsford] > > > > Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the > > Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that > > they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that > > to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it > > seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as > > removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure. > > > > Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU?s ishere > > < > http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/notes-on-polling-&-consulting.pdf > >) > > and it?s part of a TD?s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel?s > > suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement. > > > > [Nigel] > > > > This topic merits a separate thread. Currently, you could argue that > > local regulations are needed in a few areas like system-regulation. > > > > You think knock-out teams have basically the same structure in England, > Germany, and whatever country you would like to think of? Dream on.... > And what good would it do to have Iceland, where Bridge is played nearly > exclusively in Rejkjavik, and Norway, where 2000 km might be the > distance to cover, have the same regulation for local encounters? Not to > mention the U.S. where 2000 might look like a bargain. Fat lot of good > would it do for anybody. Of course I can see where Iceland and China are > fundamentally the same... except for the differences.... > > > IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would > > benefit from a single set of rules. > > > > The Australians are going to thank you profusely for your high-headed > attempt to foist bidding-boxes on them. Why don`t you learn written > bidding, instead? > > > In principle, such integrated rules would take **less** space. > > > > Rofl > > > They would be easier for players to understand and to follow. > > > > Oh sure, players would find it easy to follow bidding-box regulations, > when they have never seen such a thing, and, more importantly, are not > going to do so anytime soon. Do you think they would care to learn > regulations that will have _no_ relevance to their way of playing > Bridge? And no, the Australians are not alone. Why should they learn > abbout bidding-box regulations? Because you use them? Well, so do I, but > so what? > > > Directors would need only one book of rules. Ruke-makers would be able > > to distil best practice from the current tower of Babel. > > > > And what, pray, is the best practice to run an event in Monaco? India? > Practically the same thing, isn`t it? Both are a couple of 1000 m > across. OK, it`s _k_m in the case of India, and slighly more people, but > what is factor of 1000 or so for standardization? The fact that England > and Germany have 1 language each (let us forget about Yorkshire and > Bavarian dialects for the purpose of this discussion, they are not in > the regulations anyway), where India has...? 40? 50? Not dialects, > _languages_. Even Belgium has 3, even if there is no club in the part > where German is spoken. Switzerland has 3, 4 if you count in > Rhaeto-Roman (which is probably as relevant to Bridge as German is in > Belgium), and those 3 languages are spoken in different parts of the > country. Sure, some are bi- or even trilingual, and others are not. Let > us try the Belgian way. where English is the official language in the > top division. I imagine that is not actually used all the time, people > preferring to understand French or Flemish instead, but I might be > wrong. Herman can surely tell us. On the other hand, it would be much > more fair to let the whole learn some language from a country where > Bridge is not played at all. That way no one would be at an advantage, > right? > > > Admittedly, , in practice, when rule-makers introduce simpler rules > > that players and directors can understand, they **might not** save > > space -- even after they expurgate unnecessary rules. Well-organised, > > well-structured, comprehensive rules, using short active sentences, > > and plain unambiguous words, without elegant variation, might end up > > being longer. > > > > IMO, it?s also possible to have uniform system/disclosure rules; but > > that?s more controversial and a different argument. > > > > Ah, OK, then we have one bloated rulebook, and _still_ another one for > e.g. systems regulations. That is a big step forward, giving us _two_ > books where previously we had , err, two? If you can read German, or > know someone who does, have a look at Austrian and German systems and > alert regulations, which are radically different in some areas, even > though we can actually talk to each other. I am going to Austria (I > would like to go to Australia, too, but it is too far for my liking) to > play in 3 weeks, and I am going to take the time to actually look them > up and learn the differences, and explain them to my partner on the > voyage. And tell you what: those differences are there for a purpose, > and they actually make sense for the relevant countries, but not for the > other, else they would be the same. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- 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/20160719/2472f264/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 17:11:19 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 01:11:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Local regulation. In-Reply-To: References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> <20160719132858.CDF9FB3085C9@relay4.webreus.nl> <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: .....IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would benefit from a single set of rules..... George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1898): "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." Richard Hills: The tribe of bridge players on the island of Great Britain universally use bidding boxes. But for most Aussie national championships (for example, the recent Victor Champion Cup) written bidding is used. Hence I agree with Gordon Rainsford's support of geographical diversity of bridge regulation in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity Best wishes, Richard Hills PS The Canberra Bridge Club has a compromise regulation on whether or not bidding boxes are used. They are required for the major tournaments on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. But for all other sessions the stationary North-Souths decide between using either bidding boxes or written bidding. On Tuesday, July 19, 2016, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > {Gordon Rainsford] > > Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the > Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that they > could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that to > believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it seems to me > would make them longer and more complicated as well as removing any > allowance for geographical differences in procedure. > > > > Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU?s is here > ) > and it?s part of a TD?s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel?s > suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement. > > > > [Nigel] > > This topic merits a separate thread. Currently, you could argue that local > regulations are needed in a few areas like system-regulation. > > > > IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would > benefit from a single set of rules. > > > > In principle, such integrated rules would take **less** space. They would > be easier for players to understand and to follow. Directors would need > only one book of rules. Ruke-makers would be able to distil best practice > from the current tower of Babel. > > > > Admittedly, , in practice, when rule-makers introduce simpler rules that > players and directors can understand, they **might not** save space -- > even after they expurgate unnecessary rules. Well-organised, > well-structured, comprehensive rules, using short active sentences, and > plain unambiguous words, without elegant variation, might end up being > longer. > > > > IMO, it?s also possible to have uniform system/disclosure rules; but > that?s more controversial and a different argument. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160719/abb5a551/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Jul 21 03:17:56 2016 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:17:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Local regulation. In-Reply-To: References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> <20160719132858.CDF9FB3085C9@relay4.webreus.nl> <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] The tribe of bridge players on the island of Great Britain universally use bidding boxes. But for most Aussie national championships (for example, the recent Victor Champion Cup) written bidding is used. Hence I agree with Gordon Rainsford's support of geographical diversity of bridge regulation in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity [Nigel] I accept that Bidding boxes aren?t always appropriate e.g. for on-line play. I feel that the objectors to a level playing-field are mostly rule-makers and directors. E.g. Scottish players experienced no problem changing from our local rules to standard WBF regulations; although, like most current rules, WBF regulations are improvable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160721/f0a1d1eb/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 14:11:10 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:11:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Local regulation. In-Reply-To: <20160721012554.5EAFCB3081D1@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> <20160719132858.CDF9FB3085C9@relay4.webreus.nl> <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> <20160721012554.5EAFCB3081D1@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Agatha Christie, The Murder at the Vicarage: "The young people think that the old people are fools --- but the old people know that the young people are fools." Nigel Guthrie: .....I feel that the objectors to a level playing-field are mostly rule-makers and directors..... Richard Hills: I know that the objectors to bidding boxes are mostly grass-roots Aussie players, disinclined to changing the habits of a lifetime. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > [Richard Hills] > The tribe of bridge players on the island of Great Britain universally use > bidding boxes. But for most Aussie national championships (for example, the > recent Victor Champion Cup) written bidding is used. > > Hence I agree with Gordon Rainsford's support of geographical diversity of > bridge regulation in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity: > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity > > > > [Nigel] > > I accept that Bidding boxes aren?t always appropriate e.g. for on-line > play. > > > > I feel that the objectors to a level playing-field are mostly > rule-makers and directors. > > > > E.g. Scottish players experienced no problem changing from our local rules > to standard WBF regulations; although, like most current rules, WBF > regulations are improvable. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160721/286e68d4/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Jul 24 13:25:05 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:25:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <8BF7BD7A-C71F-46E7-9F0C-071E7C6C8A77@wesleyan.edu> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <8BF7BD7A-C71F-46E7-9F0C-071E7C6C8A77@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: Timothy N. Hill suggested, in part: .....If there is a logical alternative, then a player must not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his partner..... Richard Hills: My further suggestion is to make Tim's proposed sentence more generally applicable, by deleting "from his partner". This could be done in the context of merging Law 16 with Law 73C. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, July 14, 2016, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > Upon further consideration, I think the key sentence would be clarified by > removing the double negative (?unless ? no?) and reordering. I also think > ?may not? should be changed to ?must not? (?the strongest prohibition,? > according to the Introduction). > > With those changes, 16B1 could read in full: > > Extraneous information that might suggest a call or play includes > remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures > to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, > gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is > unauthorized. > > If there is a logical alternative, then a player must not choose a call or > play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his > partner. > > > A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class > of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would > seriously consider, and some might select. > > > (16D and 73C could be reworded similarly.) > > Tim > > -- > Timothy N. Hill > > mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 > 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA > Duplicate Bridge Director > American Contract Bridge League: > Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, > Newton Bridge Club: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160724/50ad366a/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Jul 24 14:05:46 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 22:05:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Margarine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: Both In an uncontested auction South opens 1D, North responds 1S, and now South rebids 5H. You, North, hold: AQT94 94 K9 AT82 What call do you make? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Richard Hills > wrote: > Tonight and for the next three Tuesday evenings the Canberra Bridge Club > is holding a Butler pairs tournament. The format is a Mitchell movement, > with three 9-board matches per session. I had arranged to play with Hashmat > Ali in this event, but a few days before its start Hashmat informed me that > he had the dreaded lurgy. Therefore I had to organise a substitute for the > first session. > > This I did, choosing a forgetful friend. The friend did not forget to turn > up. Instead, shortly before the starting time the friend was told by > another player that they had entered the tournament, so the fair-weather > substitute promptly decamped. > > Thus I had to get a last-minute second substitute. The new substitute > understandably arrived three boards late. But both he and I are very quick > players, so we finished the first 9-board match with time to spare. > > Suppose, however, that we had completed only eight boards. Should we have > been awarded Average Minus for the board that we missed, because we were > "directly at fault" (Law 12C2)? In my opinion, no. The person directly at > fault was the forgetful "first substitute", and he was now part of a rival > contestant. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160724/967d578a/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jul 24 15:23:06 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 09:23:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Margarine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6c462e2a-418f-5652-b2f6-43c7d596b638@alumni.princeton.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160724/985403d6/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jul 25 03:20:48 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:20:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5372ae2d-7651-21fc-be76-0c0cb59e4ece@nhcc.net> On 2016-07-12 4:44 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > it would be a worthwhile project to edit the English with a > view to making it easier to translate into all the languages of the > various Federations Even for those of us who will read only the English version, this strikes me as a highly desirable project. Robert won't like it, but I'd nominate him, Konrad Ciborowski, and one member of the LC (possibly the Secretary) as the group to do the job. The downside, of course, is that this would remove the compromise language to which all commission members assent even while disagreeing on the intended meaning. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jul 25 12:36:17 2016 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:36:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Local regulation. In-Reply-To: <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> References: <578df62a.28202e0a.22ff8.fbfa@mx.google.com> <20160719132858.CDF9FB3085C9@relay4.webreus.nl> <9b5ca47e-1cef-418d-7cd0-1bb582fb3309@t-online.de> Message-ID: [Mathias Berghaus] Germany, and whatever country you would like to think of? Dream on.... And what good would it do to have Iceland, where Bridge is played nearly exclusively in Rejkjavik, and Norway, where 2000 km might be the distance to cover, have the same regulation for local encounters? Not to mention the U.S. where 2000 might look like a bargain. Fat lot of good would it do for anybody. Of course I can see where Iceland and China are fundamentally the same... except for the differences.... [Nigel] If distance-differences make a difference to some aspect of competition, the laws can allow for it. [Mathias Berghaus] The Australians are going to thank you profusely for your high-headed attempt to foist bidding-boxes on them. Why don`t you learn written bidding, instead? Oh sure, players would find it easy to follow bidding-box regulations, when they have never seen such a thing, and, more importantly, are not going to do so anytime soon. Do you think they would care to learn regulations that will have _no_ relevance to their way of playing Bridge? And no, the Australians are not alone. Why should they learn about bidding-box regulations? Because you use them? Well, so do I, but so what? [Nigel] The WBF have regulations about screens but it doesn?t make them compulsory. IMO, written (or spoken) bidding is fine provided appropriate rules are available. [Mathias Berghaus] And what, pray, is the best practice to run an event in Monaco? India? Practically the same thing, isn`t it? Both are a couple of 1000 m across. OK, it`s _k_m in the case of India, and slighly more people, but what is factor of 1000 or so for standardization? The fact that England and Germany have 1 language each (let us forget about Yorkshire and Bavarian dialects for the purpose of this discussion, they are not in the regulations anyway), where India has...? 40? 50? Not dialects, _languages_. Even Belgium has 3, even if there is no club in the part where German is spoken. Switzerland has 3, 4 if you count in Rhaeto-Roman (which is probably as relevant to Bridge as German is in Belgium), and those 3 languages are spoken in different parts of the country. Sure, some are bi- or even trilingual, and others are not. Let us try the Belgian way. where English is the official language in the top division. I imagine that is not actually used all the time, people preferring to understand French or Flemish instead, but I might be wrong. Herman can surely tell us. On the other hand, it would be much more fair to let the whole learn some language from a country where Bridge is not played at all. That way no one would be at an advantage, right? [Nigel] Like other games (e.g. chess, golf, poker) , the rules of Bridge can transcend ethnic and language barriers, provided appropriate translations are available. A good example is on-line games. [Mathias Berghaus] Ah, OK, then we have one bloated rulebook, and _still_ another one for e.g. systems regulations. That is a big step forward, giving us _two_ books where previously we had , err, two? If you can read German, or know someone who does, have a look at Austrian and German systems and alert regulations, which are radically different in some areas, even though we can actually talk to each other. I am going to Austria (I would like to go to Australia, too, but it is too far for my liking) to play in 3 weeks, and I am going to take the time to actually look them up and learn the differences, and explain them to my partner on the voyage. And tell you what: those differences are there for a purpose, and they actually make sense for the relevant countries, but not for the other, else they would be the same. [Nigel] I do have suggestions about system and disclosure regulation but that?s a separate issue. As far as the other matters are concerned, Mathias and I disagree. IMO integrating laws and regulations into one well-structured global rule-book would save space and be easier for directors and players to understand. (That would also be the case, if each country had a different integrated rule-book). When all regulators can focus their efforts on a single set of rules, that should result in a better product with fewer anomalies and ambiguities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160725/35da7315/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 14:37:20 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:37:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Margarine In-Reply-To: <6c462e2a-418f-5652-b2f6-43c7d596b638@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <6c462e2a-418f-5652-b2f6-43c7d596b638@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: David Grabiner: What does 5H mean? Richard Hills: It means that North needs a new partner. South choosing an undiscussed jump to the five level is an infraction of Law 72A's second sentence: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." David Grabiner: .....If partner intended the bid as Exclusion Blackwood..... Richard Hills: Zero Canberra players use the Blackwood variant Exclusion Blackwood (perhaps because that variant is rare and error-prone). Many Canberra players use the Blackwood variant Minorwood (perhaps because that variant is rare and error-prone). Different parts of the world have different preferences for different Special Partnership Understandings / conventions. Hence different Regulating Authorities promulgate different Alert rules. For example, the Aussie Alert regulation requires Alerts and/or pre-Alerts of natural calls that the opponents are "unlikely to expect". So the Ali-Hills partnership pre-Alerts that in auctions such as 1H - 1S - X the double would be a natural penalty double, rather than the expected negative double. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, July 24, 2016, David Grabiner wrote: > What does 5H mean? It can't be an asking bid, as partner can't have > enough controls outside of hearts to insist on a 5-level contract if he is > lacking a heart control. If partner has 12 or 13 red cards (- AKQxx > AQJxxxx x), I want to be in 7D or 7N. If partner intended the bid as > Exclusion Blackwood, I can't imagine a hand which could do this without a > play for 7S (KJxxx - AQJxxxx x is likely). So, rather than responding the > systemic 6D to Exclusion, which partner might pass with 12 red cards, I'll > bid 7D, guaranteeing that we will reach some grand. Partner can correct to > 7S if that was his intention. > > 6D is a logical alternative; it would be my choice if I am sure we play > Exclusion, as it will get us to 7S rather than 7D. (Partner can bid 6H > over my 6D to confirm interest in a grand, and I'll bid 7S then.) > > On 7/24/2016 8:05 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > In an uncontested auction South opens 1D, North responds 1S, and now South > rebids 5H. > > You, North, hold: > > AQT94 > 94 > K9 > AT82 > > What call do you make? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing listBlml 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/20160725/ea73b406/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Mon Jul 25 15:00:51 2016 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:00:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Margarine In-Reply-To: References: <6c462e2a-418f-5652-b2f6-43c7d596b638@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <587133681.49667972.1469451651158.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Was 5H a mispull form the bidding box ? Intended to bid 5D?, or 4H as a splinter? We do non know what is going on, so everyting is like a guesswork 1st choice is 7D, 2nd chioce is 7NT. Pass is sure no option. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Richard Hills" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: M?nudagur, 25. J?l?, 2016 12:37:20 Efni: Re: [BLML] Margarine David Grabiner: What does 5H mean? Richard Hills: It means that North needs a new partner. South choosing an undiscussed jump to the five level is an infraction of Law 72A's second sentence: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." David Grabiner: .....If partner intended the bid as Exclusion Blackwood..... Richard Hills: Zero Canberra players use the Blackwood variant Exclusion Blackwood (perhaps because that variant is rare and error-prone). Many Canberra players use the Blackwood variant Minorwood (perhaps because that variant is rare and error-prone). Different parts of the world have different preferences for different Special Partnership Understandings / conventions. Hence different Regulating Authorities promulgate different Alert rules. For example, the Aussie Alert regulation requires Alerts and/or pre-Alerts of natural calls that the opponents are "unlikely to expect". So the Ali-Hills partnership pre-Alerts that in auctions such as 1H - 1S - X the double would be a natural penalty double, rather than the expected negative double. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, July 24, 2016, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu > wrote: What does 5H mean?? It can't be an asking bid, as partner can't have enough controls outside of hearts to insist on a 5-level contract if he is lacking a heart control.? If partner has 12 or 13 red cards (- AKQxx AQJxxxx x), I want to be in 7D or 7N.? If partner intended the bid as Exclusion Blackwood, I can't imagine a hand which could do this without a play for 7S (KJxxx - AQJxxxx?x is likely).? So, rather than responding the systemic 6D to Exclusion, which partner might pass with 12 red cards, I'll bid 7D, guaranteeing that we will reach some grand.? Partner can correct to 7S if that was his intention. 6D is a logical alternative; it would be my choice if I am sure we play Exclusion, as it will get us to 7S rather than 7D.? (Partner can bid 6H over my 6D to confirm interest in a grand, and I'll bid 7S then.) On 7/24/2016 8:05 AM, Richard Hills wrote: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: Both In an uncontested auction South opens 1D, North responds 1S, and now South rebids 5H. You, North, hold: AQT94 94 K9 AT82 What call do you make? Best wishes, Richard Hills _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 15:38:06 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 23:38:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <5372ae2d-7651-21fc-be76-0c0cb59e4ece@nhcc.net> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57855215.84291c0a.132c.ffffe3be@mx.google.com> <5372ae2d-7651-21fc-be76-0c0cb59e4ece@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: ..... The downside, of course, is that this would remove the compromise language to which all commission members assent even while disagreeing on the intended meaning. Richard Hills: In my opinion Steve Willner is a general fighting the last war, erecting a Maginot Line against the intentional ambiguities of the 1997 Lawbook. There are zero "compromise" intentional ambiguities in the 2007 Lawbook. For example, compare and contrast the ultra-ambiguous 1997 Law 40 with the very specific 2007 Law 40. Of course, since its publication some unintentional ambiguities have been discovered in the 2007 Lawbook. In my opinion most of these residual ambiguities are caused by over-succinct wording, which can be easily rectified by more expansive language. My personal preference would be for case studies / indicative examples to be included in key clauses of the Lawbook. However, the Drafting Committee may instead opt to place case studies in a different location (perhaps as an appendix to the next edition of the WBF Code of Practice). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, July 25, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2016-07-12 4:44 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > > it would be a worthwhile project to edit the English with a > > view to making it easier to translate into all the languages of the > > various Federations > > Even for those of us who will read only the English version, this > strikes me as a highly desirable project. Robert won't like it, but I'd > nominate him, Konrad Ciborowski, and one member of the LC (possibly the > Secretary) as the group to do the job. > > The downside, of course, is that this would remove the compromise > language to which all commission members assent even while disagreeing > on the intended meaning. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160725/45e3d9af/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Jul 26 13:41:32 2016 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:41:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: I am still thinking that the ban of using UI should not be restricted to "calls and plays". See my old post below. Greetings, Volker Am 12.07.2016 um 23:38 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: > I prefer positive pronouncements to negative ones in any prose, so we > agree to that extent. How would you apply that principle here? > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick > wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Wildavsky > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) > > > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one > that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably > have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless > there is no > logical alternative. > > > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther > wrote: > > Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > > > > wrote: > > > >> Current wording: > >> > >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that > >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > >> reply > >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > >> unmistakable > >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > movement, or > >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical > alternatives one > >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > >> extraneous > >> information. > >> > >> > >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed > >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the > >> current > >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or > >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that > >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it > incorporated > >> into the 2017 laws. > > > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not > select the > > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or > less > > suggested) by the extraneous information. > > > > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". > Recently I had the following case: > Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. > (West had preempted with 3H). > South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. > North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. > > We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from > this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. > > Greetings, Volker Walther > > > > > I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is > unsatisfactory to > command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what > to do. > As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such > difficulty > is an undue strain upon the player. > > It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications > depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs > is not > good foundation for lawmaking. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Volker Walther From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 26 16:57:31 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:57:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> That would ban far too many things. If my partner says "I'm thirsty", is that UI? Yes, and it should prevent me from deciding to play 6NT (myself) rather than 6Sp (by him). But is should not prevent me from going to the bar to buy him a beer. There are other, more bridge-related things as well. Hearing a misexplanation (=UI) means you have to speak up, either before the lead or after the hand (= action). Herman. Volker Walther wrote: > I am still thinking that the ban of using UI should not be restricted to > "calls and plays". > > See my old post below. > > Greetings, Volker > > Am 12.07.2016 um 23:38 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: >> I prefer positive pronouncements to negative ones in any prose, so we >> agree to that extent. How would you apply that principle here? >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick > > wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Wildavsky >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) >> >> >> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: >> >> >> >> Current: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> that could >> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information. >> >> Proposed: >> >> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably >> have >> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless >> there is no >> logical alternative. >> >> >> >> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther > > wrote: >> >> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: >> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Current wording: >> >> >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >> information that >> >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> >> reply >> >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> >> unmistakable >> >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, >> movement, or >> >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical >> alternatives one >> >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> >> extraneous >> >> information. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> >> current >> >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it >> incorporated >> >> into the 2017 laws. >> > >> > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that >> > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not >> select the >> > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or > >> less >> > suggested) by the extraneous information. >> > >> >> I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". >> Recently I had the following case: >> Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. >> (West had preempted with 3H). >> South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. >> North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. >> >> We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from > >> this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. >> >> Greetings, Volker Walther >> >> >> >> >> I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is >> unsatisfactory to >> command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what > >> to do. >> As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such >> difficulty >> is an undue strain upon the player. >> >> It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications >> depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs >> is not >> good foundation for lawmaking. >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 27 02:44:27 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:44:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> Message-ID: Actually, on a OLOOT, if presumed dummy repeats the option of letting dummy be declarer, I will withdraw that option. It's UI, it suggests letting dummy be declarer (because the player won't ask if the player doesn't want that option), and one of the other options has to be an LA. There has to be lots of examples where we don't want UI to influence what option a player selects. What about dummy noting a lead out of turn that declarer has not noticed? Can declarer now call the director? > That would ban far too many things. If my partner says "I'm thirsty", is > that UI? Yes, and it should prevent me from deciding to play 6NT > (myself) rather than 6Sp (by him). But is should not prevent me from > going to the bar to buy him a beer. > > There are other, more bridge-related things as well. Hearing a > misexplanation (=UI) means you have to speak up, either before the lead > or after the hand (= action). > > Herman. > > Volker Walther wrote: >> I am still thinking that the ban of using UI should not be restricted to >> "calls and plays". >> >> See my old post below. >> >> Greetings, Volker >> >> Am 12.07.2016 um 23:38 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: >>> I prefer positive pronouncements to negative ones in any prose, so we >>> agree to that extent. How would you apply that principle here? >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick >> > wrote: >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Adam Wildavsky >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) >>> >>> >>> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: >>> >>> >>> >>> Current: >>> >>> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >>> that could >>> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >>> information. >>> >>> Proposed: >>> >>> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably >>> have >>> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless >>> there is no >>> logical alternative. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther >> > wrote: >>> >>> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: >>> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Current wording: >>> >> >>> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >>> information that >>> >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >>> >> reply >>> >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >>> >> unmistakable >>> >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, >>> movement, or >>> >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical >>> alternatives one >>> >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >>> >> extraneous >>> >> information. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >>> >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >>> >> current >>> >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >>> >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >>> >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it >>> incorporated >>> >> into the 2017 laws. >>> > >>> > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that >>> > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not >>> select the >>> > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or >> >>> less >>> > suggested) by the extraneous information. >>> > >>> >>> I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". >>> Recently I had the following case: >>> Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. >>> (West had preempted with 3H). >>> South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. >>> North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. >>> >>> We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from >> >>> this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. >>> >>> Greetings, Volker Walther >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is >>> unsatisfactory to >>> command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what >> >>> to do. >>> As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such >>> difficulty >>> is an undue strain upon the player. >>> >>> It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications >>> depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs >>> is not >>> good foundation for lawmaking. >>> >>> regards >>> roger pewick >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 27 07:06:31 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:06:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <57984157.5070207@skynet.be> Actually, these are not cases of UI, but of assistance in choosing, hich is a separate infraction. And in most cases (though I admit not in the case of accepting the OLOOT and becoming dummy), all these involve a play or call afterwards, so you don't need to change the wording of the UI law. Herman. Robert Frick wrote: > Actually, on a OLOOT, if presumed dummy repeats the option of letting dummy be declarer, I will withdraw that option. It's UI, it suggests letting dummy be declarer (because the player won't ask if the player doesn't want that option), and one of the other options has to be an LA. > > There has to be lots of examples where we don't want UI to influence what option a player selects. What about dummy noting a lead out of turn that declarer has not noticed? Can declarer now call the director? > > > > >> That would ban far too many things. If my partner says "I'm thirsty", is >> that UI? Yes, and it should prevent me from deciding to play 6NT >> (myself) rather than 6Sp (by him). But is should not prevent me from >> going to the bar to buy him a beer. >> >> There are other, more bridge-related things as well. Hearing a >> misexplanation (=UI) means you have to speak up, either before the lead >> or after the hand (= action). >> >> Herman. >> >> Volker Walther wrote: >>> I am still thinking that the ban of using UI should not be restricted to >>> "calls and plays". >>> >>> See my old post below. >>> >>> Greetings, Volker >>> >>> Am 12.07.2016 um 23:38 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: >>>> I prefer positive pronouncements to negative ones in any prose, so we >>>> agree to that extent. How would you apply that principle here? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Adam Wildavsky >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM >>>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) >>>> >>>> >>>> Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> >>>> ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >>>> that could >>>> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >>>> information. >>>> >>>> Proposed: >>>> >>>> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably >>>> have >>>> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless >>>> there is no >>>> logical alternative. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: >>>> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky >>>> > >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Current wording: >>>> >> >>>> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >>>> information that >>>> >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >>>> >> reply >>>> >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >>>> >> unmistakable >>>> >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, >>>> movement, or >>>> >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical >>>> alternatives one >>>> >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >>>> >> extraneous >>>> >> information. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >>>> >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >>>> >> current >>>> >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >>>> >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >>>> >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it >>>> incorporated >>>> >> into the 2017 laws. >>>> > >>>> > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that >>>> > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not >>>> select the >>>> > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or >>> >>>> less >>>> > suggested) by the extraneous information. >>>> > >>>> >>>> I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". >>>> Recently I had the following case: >>>> Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. >>>> (West had preempted with 3H). >>>> South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. >>>> North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. >>>> >>>> We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from >>> >>>> this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. >>>> >>>> Greetings, Volker Walther >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is >>>> unsatisfactory to >>>> command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what >>> >>>> to do. >>>> As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such >>>> difficulty >>>> is an undue strain upon the player. >>>> >>>> It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications >>>> depending upon the point of view. This existence of non sequiturs >>>> is not >>>> good foundation for lawmaking. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> roger pewick >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12690 - Release Date: 07/26/16 > From sven at svenpran.net Wed Jul 27 09:39:08 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:39:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601d1e7d9$f8852590$e98f70b0$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > Actually, on a OLOOT, if presumed dummy repeats the option of letting dummy > be declarer, I will withdraw that option. It's UI, it suggests letting dummy be > declarer (because the player won't ask if the player doesn't want that option), > and one of the other options has to be an LA. [Sven Pran] Law 16 is not relevant when handling OLOOT (or in fact never when an innocent player has options for the rectification after an irregularity). The applicable law is Law 10, particularly 10C.1 When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available. and 10C.2 If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner. Clearly, if Dummy emphasizes any particular of the options that is available to declarer in such situations then the Director is empowered by Law 10B to waive that option. However, if the Director has failed to comply with Law 10C.1 by forgetting one (or more) of the options available to Declarer and Dummy is aware of this fact I would normally allow Dummy to ask permission to speak in private to the Director in order to avoid a Director's error. The obvious alternative for Dummy is to say nothing until after the play of the board is completed and then call attention to the Director's error. I believe many directors will say that this is the only option available to Dummy in such situations. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jul 27 15:35:18 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:35:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <0cfe1d28-c034-2dc3-1325-a6b09c2c141e@nhcc.net> On 2016-07-26 7:41 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > I am still thinking that the ban of using UI should not be restricted to > "calls and plays". I'd be willing to interpret choice of a rectification option as "call or play," but it wouldn't hurt to make that explicit. We don't want to make the UI restrictions too broad, though, and reach absurdities. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jul 27 15:47:22 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:47:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <000601d1e7d9$f8852590$e98f70b0$@svenpran.net> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> <000601d1e7d9$f8852590$e98f70b0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On 2016-07-27 3:39 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > 10C.2 If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make > his selection without consulting partner. Fair enough, but is it really stringent enough? Rectification would presumably come under L12A1, which in effect asks what would have happened without the irrregularity. Don't we want a player with UI to be forced to choose a non-suggested LA, even if he probably would have chosen differently absent UI? > Clearly, if Dummy emphasizes any particular of the options that is > available to declarer in such situations then the Director is > empowered by Law 10B to waive that option. That strikes me as "creative" reading of L10B and also too stringent. What if the suggested option is the only LA? Applying the UI rules seems just right and well within the current wording of L16B1a. The question is whether new Laws should keep it that way. From sven at svenpran.net Thu Jul 28 09:39:16 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:39:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> <000601d1e7d9$f8852590$e98f70b0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <000001d1e8a3$275f10f0$761d32d0$@svenpran.net> Steve Willner > On 2016-07-27 3:39 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > 10C.2 If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make > > his selection without consulting partner. > > Fair enough, but is it really stringent enough? Rectification would presumably > come under L12A1, which in effect asks what would have happened without the > irrregularity. Don't we want a player with UI to be forced to choose a non- > suggested LA, even if he probably would have chosen differently absent UI? > > > Clearly, if Dummy emphasizes any particular of the options that is > > available to declarer in such situations then the Director is > > empowered by Law 10B to waive that option. > > That strikes me as "creative" reading of L10B and also too stringent. > What if the suggested option is the only LA? > > Applying the UI rules seems just right and well within the current wording of > L16B1a. The question is whether new Laws should keep it that way. [Sven Pran] I see no reason why not? Law 10C.2 is a "must" law - the strongest there is, and the consequence of violating such a law is for the Director to rule at his discretion. If he acknowledges that the "suggested" option is the only (reasonable) LA then why should he waive that option? From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jul 29 01:57:32 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:57:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <000001d1e8a3$275f10f0$761d32d0$@svenpran.net> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <57977A5B.7060801@skynet.be> <000601d1e7d9$f8852590$e98f70b0$@svenpran.net> <000001d1e8a3$275f10f0$761d32d0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On 2016-07-28 3:39 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 10C.2 is a "must" law - the strongest there is, and the consequence of > violating such a law is for the Director to rule at his discretion. Where do you see that? I'd expect a DP, but I don't see why the score adjustment part of the rectification shouldn't follow normal procedures. > If he acknowledges that the "suggested" option is the only (reasonable) LA > then why should he waive that option? The problem is the TD cannot judge that at the table. It takes study of the hand, understanding the partnership methods, and then consultation. Why not just give a normal UI ruling, and examine the case later if the UI seems to have been a factor? From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sun Jul 31 16:21:47 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 16:21:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions Message-ID: A pairs tournament; movement Howell. Each pair has a guide card on which is clearly shown at which table they are to play each round and which boards are to be played. During the match at one table the wrong boards are taken and it is only discovered after (at least) one board has been played. There is no stationary pair at the table. Question 1: do you agree that both pairs are equally responsible for the mistake, for playing a wrong board? Question 2: if you do agree then do you agree that both pairs should have the same, or equal sanctions (penalty, etc.)? One pair had already played the boards; the other had not and was scheduled to play the set later. The TD could give each pair an equivalent procedural penalty for playing the wrong boards but it should be the same for each pair. Question 3: do you agree? Regardless of such a possible penalty the pair that had already played the boards is not affected. Their result from the earlier play of the boards is valid. The pair that later is scheduled to play the boards will not be able to play the board/boards it has already seen. It will be given a score of 40% on this/these board/boards. Question 4: do you agree? Thus one pair will be "penalised" (at least have an unfavourable adjusted score9 and the other will not. Thus they will not be treated equally. Question 5: do you agree? Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs? Ciao, JE From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sun Jul 31 16:27:11 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 16:27:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1ad65a34-8c5a-348c-0f6f-8ad1035fc926@gmx.de> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [BLML] Equity - some questions Datum: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 16:21:47 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List An: Bridge Laws Mailing List A pairs tournament; movement Howell. Each pair has a guide card on which is clearly shown at which table they are to play each round and which boards are to be played. During the match at one table the wrong boards are taken and it is only discovered after (at least) one board has been played. There is no stationary pair at the table. Question 1: do you agree that both pairs are equally responsible for the mistake, for playing a wrong board? Question 2: if you do agree then do you agree that both pairs should have the same, or equal sanctions (penalty, etc.)? One pair had already played the boards; the other had not and was scheduled to play the set later. The TD could give each pair an equivalent procedural penalty for playing the wrong boards but it should be the same for each pair. Question 3: do you agree? Regardless of such a possible penalty the pair that had already played the boards is not affected. Their result from the earlier play of the boards is valid. The pair that later is scheduled to play the boards will not be able to play the board/boards it has already seen. It will be given a score of 40% on this/these board/boards. Question 4: do you agree? Thus one pair will be "penalised" (at least have an unfavourable adjusted score9 and the other will not. Thus they will not be treated equally. Question 5: do you agree? Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs? Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Jul 31 17:09:28 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:09:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 31.07.2016 um 16:21 schrieb Jeff Easterson: > A pairs tournament; movement Howell. Each pair has a guide card on > which is clearly shown at which table they are to play each round and > which boards are to be played. > > During the match at one table the wrong boards are taken and it is only > discovered after (at least) one board has been played. There is no > stationary pair at the table. > > Question 1: do you agree that both pairs are equally responsible for > the mistake, for playing a wrong board? Sure, no question about that. > Question 2: if you do agree then do you agree that both pairs should > have the same, or equal sanctions (penalty, etc.)? Yep. > One pair had already played the boards; the other had not and was > scheduled to play the set later. > The TD could give each pair an equivalent procedural penalty for playing > the wrong boards but it should be the same for each pair. > Question 3: do you agree? Again, yes. > > Regardless of such a possible penalty the pair that had already played > the boards is not affected. Their result from the earlier play of the > boards is valid. Sure, but typically they miss out on complementing the boards they _should_ have played.... If they manage to play the boards, fine. > The pair that later is scheduled to play the boards will not be able to > play the board/boards it has already seen. It will be given a score of > 40% on this/these board/boards. > Question 4: do you agree? See above, but yes. > > Thus one pair will be "penalised" (at least have an unfavourable > adjusted score9 and the other will not. Thus they will not be treated > equally. This I find doubtful, see above. If they find out very early this may be so, but in my experience this is detected either very early (another pair looking for those boards), or when the score is entered, sometimes even later, so this pair is about to get AV- for the boards they did not play, which usually evens out. The rest is sheer luck. > Question 5: do you agree? > > Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the > principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs? > > Ciao, JE > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sven at svenpran.net Sun Jul 31 17:45:04 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:45:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1eb42$84b29500$8e17bf00$@svenpran.net> Jeff Easterson > A pairs tournament; movement Howell. Each pair has a guide card on which is > clearly shown at which table they are to play each round and which boards are to > be played. > > During the match at one table the wrong boards are taken and it is only > discovered after (at least) one board has been played. There is no stationary pair > at the table. [Sven Pran] Read (and understand) Laws 15A, 15B and 7D. > > Question 1: do you agree that both pairs are equally responsible for the mistake, > for playing a wrong board? [Sven Pran] Yes (of course) > Question 2: if you do agree then do you agree that both pairs should have the > same, or equal sanctions (penalty, etc.)? [Sven Pran] Yes (of course) > > One pair had already played the boards; the other had not and was scheduled to > play the set later. > The TD could give each pair an equivalent procedural penalty for playing the > wrong boards but it should be the same for each pair. > Question 3: do you agree? [Sven Pran] Any (Procedure) Penalty should be the same to both pairs. The fact that one, but not the other pair has already played the board can, and will usually result in different effects of rectifications. > > Regardless of such a possible penalty the pair that had already played the boards > is not affected. Their result from the earlier play of the boards is valid. > The pair that later is scheduled to play the boards will not be able to play the > board/boards it has already seen. It will be given a score of 40% on this/these > board/boards. > Question 4: do you agree? [Sven Pran] Yes (of course) > > Thus one pair will be "penalised" (at least have an unfavourable adjusted score9 > and the other will not. Thus they will not be treated equally. > Question 5: do you agree? [Sven Pran] No, they are treated equally, but their conditions are different and so become the effects. > > Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the principle of equal > sanctioning of both pairs? [Sven Pran] No > > Ciao, JE > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 31 20:20:15 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:20:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:21:47 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the > principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs? Nice point. Two pairs, equally at fault, one being penalized and one not. (While the choices you made to get to the above were all reasonable, for me no one is at fault -- it's a fact of life that Howells go wrong. But I think you can recreate your problem other ways.) From sven at svenpran.net Sun Jul 31 20:39:41 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 20:39:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101d1eb5a$e9679a00$bc36ce00$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:21:47 -0400, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > > > > Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the > > principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs?> > > Nice point. Two pairs, equally at fault, one being penalized and one not. > [Sven Pran] This is regretfully a common and very serious misunderstanding; it is absolutely necessary that the Director never confuses penalty and rectification. Rectification shall be different for the two pairs here because the circumstances with their irregularity are different. But if the Director in addition finds reason to penalize then he must impose the same penalty to both pairs. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Jul 31 21:51:09 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:51:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <000101d1eb5a$e9679a00$bc36ce00$@svenpran.net> References: <000101d1eb5a$e9679a00$bc36ce00$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Well said, Sven, that is the crux of the matter. Penalties are equal, rectifications may be, but need not be, depending on circumstances. Am 31.07.2016 um 20:39 schrieb Sven Pran: >> Robert Frick >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:21:47 -0400, Jeff Easterson >> wrote: >>> Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the >>> principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs?> >> Nice point. Two pairs, equally at fault, one being penalized and one not. >> > [Sven Pran] > This is regretfully a common and very serious misunderstanding; it is > absolutely necessary that the Director never confuses penalty and > rectification. > > Rectification shall be different for the two pairs here because the > circumstances with their irregularity are different. > > But if the Director in addition finds reason to penalize then he must impose > the same penalty to both pairs. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From martin.sinot at kpnmail.nl Sun Jul 31 21:59:47 2016 From: martin.sinot at kpnmail.nl (Martin Sinot) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:59:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> I don't agree. The pair now getting A- is not penalized, bur rectified. After all, they can no longer obtain a score on the deal, so the TD must give them one, and since it is their own fault, it will be A-. That is a matter of rectification. The other pair already had a legal score, so they keep it. In addition both pairs can be given a PP, which normally will be equal for both pairs (unless of course the TD finds one pair more at fault than the other, but that seems unlikely here). So yes, both pairs are equally sanctioned (because the A- is not a sanction). regards -- Martin Sinot Op 31-7-2016 om 20:20 schreef Robert Frick: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:21:47 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > >> Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the >> principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs? > > Nice point. Two pairs, equally at fault, one being penalized and one not. > > (While the choices you made to get to the above were all reasonable, for me no one is at fault -- it's a fact of life that Howells go wrong. But I think you can recreate your problem other ways.) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >