From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 1 05:16:54 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:16:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160301/2a12936c/attachment.html From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Tue Mar 1 06:09:16 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 00:09:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: On 2/29/2016 4:43 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? > I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, Neuberg looks over generous/harsh to the Highest/Lowest scores. > I would like to read something authorative on the subject. On 2016 Feb 29, at 23:16, David Grabiner wrote: > The ACBL policy is that Neuberg is used for a group of four or more, and is used for a group of three if it is the larger group. Most groups of three score 70/60/50, and all groups of two score 65/55. I don?t think there?s anything ?learned? or ?authoritative? behind that ACBL policy (which is implemented in ACBLscore). I think it?s just a sensible compromise between the idea that a bridge result ought to count if at all possible (cf. 15A1) and the idea that a pair deprived of a reasonable comparison on a board through no fault of its own gets an average plus (cf. 12C2a). Tim From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Mar 1 09:20:34 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:20:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <56D550D2.4080808@googlemail.com> The EBU, which used to Neuberg all fouled boards, has recently changed to have a regulation like the ACBL's (and the WBF & EBL I think) except that we Neuberg whenever a group is more than one third of the field we Neuberg even if it's a small number. So a five table movement played in one form at two tables and another at three tables would be Neuberged in both subfields. On 01/03/2016 04:16, David Grabiner wrote: > The ACBL policy is that Neuberg is used for a group of four or more, > and is used for a group of three if it is the larger group. Most > groups of three score 70/60/50, and all groups of two score 65/55. > > On 2/29/2016 4:43 PM, Jan Peach wrote: >> Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? >> I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, >> Neuberg looks over generous/harsh to the Highest/Lowest scores. >> I would like to read something authorative on the subject. >> Jan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160301/0d59b6a2/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 1 11:21:51 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:21:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <56D550D2.4080808@googlemail.com> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <56D550D2.4080808@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <56D56D3F.1010407@skynet.be> Now there's a good idea I had not heard of before - and I did not invent myself! One clarification though. You say, whenever a group is one third (I presume or more) of the field. Does that include a tournament of 9 tables where 3 tables are fouled? I presume so. Good idea, though, Herman. Gordon Rainsford schreef: > The EBU, which used to Neuberg all fouled boards, has recently changed > to have a regulation like the ACBL's (and the WBF & EBL I think) except > that we Neuberg whenever a group is more than one third of the field we > Neuberg even if it's a small number. So a five table movement played in > one form at two tables and another at three tables would be Neuberged in > both subfields. > > On 01/03/2016 04:16, David Grabiner wrote: >> The ACBL policy is that Neuberg is used for a group of four or more, >> and is used for a group of three if it is the larger group. Most >> groups of three score 70/60/50, and all groups of two score 65/55. >> >> On 2/29/2016 4:43 PM, Jan Peach wrote: >>> Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? >>> I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, >>> Neuberg looks over generous/harsh to the Highest/Lowest scores. >>> I would like to read something authorative on the subject. >>> Jan >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Mar 1 12:00:25 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:00:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <56D56D3F.1010407@skynet.be> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <56D550D2.4080808@googlemail.com> <56D56D3F.1010407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56D57649.1010705@googlemail.com> No, I said more than one third. So three tables out of eight would be Neuberged but not three tables out of nine. btw Herman, we missed you at Prague - someone else came 11th! Gordon On 01/03/2016 10:21, Herman De Wael wrote: > Now there's a good idea I had not heard of before - and I did not invent > myself! > > One clarification though. You say, whenever a group is one third (I > presume or more) of the field. Does that include a tournament of 9 > tables where 3 tables are fouled? I presume so. > > Good idea, though, > > Herman. > > Gordon Rainsford schreef: >> The EBU, which used to Neuberg all fouled boards, has recently changed >> to have a regulation like the ACBL's (and the WBF & EBL I think) except >> that we Neuberg whenever a group is more than one third of the field we >> Neuberg even if it's a small number. So a five table movement played in >> one form at two tables and another at three tables would be Neuberged in >> both subfields. >> >> On 01/03/2016 04:16, David Grabiner wrote: >>> The ACBL policy is that Neuberg is used for a group of four or more, >>> and is used for a group of three if it is the larger group. Most >>> groups of three score 70/60/50, and all groups of two score 65/55. >>> >>> On 2/29/2016 4:43 PM, Jan Peach wrote: >>>> Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? >>>> I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, >>>> Neuberg looks over generous/harsh to the Highest/Lowest scores. >>>> I would like to read something authorative on the subject. >>>> Jan >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 1 12:20:40 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:20:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <56D57649.1010705@googlemail.com> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <56D550D2.4080808@googlemail.com> <56D56D3F.1010407@skynet.be> <56D57649.1010705@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <56D57B08.90507@skynet.be> I have to give someone else the chance for that special place. I wish Marcin Waslowicz all the best in his career. Herman. Gordon Rainsford schreef: > No, I said more than one third. So three tables out of eight would be > Neuberged but not three tables out of nine. > > btw Herman, we missed you at Prague - someone else came 11th! > > Gordon > > On 01/03/2016 10:21, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Now there's a good idea I had not heard of before - and I did not invent >> myself! >> >> One clarification though. You say, whenever a group is one third (I >> presume or more) of the field. Does that include a tournament of 9 >> tables where 3 tables are fouled? I presume so. >> >> Good idea, though, >> >> Herman. >> >> Gordon Rainsford schreef: >>> The EBU, which used to Neuberg all fouled boards, has recently changed >>> to have a regulation like the ACBL's (and the WBF & EBL I think) except >>> that we Neuberg whenever a group is more than one third of the field we >>> Neuberg even if it's a small number. So a five table movement played in >>> one form at two tables and another at three tables would be Neuberged in >>> both subfields. >>> >>> On 01/03/2016 04:16, David Grabiner wrote: >>>> The ACBL policy is that Neuberg is used for a group of four or more, >>>> and is used for a group of three if it is the larger group. Most >>>> groups of three score 70/60/50, and all groups of two score 65/55. >>>> >>>> On 2/29/2016 4:43 PM, Jan Peach wrote: >>>>> Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? >>>>> I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, >>>>> Neuberg looks over generous/harsh to the Highest/Lowest scores. >>>>> I would like to read something authorative on the subject. >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From roger-eymard at orange.fr Tue Mar 1 16:51:29 2016 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:51:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <56D550D2.4080808@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <83397524D9B3458FAD27E4D6B6FE9689@magnifique> In order to assign MP scores to a group of results from a fouled board, Neuberg?s formula proceeds from the assumption that without the full number of real results, the best we can do for a fouled board is to assume that all the other tables would have shared in the same proportion the same results as those obtained by the tables playing it (easy proof below). This implies that the results on the fouled board are supposed to be distributed in the same way as if played the total number of times. It is obviously not true for a board played 1 or 2 times, and highly dubious for 3 times. It is apparently why Neuberg?s formula is used for 4 or more results. But what must be the size of a subset of N results (on the fouled board) for it to be representative of N hypothetical real results? More than one third seems IMO to be a rule of thumb without rationale. A minimum size to apply Neuberg?s formula must be related to N in some way. May be sqr(N), but I know no evidence for that. Thanks for your comments Roger Proof: Within n scores, p equal scores are topped by q scores. Within those n scores, the MPs for these equal scores are: (1) x = 2(n-1) ? 2q ? (p ? 1) We repeat those n scores as many times as necessary to reach a total of N scores. Within these N scores, we obtain (N/n)p equal scores topped by (N/n)q scores. The MPs for these repeated equal scores are: (2) X = 2(N - 1) - 2(N/n)q ? [(N/n)p ? 1] >From (1) and (2) : 2q + p = 2n - 1 ? x = (n/N)(2N - 1 - X) And then Neuberg?s formula: X + 1 = (N/n)(x + 1), extended to the cases where N/n is not an integer ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Rainsford To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards The EBU, which used to Neuberg all fouled boards, has recently changed to have a regulation like the ACBL's (and the WBF & EBL I think) except that we Neuberg whenever a group is more than one third of the field we Neuberg even if it's a small number. So a five table movement played in one form at two tables and another at three tables would be Neuberged in both subfields. On 01/03/2016 04:16, David Grabiner wrote: The ACBL policy is that Neuberg is used for a group of four or more, and is used for a group of three if it is the larger group. Most groups of three score 70/60/50, and all groups of two score 65/55. On 2/29/2016 4:43 PM, Jan Peach wrote: Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, Neuberg looks over generous/harsh to the Highest/Lowest scores. I would like to read something authorative on the subject. Jan _______________________________________________ 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 --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier ?lectronique a ?t? v?rifi?e par le logiciel antivirus Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Tue Mar 1 21:19:49 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:19:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9477F1D2-21B6-4FAA-946E-615FEBD30891@wesleyan.edu> A practical note: If I discover a fouled board early enough in a session, I try to have the board played in its fouled state at about half the tables. Tim From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Mar 1 21:23:44 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 21:23:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <9477F1D2-21B6-4FAA-946E-615FEBD30891@wesleyan.edu> References: <9477F1D2-21B6-4FAA-946E-615FEBD30891@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <56D5FA50.8000607@t-online.de> Maybe sensible, but absolutely forbidden to do by our regulations. Maybe legal for you, I wouldn`t know... Am 01.03.2016 um 21:19 schrieb Timothy N. Hill: > A practical note: If I discover a fouled board early enough in a session, I try to have the board played in its fouled state at about half the tables. > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Mar 2 09:41:34 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 09:41:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 05:16:54 +0100, David Grabiner wrote: > The ACBL policy is that Neuberg is used for a group of four or more, and > is used for a group of three if it is the larger group. Most groups of > three score >70/60/50, and all groups of two score 65/55. > > On 2/29/2016 4:43 PM, Jan Peach wrote: >>Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? >> I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, Neuberg >> looks over generous/harsh to the >>Highest/Lowest scores. >> I would like to read something authorative on the subject. >> Jan >> The Austrian Regulations use Neuberg, when the fouled version of the board had been played both less than 10 percent of the top score and less than 30 percent of the rounds of the session. Otherwise, artificial adjusted scores are awarded. Petrus >> -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160302/93b66dc3/attachment-0001.html From sven at svenpran.net Wed Mar 2 10:59:22 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:59:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> Sorry, but this doesn?t make sense to me: How do you calculate whether the fouled version of a board has been played more or less than 10 percent of the top score? And anyway, say that you have a 13 table Mitchell or a 7 table Howell event. Each board should then be played 13 times, however the fouled version was played 6 times. Neither version was played less than 30% of the rounds, do you really end up with 13 artificial adjusted scores on that board instead of scoring two groups with Neuberg? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Petrus Schuster OSB [ ] The Austrian Regulations use Neuberg, when the fouled version of the board had been played both less than 10 percent of the top score and less than 30 percent of the rounds of the session. Otherwise, artificial adjusted scores are awarded. Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160302/d59eebe6/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Mar 2 14:00:02 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:00:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> During the Prague TD course I noticed that there is no definition of "defective". So I gave the matter some additional thought. There is a definition of "trick", and abovementioned thought led me to believe that any trick not conforming to said definition is defective. Seems good enough for me, I could not come up with any situation where a group of played cards conforming with the definition of trick could be deemed defective. If you find one, please tell me - or rather: the list. Am 29.02.2016 um 21:18 schrieb r pewick: > Some years ago I noticed that David Burn claimed that he knew what a > defective trick was. I happened to know that he did not, namely because > nobody knows what a defective trick is- myself included. And, because it > was my nature I claimed he did not. Discourse ensued during which he proved > he did not know; and as things go it is very unlikely that we will discourse > in the future. The point of the anecdote is that nowhere in the law does it > describe or otherwise define exactly what a defective trick is [notably, the > law merely speaks to when a defective trick exists]. And, without a > concrete definition, no one can recognize a defective trick and tell what > basis he knows it is a defective trick. > > In my view, creating a scheme of crime .....and punishment without > describing the crime so that perpetrators can recognize it, and the offended > might recognize it, and that the police will recognize it- is a horrid state > of affairs. > > This goes for not only defective tricks, but for a host of ill conceived > situations- such as this so-called business of restoring equity. In fact, > the closest that the law comes to defining equity is found in L70B-E; and if > ever there comes a time that they are applied as written [which by the way > they won't, so why put it in the book] there won't be many happy campers. > Let me tell you, in the bridge world there are a billion versions of what > equity is and it will take 2 billion pages of law book to write them down; > and it will take a long, long time to figure out which one to use. > > It's been pointed out that this restoring equity business is a principle. > Yes, it is good to have principles, but it is wise to make sure the > principles are good. > > I see all around me where people notice others breaking the rules and > because of this or that technicality they get reduced or no punishment- and > then someone comes along that does not break rule X but instead breaks rule > Y which is similar to X. And he ruminates therefore rule Y ought to have > similar technicalities as X. > > Well, maybe the technicalities for X were dubious if not totally unfair to > begin with. Take the L25A regulations that are so popular where 'pause for > thought', rather than beginning within say, a quarter of second from the > start of lifting the bidding cards, has been extended to until whenever the > player SAYS it begins. That is a license to take more than one action for > one turn. Talk about equity; in my opinion it would be a horrible thing if > I expressed what I thought about it- and I'll leave it there. > > regards > roger pewick > > -----Original Message----- > From: agot > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:07 AM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check > > Le 27.02.2016 18:30, r pewick a ?crit : > >> My view is that the Prague plan encourages foolish behavior > Right, but many times has it been said on blml that the biggest chunk of > the laws are there mainly to restore equity in the case of accidental > errors, not to handle purposely illegal behaviour. > > Can't this principle be at work here ? It is usually possible to sense > that the pulling was unintended. > > Also, it would seem strange to some, including Yours Truly, that if you > unintendedly revoke you can correct your play in time while if you > unintendedly play a non-revoke card you can't. > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 2 18:07:51 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:07:51 -0600 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com><000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net><56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com><56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net><001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> Message-ID: Trick ? the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead. To put a better point on it: When a trick is flawed it is still a trick. And as there is no definition of defective trick, therefore there is no trick that is a defective trick. regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Berghaus Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 7:00 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check During the Prague TD course I noticed that there is no definition of "defective". So I gave the matter some additional thought. There is a definition of "trick", and abovementioned thought led me to believe that any trick not conforming to said definition is defective. Seems good enough for me, I could not come up with any situation where a group of played cards conforming with the definition of trick could be deemed defective. If you find one, please tell me - or rather: the list. Am 29.02.2016 um 21:18 schrieb r pewick: > Some years ago I noticed that David Burn claimed that he knew what a > defective trick was. I happened to know that he did not, namely because > nobody knows what a defective trick is- myself included. And, because it > was my nature I claimed he did not. Discourse ensued during which he > proved > he did not know; and as things go it is very unlikely that we will > discourse > in the future. The point of the anecdote is that nowhere in the law does > it > describe or otherwise define exactly what a defective trick is [notably, > the > law merely speaks to when a defective trick exists]. And, without a > concrete definition, no one can recognize a defective trick and tell what > basis he knows it is a defective trick. > > In my view, creating a scheme of crime .....and punishment without > describing the crime so that perpetrators can recognize it, and the > offended > might recognize it, and that the police will recognize it- is a horrid > state > of affairs. > > This goes for not only defective tricks, but for a host of ill conceived > situations- such as this so-called business of restoring equity. In fact, > the closest that the law comes to defining equity is found in L70B-E; and > if > ever there comes a time that they are applied as written [which by the way > they won't, so why put it in the book] there won't be many happy campers. > Let me tell you, in the bridge world there are a billion versions of what > equity is and it will take 2 billion pages of law book to write them down; > and it will take a long, long time to figure out which one to use. > > It's been pointed out that this restoring equity business is a principle. > Yes, it is good to have principles, but it is wise to make sure the > principles are good. > > I see all around me where people notice others breaking the rules and > because of this or that technicality they get reduced or no punishment- > and > then someone comes along that does not break rule X but instead breaks > rule > Y which is similar to X. And he ruminates therefore rule Y ought to have > similar technicalities as X. > > Well, maybe the technicalities for X were dubious if not totally unfair to > begin with. Take the L25A regulations that are so popular where 'pause > for > thought', rather than beginning within say, a quarter of second from the > start of lifting the bidding cards, has been extended to until whenever > the > player SAYS it begins. That is a license to take more than one action for > one turn. Talk about equity; in my opinion it would be a horrible thing > if > I expressed what I thought about it- and I'll leave it there. > > regards > roger pewick > > -----Original Message----- > From: agot > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:07 AM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check > > Le 27.02.2016 18:30, r pewick a ?crit : > >> My view is that the Prague plan encourages foolish behavior > Right, but many times has it been said on blml that the biggest chunk of > the laws are there mainly to restore equity in the case of accidental > errors, not to handle purposely illegal behaviour. > > Can't this principle be at work here ? It is usually possible to sense > that the pulling was unintended. > > Also, it would seem strange to some, including Yours Truly, that if you > unintendedly revoke you can correct your play in time while if you > unintendedly play a non-revoke card you can't. > > Best regards > > Alain From gordonr60 at gmail.com Wed Mar 2 19:18:09 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:18:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> I suspect I shouldn't be drawn into this but... On 02/03/2016 17:07, r pewick wrote: > Trick ? the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, > composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in > rotation, beginning with the lead. > > To put a better point on it: > > When a trick is flawed it is still a trick. Yes, it's a flawed trick. > > And as there is no definition of defective trick, therefore there is no > trick that is a defective trick. > The first dictionary I looked at gave "flawed" as the second meaning for "defective". We don't find ourselves incapable of using words just because they aren't defined in the Law Book. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Mar 2 20:17:08 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 20:17:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56D73C34.6020708@t-online.de> Am 02.03.2016 um 18:07 schrieb r pewick: > Trick ? the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, > composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in > rotation, beginning with the lead. > > To put a better point on it: > > When a trick is flawed it is still a trick. Says who? As Gordon remarked, flawed and defective are synonyms. Good enough for me. OTOH, a former president of the US wanted a definition of "is".... > > And as there is no definition of defective trick, therefore there is no > trick that is a defective trick. > > regards > roger pewick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthias Berghaus > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 7:00 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check > > During the Prague TD course I noticed that there is no definition of > "defective". So I gave the matter some additional thought. There is a > definition of "trick", and abovementioned thought led me to believe that > any trick not conforming to said definition is defective. Seems good > enough for me, I could not come up with any situation where a group of > played cards conforming with the definition of trick could be deemed > defective. If you find one, please tell me - or rather: the list. > > Am 29.02.2016 um 21:18 schrieb r pewick: >> Some years ago I noticed that David Burn claimed that he knew what a >> defective trick was. I happened to know that he did not, namely because >> nobody knows what a defective trick is- myself included. And, because it >> was my nature I claimed he did not. Discourse ensued during which he >> proved >> he did not know; and as things go it is very unlikely that we will >> discourse >> in the future. The point of the anecdote is that nowhere in the law does >> it >> describe or otherwise define exactly what a defective trick is [notably, >> the >> law merely speaks to when a defective trick exists]. And, without a >> concrete definition, no one can recognize a defective trick and tell what >> basis he knows it is a defective trick. >> >> In my view, creating a scheme of crime .....and punishment without >> describing the crime so that perpetrators can recognize it, and the >> offended >> might recognize it, and that the police will recognize it- is a horrid >> state >> of affairs. >> >> This goes for not only defective tricks, but for a host of ill conceived >> situations- such as this so-called business of restoring equity. In fact, >> the closest that the law comes to defining equity is found in L70B-E; and >> if >> ever there comes a time that they are applied as written [which by the way >> they won't, so why put it in the book] there won't be many happy campers. >> Let me tell you, in the bridge world there are a billion versions of what >> equity is and it will take 2 billion pages of law book to write them down; >> and it will take a long, long time to figure out which one to use. >> >> It's been pointed out that this restoring equity business is a principle. >> Yes, it is good to have principles, but it is wise to make sure the >> principles are good. >> >> I see all around me where people notice others breaking the rules and >> because of this or that technicality they get reduced or no punishment- >> and >> then someone comes along that does not break rule X but instead breaks >> rule >> Y which is similar to X. And he ruminates therefore rule Y ought to have >> similar technicalities as X. >> >> Well, maybe the technicalities for X were dubious if not totally unfair to >> begin with. Take the L25A regulations that are so popular where 'pause >> for >> thought', rather than beginning within say, a quarter of second from the >> start of lifting the bidding cards, has been extended to until whenever >> the >> player SAYS it begins. That is a license to take more than one action for >> one turn. Talk about equity; in my opinion it would be a horrible thing >> if >> I expressed what I thought about it- and I'll leave it there. >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: agot >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:07 AM >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check >> >> Le 27.02.2016 18:30, r pewick a ?crit : >> >>> My view is that the Prague plan encourages foolish behavior >> Right, but many times has it been said on blml that the biggest chunk of >> the laws are there mainly to restore equity in the case of accidental >> errors, not to handle purposely illegal behaviour. >> >> Can't this principle be at work here ? It is usually possible to sense >> that the pulling was unintended. >> >> Also, it would seem strange to some, including Yours Truly, that if you >> unintendedly revoke you can correct your play in time while if you >> unintendedly play a non-revoke card you can't. >> >> Best regards >> >> Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 2 20:46:24 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:46:24 -0600 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com><000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net><56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com><56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net><001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de><56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> Message-ID: N plays the S7, then S plays SK, then E plays the SQ, then W plays the S3. Is that a trick? Upon what basis is it so? regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Rainsford Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 12:18 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check I suspect I shouldn't be drawn into this but... On 02/03/2016 17:07, r pewick wrote: > Trick ? the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, > composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in > rotation, beginning with the lead. > > To put a better point on it: > > When a trick is flawed it is still a trick. Yes, it's a flawed trick. > > And as there is no definition of defective trick, therefore there is no > trick that is a defective trick. > The first dictionary I looked at gave "flawed" as the second meaning for "defective". We don't find ourselves incapable of using words just because they aren't defined in the Law Book. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Wed Mar 2 22:05:53 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:05:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <56D5FA50.8000607@t-online.de> References: <9477F1D2-21B6-4FAA-946E-615FEBD30891@wesleyan.edu> <56D5FA50.8000607@t-online.de> Message-ID: <63EEE36E-2DAA-4CB8-8886-12957E1CCC62@wesleyan.edu> On 2016 Mar 1, at 15:23, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 01.03.2016 um 21:19 schrieb Timothy N. Hill: > >> A practical note: If I discover a fouled board early enough in a session, I try to have the board played in its fouled state at about half the tables. > > Maybe sensible, but absolutely forbidden to do by our regulations. ... That?s curious. Any idea why? Tim From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Mar 2 22:06:03 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:06:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> Am 02.03.2016 um 20:46 schrieb r pewick: > N plays the S7, then S plays SK, then E plays the SQ, then W plays the S3. > > Is that a trick? Upon what basis is it so? Sure it is. A flawed one, while under way, but when all is told a trick. At the end nobody would know... > > regards > roger pewick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 12:18 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check > > I suspect I shouldn't be drawn into this but... > > On 02/03/2016 17:07, r pewick wrote: >> Trick ? the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, >> composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in >> rotation, beginning with the lead. >> >> To put a better point on it: >> >> When a trick is flawed it is still a trick. > Yes, it's a flawed trick. >> And as there is no definition of defective trick, therefore there is no >> trick that is a defective trick. >> > The first dictionary I looked at gave "flawed" as the second meaning for > "defective". We don't find ourselves incapable of using words just > because they aren't defined in the Law Book. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Mar 2 22:34:19 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:34:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <63EEE36E-2DAA-4CB8-8886-12957E1CCC62@wesleyan.edu> References: <9477F1D2-21B6-4FAA-946E-615FEBD30891@wesleyan.edu> <56D5FA50.8000607@t-online.de> <63EEE36E-2DAA-4CB8-8886-12957E1CCC62@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <56D75C5B.1030007@t-online.de> Am 02.03.2016 um 22:05 schrieb Timothy N. Hill: > On 2016 Mar 1, at 15:23, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Am 01.03.2016 um 21:19 schrieb Timothy N. Hill: >> >>> A practical note: If I discover a fouled board early enough in a session, I try to have the board played in its fouled state at about half the tables. >> Maybe sensible, but absolutely forbidden to do by our regulations. ... > That?s curious. Any idea why? Well, to be more precise: if a board is found to have been fouled and less than 4 scores with the "new" distribution have been played, then the "old" board has to be reassembled and is to be played the rest of the time > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu Mar 3 06:35:53 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 00:35:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) Message-ID: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective January 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c (probability-weighted). We don?t yet have any software support for 12C1c adjustments. I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving misinformation and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance of bidding slam if correctly informed. The other scores are -100, 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in assigning weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the adjusted matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. How should the other scores be matchpointed? I think the other scores should also be weighted: -100 0 650 1 680 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x 4.5 = 4.7 1460 6 Is this the preferred method elsewhere? Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a small top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s impractical for a large top. If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current ACBLscore will Neuberg the other results: -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 650 1 + 3/12 = 1.25 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 710 3 + 7/12 = 3.58 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus 60% of the matchpoints for 1430?? Thanks! Tim From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Mar 3 08:09:46 2016 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:09:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <8A6427B1-E923-42C8-B39F-92ECC72495CE@xs4all.nl> Check Peter Eidts paper from the last EBL TD course in Prague Verstuurd vanaf mijn mobiel > Op 3 mrt. 2016 om 06:35 heeft Timothy N. Hill het volgende geschreven: > > The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective January 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c (probability-weighted). We don?t yet have any software support for 12C1c adjustments. > > I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. > > Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving misinformation and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance of bidding slam if correctly informed. The other scores are -100, 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. > > The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in assigning weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? > > Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the adjusted matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. > > How should the other scores be matchpointed? > > I think the other scores should also be weighted: > > -100 0 > 650 1 > 680 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 > 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x 4.5 = 4.7 > 1460 6 > > Is this the preferred method elsewhere? > > Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a small top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s impractical for a large top. > > If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current ACBLscore will Neuberg the other results: > > -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 > 650 1 + 3/12 = 1.25 > 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 > 710 3 + 7/12 = 3.58 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 > 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 > > How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? > > Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus 60% of the matchpoints for 1430?? > > Thanks! > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 08:30:10 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 07:30:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <56D7E802.8010701@googlemail.com> Yes, it's normal to "sympathetically weight" for the NOS so 60/40 instead of 50/50 would be usual. We (EBU) would matchpoint the field as below. Note that we give 2 for a top, 1 for a draw, so you could halve all these. Frequency Results Matchpoints 1 1460 12 1.6 1430 9.4 1 710 6.8 1.4 680 4.4 1 650 2 1 -100 0 Weighted score = 60% of 9.4 + 40% of 4.4 = 7.4 So I get the same results as you. On 03/03/2016 05:35, Timothy N. Hill wrote: > The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective January 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c (probability-weighted). We don?t yet have any software support for 12C1c adjustments. > > I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. > > Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving misinformation and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance of bidding slam if correctly informed. The other scores are -100, 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. > > The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in assigning weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? > > Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the adjusted matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. > > How should the other scores be matchpointed? > > I think the other scores should also be weighted: > > -100 0 > 650 1 > 680 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 > 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x 4.5 = 4.7 > 1460 6 > > Is this the preferred method elsewhere? > > Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a small top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s impractical for a large top. > > If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current ACBLscore will Neuberg the other results: > > -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 > 650 1 + 3/12 = 1.25 > 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 > 710 3 + 7/12 = 3.58 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 > 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 > > How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? > > Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus 60% of the matchpoints for 1430?? > > Thanks! > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Mar 3 08:41:04 2016 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:41:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <008401d17520$0b38a540$21a9efc0$@xs4all.nl> That is http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/workshops/Prague16/Calculating%20Scores.pdf Giving a slight advantage to the non-offenders for me is standard, although I have not seen it mandated by any regulation. Many scoring programs indeed allow to enter a weighted score roughly like you describe. Calculating by hand, in a large field, with multiple weighted scores is indeed a challenge. Hanas -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Timothy N. Hill Sent: donderdag 3 maart 2016 6:36 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective January 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c (probability-weighted). We don?t yet have any software support for 12C1c adjustments. I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving misinformation and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance of bidding slam if correctly informed. The other scores are -100, 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in assigning weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the adjusted matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. How should the other scores be matchpointed? I think the other scores should also be weighted: -100 0 650 1 680 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x 4.5 = 4.7 1460 6 Is this the preferred method elsewhere? Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a small top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s impractical for a large top. If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current ACBLscore will Neuberg the other results: -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 650 1 + 3/12 = 1.25 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 710 3 + 7/12 = 3.58 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus 60% of the matchpoints for 1430?? Thanks! Tim _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Mar 3 08:54:58 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:54:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <56D7EDD2.20304@t-online.de> Am 03.03.2016 um 06:35 schrieb Timothy N. Hill: > The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective January 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c (probability-weighted). We don?t yet have any software support for 12C1c adjustments. > > I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. > > Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving misinformation and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance of bidding slam if correctly informed. The other scores are -100, 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. > > The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in assigning weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? Yes. Concerning your other questions, as Hans van Staveren said, look at Peter Eidt`s paper. http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/workshops/Prague16/Calculating%20Scores.pdf > > Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the adjusted matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. > > How should the other scores be matchpointed? > > I think the other scores should also be weighted: > > -100 0 > 650 1 > 680 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 > 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x 4.5 = 4.7 > 1460 6 > > Is this the preferred method elsewhere? > > Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a small top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s impractical for a large top. > > If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current ACBLscore will Neuberg the other results: > > -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 > 650 1 + 3/12 = 1.25 > 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 > 710 3 + 7/12 = 3.58 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 > 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 > > How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? > > Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus 60% of the matchpoints for 1430?? > > Thanks! > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Mar 3 08:56:13 2016 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:56:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <002b01d17522$28a1b840$79e528c0$@t-online.de> Hi Tim, yes, WBF and EBL do the scoring of weighted scores as you describe it below. And yes, to Neuberg the other results is just wrong; they have to be weighted too. On the webspace of the EBL (www.eurobridge.org/courses.aspx) there's a handout of a lecture regarding scoring within the Notes from Prague, that deals with this issue. Of course we have a different scoring unit when scoring Matchpoints, but it's only factor 2. On page 3 you'll find an algorithm, dealing with scoring weighted scores in Pairs and suitable for any (large) table of frequencies. And finally: In the scoring program I use in Germany it opens a (new) table to let me enter the results with their probabilities if I press the button "Weighted scores". So, no "special" syntax needed for the input and it allows any "complex" weighting. Peter von Timothy N. Hill > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. M?rz 2016 06:36 > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Betreff: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) > > The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective January > 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c (probability-weighted). > We don?t yet have any software support for 12C1c adjustments. > > I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. > > Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving misinformation > and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance of bidding slam if > correctly informed. The other scores are -100, 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. > > The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in assigning > weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? > > Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the adjusted > matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. > > How should the other scores be matchpointed? > > I think the other scores should also be weighted: > > -100 0 > 650 1 > 680 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 > 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x 4.5 = 4.7 > 1460 6 > > Is this the preferred method elsewhere? > > Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a small > top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s impractical > for a large top. > > If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current ACBLscore will > Neuberg the other results: > > -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 > 650 1 + 3/12 = 1.25 > 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 > 710 3 + 7/12 = 3.58 > 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 > 1430 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 > 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 > > How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? > > Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus 60% of the > matchpoints for 1430?? > > Thanks! > > Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 3 09:08:13 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 09:08:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <56D7F0ED.3090908@skynet.be> Timothy N. Hill schreef: > The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective > January 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c > (probability-weighted). We don?t yet have any software support for > 12C1c adjustments. > congratulations! > I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. > > Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving > misinformation and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance > of bidding slam if correctly informed. The other scores are -100, > 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. > > The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in > assigning weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? > > Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the > adjusted matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. > > How should the other scores be matchpointed? > > I think the other scores should also be weighted: > > -100 0 650 1 680 > 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 40% > 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x > 4.5 = 4.7 1460 6 > > Is this the preferred method elsewhere? > It is (equivalent to) my preferred method. But I know of no regulation that adopts this approach, nor of any program that supports it. > Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a > small top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s > impractical for a large top. > > If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current > ACBLscore will Neuberg the other results: > > -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 650 1 + 3/12 = > 1.25 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 710 3 + 7/12 = > 3.58 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 > 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 > > How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? > Similarly. > Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus > 60% of the matchpoints for 1430?? > Only the "Maastricht method" that David Stevenson and myself developed in 2000, and which states that the scores be listed in descending order of NS value, with percentages or fractions, and with a plus between all (I mean the word plus). Herman. > Thanks! > > Tim _______________________________________________ Blml mailing > list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 3 10:19:56 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:19:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <56D7F0ED.3090908@skynet.be> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> <56D7F0ED.3090908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56D801BC.5060205@skynet.be> I knwe there would be some things I'm missing by not attending Prague. Congratulations EBL (and WBF). And I fully agree with the methods as descibed by Peter. That is not so strange - we have been known to be in agreement before (at least once, that I recall). :) Herman. Herman De Wael schreef: > > > Timothy N. Hill schreef: >> The ACBL changed its method of assigning adjusted scores, effective >> January 1, from 12C1e (most favorable/unfavorable) to 12C1c >> (probability-weighted). We don?t yet have any software support for >> 12C1c adjustments. >> > > congratulations! > >> I have a few questions for old hands with 12C1c. >> >> Consider this example: A pair stops in game after receiving >> misinformation and scores 680, but we estimate they had a 50% chance >> of bidding slam if correctly informed. The other scores are -100, >> 650, 680, 710, 1430, and 1460. >> >> The ACBL suggests we slightly favor the non-offending side in >> assigning weights. Is this the practice elsewhere? >> >> Say we weight 680 at 40% and 1430 at 60%. Manually calculating the >> adjusted matchpoints is easy enough: 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7. >> >> How should the other scores be matchpointed? >> >> I think the other scores should also be weighted: >> >> -100 0 650 1 680 >> 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 2 = 2.2 710 40% x 4 + 60% x 3 = 3.4 40% >> 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 40% x 5 + 60% x >> 4.5 = 4.7 1460 6 >> >> Is this the preferred method elsewhere? >> > > It is (equivalent to) my preferred method. But I know of no regulation > that adopts this approach, nor of any program that supports it. > >> Unfortunately, the current ACBLscore won?t do this calculation. For a >> small top, we could matchpoint the whole board manually, but that?s >> impractical for a large top. >> >> If we enter the adjusted score as 3.7 matchpoints, the current >> ACBLscore will Neuberg the other results: >> >> -100 0 + 1/12 = 0.08 650 1 + 3/12 = >> 1.25 680 2 + 5/12 = 2.42 710 3 + 7/12 = >> 3.58 40% 680, 60% 1430 40% x 2.5 + 60% x 4.5 = 3.7 1430 >> 4 + 9/12 = 4.75 1460 5 + 11/12 = 5.92 >> >> How do other scoring programs support 12C1c adjustments? >> > > Similarly. > >> Is there a syntax for entering ?40% of the matchpoints for 680 plus >> 60% of the matchpoints for 1430?? >> > > Only the "Maastricht method" that David Stevenson and myself developed > in 2000, and which states that the scores be listed in descending order > of NS value, with percentages or fractions, and with a plus between all > (I mean the word plus). > > Herman. > >> Thanks! >> >> Tim _______________________________________________ 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 sven at svenpran.net Thu Mar 3 10:21:35 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:21:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] implementing 12C1c (weighted adjustments) In-Reply-To: <56D7F0ED.3090908@skynet.be> References: <62D63F83-1ACA-4BFF-B672-EC04DF52159B@wesleyan.edu> <56D7F0ED.3090908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001d1752e$181cc8a0$485659e0$@svenpran.net> > Herman De Wael > It is (equivalent to) my preferred method. But I know of no regulation that > adopts this approach, nor of any program that supports it. [Sven Pran] I think you will find that this program: http://www.brenning.se/magiccontest.asp does the job (and much more) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 3 12:56:23 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:56:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> Message-ID: Le 02.03.2016 22:06, Matthias Berghaus a ?crit?: > Am 02.03.2016 um 20:46 schrieb r pewick: >> N plays the S7, then S plays SK, then E plays the SQ, then W plays the >> S3. >> >> Is that a trick? Upon what basis is it so? > > Sure it is. A flawed one, while under way, but when all is told a > trick. > At the end nobody would know... The main problem is that there is no definition of "trick". Only a definition of not-flawed trick. So were still uncertain about what a trick is : what if there is twice the same card ? six cards ? an hippogriff ? the knight of diamonds (from Tarot)? a shoe ? One thing is sure : the meaning of the word "unless". "A trick, unless flawed, is composed of ..." This unquestionably means that there are two kind of tricks, flawed ones and unflawed ones. But to what extent the flaws may go, and still what we see would be a trick, remains a, how can I say ? tricky question ? Of course, it would have been better for the lawmakers not to use two different words (flawed/defective), even if synonyms, because it's a very natural reflex to consider that, because two different words were used, two different meanings there are. And maybe there are. "Defective" might just mean "lacking something", which is only one kind of flaw. Yes, better definitions should definitely be implemented. Best regards Alain From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 14:14:05 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:14:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> Message-ID: <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> > > One thing is sure : the meaning of the word "unless". > "A trick, unless flawed, is composed of ..." > This unquestionably means that there are two kind of tricks, flawed ones > and unflawed ones. > > But to what extent the flaws may go, and still what we see would be a > trick, remains a, how can I say ? tricky question ? > > Of course, it would have been better for the lawmakers not to use two > different words (flawed/defective), even if synonyms, because it's a > very natural reflex to consider that, because two different words were > used, two different meanings there are. > > And maybe there are. "Defective" might just mean "lacking something", > which is only one kind of of flaw. The Laws use "deficient" for that. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 3 14:30:19 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:30:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 03.03.2016 14:14, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit?: >> >> One thing is sure : the meaning of the word "unless". >> "A trick, unless flawed, is composed of ..." >> This unquestionably means that there are two kind of tricks, flawed >> ones >> and unflawed ones. >> >> But to what extent the flaws may go, and still what we see would be a >> trick, remains a, how can I say ? tricky question ? >> >> Of course, it would have been better for the lawmakers not to use two >> different words (flawed/defective), even if synonyms, because it's a >> very natural reflex to consider that, because two different words were >> used, two different meanings there are. >> >> And maybe there are. "Defective" might just mean "lacking something", >> which is only one kind of of flaw. > > The Laws use "deficient" for that. Okay, so whence "defective" ? Because that's the term under scrutiny ... From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 14:55:31 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:55:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> > On 3 Mar 2016, at 13:30, agot wrote: > > Le 03.03.2016 14:14, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >>> >>> One thing is sure : the meaning of the word "unless". >>> "A trick, unless flawed, is composed of ..." >>> This unquestionably means that there are two kind of tricks, flawed >>> ones >>> and unflawed ones. >>> >>> But to what extent the flaws may go, and still what we see would be a >>> trick, remains a, how can I say ? tricky question ? >>> >>> Of course, it would have been better for the lawmakers not to use two >>> different words (flawed/defective), even if synonyms, because it's a >>> very natural reflex to consider that, because two different words were >>> used, two different meanings there are. >>> >>> And maybe there are. "Defective" might just mean "lacking something", >>> which is only one kind of of flaw. >> >> The Laws use "deficient" for that. > > Okay, so whence "defective" ? Because that's the term under scrutiny ... All deficient tricks are defective but not all defective tricks are deficient. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 3 16:07:15 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:07:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <92d887610fa2c7a0858b0b066579819b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 03.03.2016 14:55, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit?: >> On 3 Mar 2016, at 13:30, agot wrote: >> >> Le 03.03.2016 14:14, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >>>> >>>> One thing is sure : the meaning of the word "unless". >>>> "A trick, unless flawed, is composed of ..." >>>> This unquestionably means that there are two kind of tricks, flawed >>>> ones >>>> and unflawed ones. >>>> >>>> But to what extent the flaws may go, and still what we see would be >>>> a >>>> trick, remains a, how can I say ? tricky question ? >>>> >>>> Of course, it would have been better for the lawmakers not to use >>>> two >>>> different words (flawed/defective), even if synonyms, because it's a >>>> very natural reflex to consider that, because two different words >>>> were >>>> used, two different meanings there are. >>>> >>>> And maybe there are. "Defective" might just mean "lacking >>>> something", >>>> which is only one kind of of flaw. >>> >>> The Laws use "deficient" for that. >> >> Okay, so whence "defective" ? Because that's the term under scrutiny >> ... > > All deficient tricks are defective but not all defective tricks are > deficient. So you mean "defective" is synonymous with "flawed" ? So be it. So why two different words ? And we've not yet solved the issue of what a trick is, in case it is flawed/defective. or, otherwise stated, how much it can be flawed before ceasing to be a trick. Surely, if it is made of two jokers, a lit cigarette and my nephew's helm it isn't a trick, but where do we draw the limit ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 17:04:09 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:04:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <92d887610fa2c7a0858b0b066579819b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> <92d887610fa2c7a0858b0b066579819b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <6AC20B8B-3E37-4D84-82C6-CF3DB9449948@gmail.com> > > So you mean "defective" is synonymous with "flawed" ? So be it. I thought we had already established that. > > So why two different words ? > Ask Grattan! From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 4 01:59:15 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:59:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <6AC20B8B-3E37-4D84-82C6-CF3DB9449948@gmail.com> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> <92d887610fa2c7a0858b0b066579819b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <6AC20B8B-3E37-4D84-82C6-CF3DB9449948@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:04:09 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > >> >> So you mean "defective" is synonymous with "flawed" ? So be it. > > I thought we had already established that. Did we? N plays the S7, then S plays SK, then E plays the SQ, then W plays the S3. Definitely flawed, right? The cards were not played in rotation. Is is defective? From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 08:53:35 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 07:53:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> <92d887610fa2c7a0858b0b066579819b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <6AC20B8B-3E37-4D84-82C6-CF3DB9449948@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51AFC495-4D61-4266-9204-0FE05195E75E@gmail.com> The play to the trick was flawed. If we think the trick should be allowed to stand then I don't suppose it is flawed (or defective ). Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 4 Mar 2016, at 00:59, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:04:09 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> So you mean "defective" is synonymous with "flawed" ? So be it. >> >> I thought we had already established that. > > > Did we? > > N plays the S7, then S plays SK, then E plays the SQ, then W plays the S3. > > Definitely flawed, right? The cards were not played in rotation. Is is defective? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 4 14:56:33 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:56:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> <92d887610fa2c7a0858b0b066579819b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <6AC20B8B-3E37-4D84-82C6-CF3DB9449948@gmail.com> Message-ID: <73b886cbdc61d956bbf8c92423658c42@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 04.03.2016 01:59, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:04:09 -0500, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> So you mean "defective" is synonymous with "flawed" ? So be it. >> >> I thought we had already established that. > > > Did we? > > N plays the S7, then S plays SK, then E plays the SQ, then W plays the > S3. > > Definitely flawed, right? The cards were not played in rotation. Is is > defective? Nope. L67 considers as defective only tricks which contain too many or too few cards. Not, for exemple, those containing a card from another board, or Robert's example. So, IMOBO it is far from "established". And there is no such thing as a "deficient board" in TFLB. Only deficient hands. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 4 20:53:45 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:53:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <73b886cbdc61d956bbf8c92423658c42@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> <56D6E3D2.6070203@t-online.de> <56D72E61.4030605@googlemail.com> <56D755BB.9050407@t-online.de> <69582ECE-A0D9-4FD4-8D29-252B944DB946@gmail.com> <9cedc6af18b907a8c65d1369c9fc7c76@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <30326C59-5DF3-4955-9AC8-0CEA57C0575F@gmail.com> <92d887610fa2c7a0858b0b066579819b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <6AC20B8B-3E37-4D84-82C6-CF3DB9449948@gmail.com> <73b886cbdc61d956bbf8c92423658c42@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 08:56:33 -0500, agot wrote: > Le 04.03.2016 01:59, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:04:09 -0500, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> So you mean "defective" is synonymous with "flawed" ? So be it. >>> >>> I thought we had already established that. >> >> >> Did we? >> >> N plays the S7, then S plays SK, then E plays the SQ, then W plays the >> S3. >> >> Definitely flawed, right? The cards were not played in rotation. Is is >> defective? > > Nope. L67 considers as defective only tricks which contain too many or > too few cards. Not, for exemple, those containing a card from another > board, or Robert's example. > > So, IMOBO it is far from "established". > > And there is no such thing as a "deficient board" in TFLB. Only > deficient hands. > You are agreeing with me. flawed is not the same as defective. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Mar 5 20:45:25 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:45:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:59:22 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > Sorry, but this doesn?t make sense to me: > > How do you calculate whether the fouled version of a board has been > played more or less than 10 percent of the top score? > > > And anyway, say that you have a 13 table Mitchell or a 7 table Howell > event. Each board should then be played 13 times, however the >fouled > version was played 6 times. Neither version was played less than 30% of > the rounds, do you really end up with 13 artificial >adjusted scores on > that board instead of scoring two groups with Neuberg? > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Petrus Schuster OSB > [?] > > > The Austrian Regulations use Neuberg, when the fouled version of the > board had been played both less than 10 percent of the top score and > less than >30 percent of the rounds of the session. Otherwise, > artificial adjusted scores are awarded. > > > Petrus >>> >>> > > > -- > Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ sorry ... read "unless" instead of "when". -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160305/57697650/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Sat Mar 5 22:18:50 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 22:18:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <000901d17724$a6347a00$f29d6e00$@svenpran.net> Well, that clarifies one point ? but not what it means that a fouled board has been played less than 10 percent of the top score. Fouled board must be scored separately from the normal boards so within a group of at least two equal fouled boards their scores will be from (and including) 0 to (and including) 100 percent of the top score within that group. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Petrus Schuster OSB Sendt: 5. mars 2016 20:45 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:59:22 +0100, Sven Pran < sven at svenpran.net> wrote: Sorry, but this doesn?t make sense to me: How do you calculate whether the fouled version of a board has been played more or less than 10 percent of the top score? And anyway, say that you have a 13 table Mitchell or a 7 table Howell event. Each board should then be played 13 times, however the fouled version was played 6 times. Neither version was played less than 30% of the rounds, do you really end up with 13 artificial adjusted scores on that board instead of scoring two groups with Neuberg? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Petrus Schuster OSB [?] The Austrian Regulations use Neuberg, when the fouled version of the board had been played both less than 10 percent of the top score and less than 30 percent of the rounds of the session. Otherwise, artificial adjusted scores are awarded. Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ sorry ... read "unless" instead of "when". -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160305/4eb72dc7/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Mar 6 13:36:22 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:36:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <000901d17724$a6347a00$f29d6e00$@svenpran.net> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> <000901d17724$a6347a00$f29d6e00$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:18:50 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > Well, that clarifies one point ? but not what it means that a fouled > board has been played less than 10 percent of the top score. >Fouled > board must be scored separately from the normal boards so within a group > of at least two equal fouled boards their scores >will be from (and > including) 0 to (and including) 100 percent of the top score within that > group. > > 10% of the normal top on a board in this session. So in your example, 26 results give a top of 50; 10% of that means less than 5 rounds. 30% of 13 rounds is 3.9 rounds. Both conditions have to be met, so there will be artificial scores (60-50, 50-50 and 50-60) if the fouled version has been played no more than three times. > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sendt: 5. mars 2016 20:45 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards > > > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:59:22 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > Sorry, but this doesn?t make sense to me: > > How do you calculate whether the fouled version of a board has been > played more or less than 10 percent of the top score? > > > And anyway, say that you have a 13 table Mitchell or a 7 table Howell > event. Each board should then be played 13 times, however >the fouled > version was played 6 times. Neither version was played less than 30% of > the rounds, do you really end up with 13 >artificial adjusted scores on > that board instead of scoring two groups with Neuberg? > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Petrus Schuster OSB > [?] > > > The Austrian Regulations use Neuberg, when the fouled version of the > board had been played both less than 10 percent of the top score and > less than >30 percent of the rounds of the session. Otherwise, > artificial adjusted scores are awarded. > > > Petrus >>> >>> > > > -- > Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > >> sorry ... read "unless" instead of "when". > > -- > Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160306/89f1bfd8/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Sun Mar 6 16:41:55 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 16:41:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> <000901d17724$a6347a00$f29d6e00$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <002b01d177be$b936e850$2ba4b8f0$@svenpran.net> My example was for 13 tables Mitchell or 7 tables Howell. In either case each board will be scheduled for play 13 times with a top score of 24. The Aussie regulation should specify the required number of scores in a separate group for the application of Neuberg as a percentage of the total number of scores in a complete (undisturbed) group. The top score itself is only confusing. As here: How can a top score of 50 in any way be relevant with my example? (They don?t play the same board twice!) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Petrus Schuster OSB Sendt: 6. mars 2016 13:36 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:18:50 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: Well, that clarifies one point ? but not what it means that a fouled board has been played less than 10 percent of the top score. Fouled board must be scored separately from the normal boards so within a group of at least two equal fouled boards their scores will be from (and including) 0 to (and including) 100 percent of the top score within that group. 10% of the normal top on a board in this session. So in your example, 26 results give a top of 50; 10% of that means less than 5 rounds. 30% of 13 rounds is 3.9 rounds. Both conditions have to be met, so there will be artificial scores (60-50, 50-50 and 50-60) if the fouled version has been played no more than three times. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Petrus Schuster OSB Sendt: 5. mars 2016 20:45 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:59:22 +0100, Sven Pran < sven at svenpran.net> wrote: Sorry, but this doesn?t make sense to me: How do you calculate whether the fouled version of a board has been played more or less than 10 percent of the top score? And anyway, say that you have a 13 table Mitchell or a 7 table Howell event. Each board should then be played 13 times, however the fouled version was played 6 times. Neither version was played less than 30% of the rounds, do you really end up with 13 artificial adjusted scores on that board instead of scoring two groups with Neuberg? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Petrus Schuster OSB [?] The Austrian Regulations use Neuberg, when the fouled version of the board had been played both less than 10 percent of the top score and less than 30 percent of the rounds of the session. Otherwise, artificial adjusted scores are awarded. Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ sorry ... read "unless" instead of "when". -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160306/242d28c9/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Mar 6 20:09:54 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 20:09:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <002b01d177be$b936e850$2ba4b8f0$@svenpran.net> References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> <000901d17724$a6347a00$f29d6e00$@svenpran.net> <002b01d177be$b936e850$2ba4b8f0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:41:55 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > My example was for 13 tables Mitchell or 7 tables Howell. In either case > each board will be scheduled for play 13 times with a top >score of 24. > > The Aussie regulation should specify the required number of scores in a > separate group for the application of Neuberg as a >percentage of the > total number of scores in a complete (undisturbed) group. The top score > itself is only confusing. > > As here: How can a top score of 50 in any way be relevant with my > example? (They don?t play the same board twice!) I thought you meant two sections so that the board will be played 26 times. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160306/babb5b5a/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Sun Mar 6 20:32:04 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:32:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: References: <56D517B6.5020000@alumni.princeton.edu> <000901d1746a$3589e540$a09dafc0$@svenpran.net> <000901d17724$a6347a00$f29d6e00$@svenpran.net> <002b01d177be$b936e850$2ba4b8f0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <003c01d177de$dfe38510$9faa8f30$@svenpran.net> You mean that you were thinking of several different tournaments merged in ?simultaneous pairs?? I simply don?t understand why you should think that. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Petrus Schuster OSB Sendt: 6. mars 2016 20:10 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:41:55 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: My example was for 13 tables Mitchell or 7 tables Howell. In either case each board will be scheduled for play 13 times with a top score of 24. The Aussie regulation should specify the required number of scores in a separate group for the application of Neuberg as a percentage of the total number of scores in a complete (undisturbed) group. The top score itself is only confusing. As here: How can a top score of 50 in any way be relevant with my example? (They don?t play the same board twice!) I thought you meant two sections so that the board will be played 26 times. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160306/7de0cd15/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 17 00:54:12 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:54:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled Message-ID: 2NT P 2NT/4C You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it was Gerber in their system. Bar her partner or not? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 17 01:07:09 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:07:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56E9F52D.4000502@alumni.princeton.edu> On 3/16/2016 7:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 2NT P 2NT/4C > > > You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it was Gerber in their system. > The insufficient bid was conventional, and was replaced by a bid not having the same meaning, so partner is barred. The interesting question is whether you enforce the "could have known" rule. In many systems, there is no way to play a club partial after a 2NT opening, and South found one by barring partner. I would not enforce this, and would allow the table result in 4C to stand, as it is clear from the context that she did not know that she was getting an otherwise impossible result. From lskelso at ihug.com.au Thu Mar 17 01:26:04 2016 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:26:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56E9F52D.4000502@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <56E9F52D.4000502@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <56E9F99C.70306@ihug.com.au> On 17/03/2016 11:07 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > On 3/16/2016 7:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> 2NT P 2NT/4C >> >> >> You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it was Gerber in their system. >> > The insufficient bid was conventional, and was replaced by a bid not > having the same meaning, so partner is barred. > > The interesting question is whether you enforce the "could have known" > rule. In many systems, there is no way to play a club partial after a > 2NT opening, and South found one by barring partner. I would not > enforce this, and would allow the table result in 4C to stand, as it is > clear from the context that she did not know that she was getting an > otherwise impossible result. > _______________________________________________ Before proceeding to Law 23, one has to first consider Law 27D - thus playing successfully in the club partial might still require an adjustment (because under those circumstances the Director doesn't have to consider any 'could have known' scenario). Laurie From lskelso at ihug.com.au Thu Mar 17 03:19:02 2016 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:19:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56E9F99C.70306@ihug.com.au> References: <56E9F52D.4000502@alumni.princeton.edu> <56E9F99C.70306@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <56EA1416.7090605@ihug.com.au> On 17/03/2016 11:26 AM, Laurie Kelso wrote: > On 17/03/2016 11:07 AM, David Grabiner wrote: >> On 3/16/2016 7:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> 2NT P 2NT/4C >>> >>> >>> You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it was Gerber in their system. >>> >> The insufficient bid was conventional, and was replaced by a bid not >> having the same meaning, so partner is barred. >> >> The interesting question is whether you enforce the "could have known" >> rule. In many systems, there is no way to play a club partial after a >> 2NT opening, and South found one by barring partner. I would not >> enforce this, and would allow the table result in 4C to stand, as it is >> clear from the context that she did not know that she was getting an >> otherwise impossible result. >> _______________________________________________ > Before proceeding to Law 23, one has to first consider Law 27D - thus > playing successfully in the club partial might still require an > adjustment (because under those circumstances the Director doesn't have > to consider any 'could have known' scenario). > > Laurie I should probably elaborate: If the Director initially has allowed the 4C correction and then later discovers the real systemic meaning of 4C, then 27D is the place to go for the adjustment. If on the other hand the player of their own volition has changed the original 2NT bid to 4C, then her partner is barred and we do need to look at Law 23 and 'could have been aware' scenarios. Laurie From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Thu Mar 17 08:39:18 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:39:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56E9F52D.4000502@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <56E9F52D.4000502@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <56EA5F26.9070109@gmx.de> Am I missing something? Where was an insufficient bid? JE Am 17.03.2016 um 01:07 schrieb David Grabiner: > > On 3/16/2016 7:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> 2NT P 2NT/4C >> >> >> You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it was Gerber in their system. >> > The insufficient bid was conventional, and was replaced by a bid not > having the same meaning, so partner is barred. > > The interesting question is whether you enforce the "could have known" > rule. In many systems, there is no way to play a club partial after a > 2NT opening, and South found one by barring partner. I would not > enforce this, and would allow the table result in 4C to stand, as it is > clear from the context that she did not know that she was getting an > otherwise impossible result. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 18 02:26:53 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:26:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56EA5F26.9070109@gmx.de> References: <56E9F52D.4000502@alumni.princeton.edu> <56EA5F26.9070109@gmx.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:39:18 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Am I missing something? Where was an insufficient bid? JE Argh. Sorry, sorry. North opened 2NT, and South bid 2 Spades, meaning it as a transfer to clubs. Then she bid 4C, meaning it as clubs. I was called and by the time I talked to her she realized it would be Gerber in their system. I take it her partner is barred from bidding. 27D would not apply, because they can get to 4C without the insufficient bid (albeit played from the wrong side.) > > Am 17.03.2016 um 01:07 schrieb David Grabiner: >> >> On 3/16/2016 7:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> 2NT P 2NT/4C >>> >>> >>> You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it was Gerber in their system. >>> >> The insufficient bid was conventional, and was replaced by a bid not >> having the same meaning, so partner is barred. >> >> The interesting question is whether you enforce the "could have known" >> rule. In many systems, there is no way to play a club partial after a >> 2NT opening, and South found one by barring partner. I would not >> enforce this, and would allow the table result in 4C to stand, as it is >> clear from the context that she did not know that she was getting an >> otherwise impossible result. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 18 14:01:44 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:01:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 17.03.2016 00:54, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > 2NT P 2NT/4C > > > You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers > and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that > as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it > was Gerber in their system. > > Bar her partner or not? I have a problem with the explanation of what has happened. Playing 4-suit transfers, be it over 1NT or 2NT, one doesn't transfer to clubs by bidding notrump. One should get more information. Did the player answer to 1NT ? If so, is 2NT really a transfer to clubs ? Or is the explanation more complex than that (or more simple, e.g. the player said to herself "I have to bid 3S, because it's over 2NT, over 2NT ..." and bid 2NT). And if she wanted to transfer to clubs, why wouldn't she transfer when substituting the bid ? It could have avoided the penalty. This also means that L23 doesn't apply, because there was in fact a way to stop in 4C. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 19 17:26:21 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:26:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Or suppose a player bids Blackwood, finds out his side is off two aces, and tries to stop in 4NT. When the opponents point out this is insufficient, he makes it sufficient -- 5NT. Then you are called to the table. You point out that 5NT asks for kings, which he forgot. Fortunately, his partner is now barred from the auction because 5NT is artificial. From sven at svenpran.net Sat Mar 19 17:41:33 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:41:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001d181fe$368afe10$a3a0fa30$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > Or suppose a player bids Blackwood, finds out his side is off two aces, and > tries to stop in 4NT. When the opponents point out this is insufficient, he > makes it sufficient -- 5NT. > > Then you are called to the table. You point out that 5NT asks for kings, > which he forgot. Fortunately, his partner is now barred from the auction > because 5NT is artificial. [Sven Pran] And after 4NT I suppose the answer showing two aces off will leave room for a bid at the 5-level in a denomination that cannot be intended as trump? That bid is a request to partner that HE bids 5NT. Do they really not have that (fairly standard) agreement? No need to mess up the auction with insufficient bids or whatever here. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 19 21:03:09 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 16:03:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <000001d181fe$368afe10$a3a0fa30$@svenpran.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <000001d181fe$368afe10$a3a0fa30$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:41:33 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Or suppose a player bids Blackwood, finds out his side is off two aces, > and >> tries to stop in 4NT. When the opponents point out this is insufficient, > he >> makes it sufficient -- 5NT. >> >> Then you are called to the table. You point out that 5NT asks for kings, >> which he forgot. Fortunately, his partner is now barred from the auction >> because 5NT is artificial. > > [Sven Pran] > And after 4NT I suppose the answer showing two aces off will leave room for > a bid at the 5-level in a denomination that cannot be intended as trump? > > That bid is a request to partner that HE bids 5NT. > > Do they really not have that (fairly standard) agreement? > > No need to mess up the auction with insufficient bids or whatever here. Yes, I was assuming that they had a way to stop in 5NT. So nothing underhanded, the player just made a mistake, thinking that 5NT was a stop bid. Thanks to the rules, it was. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Mar 20 19:10:40 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 14:10:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-18 9:01 AM, agot wrote: > Playing 4-suit transfers, be it over 1NT or 2NT, one doesn't transfer to > clubs by bidding notrump. Some pairs do. I don't think it's a great method, but it's playable. > One should get more information.... > And if she wanted to transfer to clubs, why wouldn't she transfer when > substituting the bid ? Indeed. > This also means that L23 doesn't apply, because there was in fact a way > to stop in 4C. We need more information, but the TD should certainly _consider_ L23. The same is true of Robert's question about stopping in 5NT. Perhaps a more common example is barring partner, then bidding 4NT, making it natural instead of Blackwood. The ancient version of L23 was specifically to deal with that. (The modern L23 is broader.) On 2016-03-17 9:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 27D would not apply, because they can get to 4C without the > insufficient bid (albeit played from the wrong side.) There's an even better reason L27D doesn't apply: it never applies when the IB bars partner. The first part of L27D limits it to cases where B1 applies, i.e., when the auction has continued normally. From sven at svenpran.net Sun Mar 20 19:56:22 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 19:56:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000701d182da$34a58840$9df098c0$@svenpran.net> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Steve Willner > Sendt: 20. mars 2016 19:11 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] tangled > > On 2016-03-18 9:01 AM, agot wrote: > > Playing 4-suit transfers, be it over 1NT or 2NT, one doesn't transfer > > to clubs by bidding notrump. > > Some pairs do. I don't think it's a great method, but it's playable. > > > One should get more information.... > > And if she wanted to transfer to clubs, why wouldn't she transfer when > > substituting the bid ? > > Indeed. > > > This also means that L23 doesn't apply, because there was in fact a > > way to stop in 4C. > > We need more information, but the TD should certainly _consider_ L23. > The same is true of Robert's question about stopping in 5NT. Perhaps a > more common example is barring partner, then bidding 4NT, making it > natural instead of Blackwood. The ancient version of L23 was specifically to > deal with that. (The modern L23 is broader.) > > On 2016-03-17 9:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > 27D would not apply, because they can get to 4C without the > > insufficient bid (albeit played from the wrong side.) > > There's an even better reason L27D doesn't apply: it never applies when > the IB bars partner. The first part of L27D limits it to cases where B1 > applies, i.e., when the auction has continued normally. [Sven Pran] Instead Law 23 applies as it always does when an irregularity forces the offender's partner to pass. The statement above " that L23 doesn't apply, because there was in fact a way to stop in 4C" is wrong., Law 23 applies, but the effect of Law 23 depends on the Director's judgement of the situation. And the fact that there was a legal way to stop in 5NT may easily lead to ruling a forgivable mistake and no adjustment under Law 23. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 20 20:22:25 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:22:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: So, if I understand everyone's logic on this, the player who bids 4NT insufficient doesn't know that this could benefit his side, because he thinks he can stop in 5NT. (Or, if he remembers that 5NT asks for kings, he will then remember that there is still a way to stop in 5NT). So he bids 5NT, barring his partner. So the first irregularity did benefit his side, he just couldn't know that and L23 doesn't apply. On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 14:10:40 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2016-03-18 9:01 AM, agot wrote: >> Playing 4-suit transfers, be it over 1NT or 2NT, one doesn't transfer to >> clubs by bidding notrump. > > Some pairs do. I don't think it's a great method, but it's playable. > >> One should get more information.... >> And if she wanted to transfer to clubs, why wouldn't she transfer when >> substituting the bid ? > > Indeed. > >> This also means that L23 doesn't apply, because there was in fact a way >> to stop in 4C. > > We need more information, but the TD should certainly _consider_ L23. > The same is true of Robert's question about stopping in 5NT. Perhaps a > more common example is barring partner, then bidding 4NT, making it > natural instead of Blackwood. The ancient version of L23 was > specifically to deal with that. (The modern L23 is broader.) > > On 2016-03-17 9:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > 27D would not apply, because they can get to 4C without the > > insufficient bid (albeit played from the wrong side.) > > There's an even better reason L27D doesn't apply: it never applies when > the IB bars partner. The first part of L27D limits it to cases where B1 > applies, i.e., when the auction has continued normally. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sven at svenpran.net Sun Mar 20 22:45:33 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 22:45:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > Sendt: 20. mars 2016 20:22 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] tangled > > So, if I understand everyone's logic on this, the player who bids 4NT > insufficient doesn't know that this could benefit his side, because he thinks > he can stop in 5NT. (Or, if he remembers that 5NT asks for kings, he will > then remember that there is still a way to stop in 5NT). > > So he bids 5NT, barring his partner. So the first irregularity did benefit his > side, he just couldn't know that and L23 doesn't apply. > [Sven Pran] Sure L23 applies here, as always when a player is barred because of his partner's irregularity. Now if the player knows his Blackwood he will know that after the bids: (for the example - Hearts is agreed as trump) 4NT - pass - 5D - pass 5S - pass - ??? partner is supposed to bid 5NT for play. If that player instead of bidding 5S bids 4NT with the intention to bar partner from bidding over his rectification to 5NT then he uses an illegal method to stop in 5NT. This is up to the Director to clarify and judge, and a competent TD is likely to understand what is really going on and whether the player knows his BW. He will then know how he shall apply Law 23 (not whether he shall apply Law 23!) From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 21 00:18:41 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 19:18:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 17:45:33 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 20. mars 2016 20:22 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] tangled >> >> So, if I understand everyone's logic on this, the player who bids 4NT >> insufficient doesn't know that this could benefit his side, because he > thinks >> he can stop in 5NT. (Or, if he remembers that 5NT asks for kings, he will >> then remember that there is still a way to stop in 5NT). >> >> So he bids 5NT, barring his partner. So the first irregularity did benefit > his >> side, he just couldn't know that and L23 doesn't apply. >> > > [Sven Pran] > Sure L23 applies here, as always when a player is barred because of his > partner's irregularity. > > Now if the player knows his Blackwood he will know that after the bids: (for > the example - Hearts is agreed as trump) > 4NT - pass - 5D - pass > 5S - pass - ??? partner is supposed to bid 5NT for play. > > If that player instead of bidding 5S bids 4NT with the intention to bar > partner from bidding over his rectification to 5NT then he uses an illegal > method to stop in 5NT. > > This is up to the Director to clarify and judge, Yes, to follow my real-life example, the person bid 4NT as a mistake. There was no reason to bid 4NT to bar partner, because they player had a way to get to 5NT without the insufficient bid. So you are saying Law 23 does not apply. And the laws accidentally help this player recover from a bidding misunderstanding. and a competent TD is > likely to understand what is really going on and whether the player knows > his BW. > He will then know how he shall apply Law 23 (not whether he shall apply Law > 23!) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Mar 21 02:45:17 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 21:45:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <000701d182da$34a58840$9df098c0$@svenpran.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000701d182da$34a58840$9df098c0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <56EF522D.7060706@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-20 2:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Instead Law 23 applies as it always does when an irregularity forces the > offender's partner to pass. That's the old version of L23. The new version is broader. From sven at svenpran.net Mon Mar 21 07:54:19 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 07:54:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56EF522D.7060706@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000701d182da$34a58840$9df098c0$@svenpran.net> <56EF522D.7060706@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001d1833e$80fe1040$82fa30c0$@svenpran.net> > Steve Willner > Sendt: 21. mars 2016 02:45 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] tangled > > On 2016-03-20 2:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Instead Law 23 applies as it always does when an irregularity forces > > the offender's partner to pass. > > That's the old version of L23. The new version is broader. [Sven Pran] Sure indeed, but irrelevant for this discussion. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 23 14:10:10 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:10:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> References: "\"" <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.03.2016 22:45, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > This is up to the Director to clarify and judge, and a competent TD is > likely to understand what is really going on and whether the player > knows > his BW. > He will then know how he shall apply Law 23 (not whether he shall apply > Law > 23!) Just a matter of words. Since the title of L23 is : LAW 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE", it doesn't apply when it is obvious that there can't be any. When learning umpiring, I was told that L23 was made for cases when a player succeeds in doing something (letting the bidding stop) which wasn't possible absent the infraction. If that's the case, then the 5NT bid in the case under scrutiny shall be allowed, because there was a legal way to stop in 5NT anyway. But I would agree with a more severe interpretation, where the enforced pass merely helped the player, who could have feared that partner wouldn't understand the transfer-to-5NT bid, even if the system notes prove that it does exist. And this could be deemed enough to adjust the score. Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 23 16:54:41 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:54:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-23 9:10 AM, agot wrote: > But I would agree with a more severe interpretation... As always, just compare the actual outcome with what -- in your judgment -- would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. If the OS gained from the infraction, adjust the score. This can be a weighted adjustment. For example, if you think the result would likely have been the same but there's a 20% chance the OS would have forgotten their agreements and had a disaster, you can give a weighted score accordingly. From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Mar 23 17:44:52 2016 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:44:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> I shudder to think of rulings based on what a director suspects was in a player?s mind. That reeks of arbitrariness influenced by bias. Is there no better way? ?bp > On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > On 2016-03-23 9:10 AM, agot wrote: >> But I would agree with a more severe interpretation... > > As always, just compare the actual outcome with what -- in your judgment > -- would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. If the OS > gained from the infraction, adjust the score. This can be a weighted > adjustment. For example, if you think the result would likely have been > the same but there's a 20% chance the OS would have forgotten their > agreements and had a disaster, you can give a weighted score accordingly. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 23 18:16:38 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:16:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> Message-ID: <56F2CF76.6070104@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-23 12:44 PM, Robert Park wrote: > I shudder to think of rulings based on what a director suspects was > in a player???s mind. Yes, me too. I hope no one suggests rulings of that sort. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 23 18:44:35 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:44:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Le 23.03.2016 16:54, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2016-03-23 9:10 AM, agot wrote: >> But I would agree with a more severe interpretation... > > As always, just compare the actual outcome with what -- in your > judgment > -- would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. If the OS > gained from the infraction, adjust the score. This can be a weighted > adjustment. For example, if you think the result would likely have > been > the same but there's a 20% chance the OS would have forgotten their > agreements and had a disaster, you can give a weighted score > accordingly. This is 100% right in theory, and impossible to implement. We just can't adjudicate this. I would like us to need less mind-reading. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 23 19:26:50 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <56F2DFEA.1050409@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-23 1:44 PM, agot wrote: > This is 100% right in theory, and impossible to implement. We just can't > adjudicate this. > > I would like us to need less mind-reading. Ummm.... I'm the one who is always against mind reading. I'm surprised you and Robert are reading my comments as suggesting that. I was intending to suggest the opposite. You don't rule on what the specific individual players might have done at that moment. You rule on what comparable players might have done on average. That's the point of weighted scores. No mind reading needed or desirable. L23 itself has the same feature: you don't rule that a given player deliberately did something shady. Instead you rule that a villain might have done what the player did, and even an honest player can't be allowed to benefit from doing such a thing. The point in both cases is to remove the need for mind reading while still making sure the NOS isn't harmed. From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Mar 23 19:44:28 2016 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:44:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F2DFEA.1050409@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <56F2DFEA.1050409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: OK. But I sense that changes the issue to, ?where do you get the data for your 20% estimate?? And, since we all know that point estimates alone are nearly useless, were does one get sufficient data to place a reasonable interval on your estimate? In other words, is your estimate really fair in the long run? And is it realistically unaffected by director bias? What proportion of directors do you think will be competent enough or have sufficient data to make a realistic assessment in this case? My sense, which I suspect is at least as good as your 20% example, it that that number for club directors in the US is likely to be vanishingly small. ?bp > On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:26 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > On 2016-03-23 1:44 PM, agot wrote: >> This is 100% right in theory, and impossible to implement. We just can't >> adjudicate this. >> >> I would like us to need less mind-reading. > > Ummm.... I'm the one who is always against mind reading. I'm surprised > you and Robert are reading my comments as suggesting that. I was > intending to suggest the opposite. > > You don't rule on what the specific individual players might have done > at that moment. You rule on what comparable players might have done on > average. That's the point of weighted scores. No mind reading needed > or desirable. > > L23 itself has the same feature: you don't rule that a given player > deliberately did something shady. Instead you rule that a villain might > have done what the player did, and even an honest player can't be > allowed to benefit from doing such a thing. > > The point in both cases is to remove the need for mind reading while > still making sure the NOS isn't harmed. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 23 20:08:21 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:08:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <56F2DFEA.1050409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <56F2E9A5.7060501@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-23 2:44 PM, Robert Park wrote: > My sense, which I suspect is at least as good as your 20% example, it > that that number for club directors in the US is likely to be > vanishingly small. The 20% was completely made up; it could be zero to >90% for various pairs I know. I agree with your last comment but would delete the word "club." As to estimating the percentage in a particular instance, it will always be difficult, but a competent Director's estimate is likely to be better than random or simply assuming zero. Ideally Directors will consult on any judgment ruling, of which this is surely one. Nobody said directing is easy. From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Mar 23 20:17:48 2016 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:17:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F2E9A5.7060501@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <56F2DFEA.1050409@nhcc.net> <56F2E9A5.7060501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3B32B993-7216-4CC9-A485-B2EFEA3D3386@comcast.net> Agreed, but I still see laws like this as impractical, unrealistic, and difficult to administer fairly and consistently. I think I?d rather see the basic principle be, ?You screwed up, you suffer!? Then everyone gets treated equally over time. ?bp > On Mar 23, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > On 2016-03-23 2:44 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> My sense, which I suspect is at least as good as your 20% example, it >> that that number for club directors in the US is likely to be >> vanishingly small. > > The 20% was completely made up; it could be zero to >90% for various > pairs I know. > > I agree with your last comment but would delete the word "club." > > As to estimating the percentage in a particular instance, it will always > be difficult, but a competent Director's estimate is likely to be better > than random or simply assuming zero. Ideally Directors will consult on > any judgment ruling, of which this is surely one. Nobody said directing > is easy. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 23 20:46:12 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:46:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <3B32B993-7216-4CC9-A485-B2EFEA3D3386@comcast.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <56F2DFEA.1050409@nhcc.net> <56F2E9A5.7060501@nhcc.net> <3B32B993-7216-4CC9-A485-B2EFEA3D3386@comcast.net> Message-ID: <56F2F284.2000105@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-23 3:17 PM, Robert Park wrote: > I think I???d rather see the basic principle be, ???You screwed up, > you suffer! That's fine, but I don't see how it applies to the sort of case under discussion. The pair who screwed up did fine, perhaps with the aid of their own infraction. Do they keep 100% of that result, or should there be at least some possibility that some of it can be taken away? From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 24 08:50:06 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:50:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> Message-ID: <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> Robert Park schreef: > I shudder to think of rulings based on what a director suspects was > in a player?s mind. That reeks of arbitrariness influenced by bias. > > Is there no better way? > No. Take a claim ruling. If a player tells you he's "drawing trumps", plural, and there is onlyu one trump out, won't you rule as if he's going to play two rounds of trumps? What is that, other than ruling according to what the TD suspects was in the claimer's mind? Sad but true, but TD's need to be mind-readers. The better mind-reader you are, the better TD you'll be. If you don't like that, get out of the kitchen. Herman. > ?bp > > >> On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >> On 2016-03-23 9:10 AM, agot wrote: >>> But I would agree with a more severe interpretation... >> >> As always, just compare the actual outcome with what -- in your >> judgment -- would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. >> If the OS gained from the infraction, adjust the score. This can >> be a weighted adjustment. For example, if you think the result >> would likely have been the same but there's a 20% chance the OS >> would have forgotten their agreements and had a disaster, you can >> give a weighted score accordingly. >> >> _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 25 02:01:04 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:01:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:50:06 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Park schreef: >> I shudder to think of rulings based on what a director suspects was >> in a player?s mind. That reeks of arbitrariness influenced by bias. >> >> Is there no better way? >> > > No. > > Take a claim ruling. If a player tells you he's "drawing trumps", > plural, and there is onlyu one trump out, won't you rule as if he's > going to play two rounds of trumps? What is that, other than ruling > according to what the TD suspects was in the claimer's mind? > Sad but true, but TD's need to be mind-readers. The better mind-reader > you are, the better TD you'll be. If you don't like that, get out of the > kitchen. What if the player tells you he is "drawing trumps", there is only one trump out, and they player in his mind meant drawing only one round of trump? Do you really rule differently? Bob, who wants out of the kitchen as much as possible > > Herman. > >> ?bp >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Steve Willner >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 2016-03-23 9:10 AM, agot wrote: >>>> But I would agree with a more severe interpretation... >>> >>> As always, just compare the actual outcome with what -- in your >>> judgment -- would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. >>> If the OS gained from the infraction, adjust the score. This can >>> be a weighted adjustment. For example, if you think the result >>> would likely have been the same but there's a 20% chance the OS >>> would have forgotten their agreements and had a disaster, you can >>> give a weighted score accordingly. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 25 08:58:23 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:58:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56F4EF9F.8080906@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:50:06 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Park schreef: >>> I shudder to think of rulings based on what a director suspects >>> was in a player?s mind. That reeks of arbitrariness influenced by >>> bias. >>> >>> Is there no better way? >>> >> >> No. >> >> Take a claim ruling. If a player tells you he's "drawing trumps", >> plural, and there is onlyu one trump out, won't you rule as if >> he's going to play two rounds of trumps? What is that, other than >> ruling according to what the TD suspects was in the claimer's >> mind? Sad but true, but TD's need to be mind-readers. The better >> mind-reader you are, the better TD you'll be. If you don't like >> that, get out of the kitchen. > > > What if the player tells you he is "drawing trumps", there is only > one trump out, and they player in his mind meant drawing only one > round of trump? Do you really rule differently? > I may be suffering here from a translation problem. In English, "drawing trumps" might be used for the singular. In Dutch, the sentecen "Ik kom de troeven halen" is certainly meant for the plural. As such, it is much more guaranteed that the spoken sentence indicates what is in the players mind. What I'm trying to say is that it is only possible to rule that a claimer will draw one round of trumps too many, IF we also believe he miscounted the trumps in the first place. Which we can only do with some level of mind-reading. Of course every single piece of mind-reading needs to be based on some action of the player. But just saying that you will not do any mind-reading will make you a bad director. And the job impossible. > Bob, who wants out of the kitchen as much as possible > Sadly, that way lies anarchy. Herman. From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Fri Mar 25 12:41:34 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:41:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F4EF9F.8080906@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <56F4EF9F.8080906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56F523EE.9050106@gmx.de> Astute observation Herman; I had the same thought. Aside from that it might be a simple case of linguistic carelessness on part of the speaker. I suspect it would be a very hard line to interpret this (the plural) so seriously. Ciao, JE Am 25.03.2016 um 08:58 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:50:06 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Park schreef: >>>> I shudder to think of rulings based on what a director suspects >>>> was in a player?s mind. That reeks of arbitrariness influenced by >>>> bias. >>>> >>>> Is there no better way? >>>> >>> No. >>> >>> Take a claim ruling. If a player tells you he's "drawing trumps", >>> plural, and there is onlyu one trump out, won't you rule as if >>> he's going to play two rounds of trumps? What is that, other than >>> ruling according to what the TD suspects was in the claimer's >>> mind? Sad but true, but TD's need to be mind-readers. The better >>> mind-reader you are, the better TD you'll be. If you don't like >>> that, get out of the kitchen. >> >> What if the player tells you he is "drawing trumps", there is only >> one trump out, and they player in his mind meant drawing only one >> round of trump? Do you really rule differently? >> > I may be suffering here from a translation problem. In English, "drawing > trumps" might be used for the singular. In Dutch, the sentecen "Ik kom > de troeven halen" is certainly meant for the plural. As such, it is much > more guaranteed that the spoken sentence indicates what is in the > players mind. > > What I'm trying to say is that it is only possible to rule that a > claimer will draw one round of trumps too many, IF we also believe he > miscounted the trumps in the first place. Which we can only do with some > level of mind-reading. > > Of course every single piece of mind-reading needs to be based on some > action of the player. But just saying that you will not do any > mind-reading will make you a bad director. And the job impossible. > >> Bob, who wants out of the kitchen as much as possible >> > Sadly, that way lies anarchy. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 25 12:54:30 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:54:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F2E9A5.7060501@nhcc.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <56F2DFEA.1050409@nhcc.net> <56F2E9A5.7060501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <41f8634e070371eaa80070e3c075489c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 23.03.2016 20:08, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2016-03-23 2:44 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> My sense, which I suspect is at least as good as your 20% example, it >> that that number for club directors in the US is likely to be >> vanishingly small. > > The 20% was completely made up; it could be zero to >90% for various > pairs I know. So you're considering that pair after all, not their counterparts ? And the question remains : how do you assess the percentage for a system error for any given pair ? Expecially as it may depend on the circumstances of play. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 25 13:05:04 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:05:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <209f5be3787a1eab88f7bd01025d8b03@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 24.03.2016 08:50, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Robert Park schreef: >> I shudder to think of rulings based on what a director suspects was >> in a player?s mind. That reeks of arbitrariness influenced by bias. >> >> Is there no better way? >> > > No. > > Take a claim ruling. If a player tells you he's "drawing trumps", > plural, and there is onlyu (Tribute to the Platters ?) one trump out, won't you rule as if he's > going to play two rounds of trumps? What is that, other than ruling > according to what the TD suspects was in the claimer's mind? I wounldn't always. In Flemish, one uses the plural form to call a single card from dummy. In several languages, including French, one uses the plural form to address somebody whom one respects (this is also the reason why "heavens" are a plural). > Sad but true, but TD's need to be mind-readers. The better mind-reader > you are, the better TD you'll be. If you don't like that, get out of > the > kitchen. Or I could ask for such cases to be less common in the next rulebook. Which I'm doing. Because IMO there is no such thing as a good mind-reader. And even if there were, his ability would always be suspect, creating resentment about rulings. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 25 13:11:21 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:11:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 25.03.2016 02:01, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > > What if the player tells you he is "drawing trumps", there is only one > trump out, and they player in his mind meant drawing only one round of > trump? Do you really rule differently? > > Bob, who wants out of the kitchen as much as possible And what if one opponent has shown the exact count of the trump suit in the bidding, so that declarer knows that "drawing trumps" will need only one round, as each opponent has exactly one left ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 25 13:19:31 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:19:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F523EE.9050106@gmx.de> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <56F4EF9F.8080906@skynet.be> <56F523EE.9050106@gmx.de> Message-ID: Le 25.03.2016 12:41, Jeff Easterson a ?crit?: > Astute observation Herman; I had the same thought. Aside from that it > might be a simple case of linguistic carelessness on part of the > speaker. I suspect it would be a very hard line to interpret this (the > plural) so seriously. > Of course. (and BTW Herman is right in distinguishing between English and Flemish) Say that there is one outstanding high trump, and you intend to play your side cards (which are all high) until they ruff, keeping your last trump to ruff their return. That's a classical case for claiming, and you'll claim by saying "I play everything but trumps". (let's be careful : at least that's the standard way to do it in French) Well, taking it literally, this is an impossible claim, because if they don't ruff at all, you'll have to lead your trump at trick 13. Of course, the TD will allow the claim. And I don't call this mind-reading. Best regards Alain From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Mar 25 13:45:46 2016 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:45:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:11 AM, agot wrote: > Le 25.03.2016 02:01, Robert Frick a ?crit : > >> >> What if the player tells you he is "drawing trumps", there is only one >> trump out, and they player in his mind meant drawing only one round of >> trump? Do you really rule differently? >> >> Bob, who wants out of the kitchen as much as possible > > And what if one opponent has shown the exact count of the trump suit in > the bidding, so that declarer knows that "drawing trumps" will need only > one round, as each opponent has exactly one left ? If he intends to draw only one round of trumps because he (assumes he) knows they?re 1-1 from the bidding, then he must say so when stating his line. Otherwise, ?drawing trumps? with two out means playing (at least) two rounds of trumps. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 25 14:19:27 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:19:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 25.03.2016 13:45, Eric Landau a ?crit?: > On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:11 AM, agot wrote: > >> Le 25.03.2016 02:01, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> >>> What if the player tells you he is "drawing trumps", there is only >>> one >>> trump out, and they player in his mind meant drawing only one round >>> of >>> trump? Do you really rule differently? >>> >>> Bob, who wants out of the kitchen as much as possible >> >> And what if one opponent has shown the exact count of the trump suit >> in >> the bidding, so that declarer knows that "drawing trumps" will need >> only >> one round, as each opponent has exactly one left ? > > If he intends to draw only one round of trumps because he (assumes he) > knows they?re 1-1 from the bidding, then he must say so when stating > his line. Otherwise, ?drawing trumps? with two out means playing (at > least) two rounds of trumps. What's the difference between this, and claiming on a straightforward squeeze when you know, from bidding and early play, that all relevant cards in all relevant suits are held by one single player ? Which IIRC is allowed. You just say "West will be squeezed between plums and grapes", you don't need to add "because I know from such and such event that he holds them". From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Mar 25 19:50:00 2016 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:50:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, agot wrote: > Le 25.03.2016 13:45, Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:11 AM, agot wrote: >> >>> Le 25.03.2016 02:01, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> >>>> >>>> What if the player tells you he is "drawing trumps", there is only >>>> one >>>> trump out, and they player in his mind meant drawing only one round >>>> of >>>> trump? Do you really rule differently? >>>> >>>> Bob, who wants out of the kitchen as much as possible >>> >>> And what if one opponent has shown the exact count of the trump suit >>> in >>> the bidding, so that declarer knows that "drawing trumps" will need >>> only >>> one round, as each opponent has exactly one left ? >> >> If he intends to draw only one round of trumps because he (assumes he) >> knows they?re 1-1 from the bidding, then he must say so when stating >> his line. Otherwise, ?drawing trumps? with two out means playing (at >> least) two rounds of trumps. > > What's the difference between this, and claiming on a straightforward > squeeze when you know, from bidding and early play, that all relevant > cards in all relevant suits are held by one single player ? > > Which IIRC is allowed. You just say "West will be squeezed between plums > and grapes", you don't need to add "because I know from such and such > event that he holds them?. No difference really. It suffices for the claimer who knows that trumps are 1-1 to say ?drawing trumps in one round?, the equivalent of ?squeezing West between plums and grapes?. The point being that he must say *something* to indicate his intention; he can?t wait to see trumps break, or West get sqeezed, before saying that he knew about it all along. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 25 23:41:46 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:41:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> Message-ID: Let me try again. Someone claims on a simple squeeze. You come to the table and he says he meant double squeeze. Both are reasonable. Herman, I believe, is saying that he will now try to read the player's mind. Look deep into his eyes. Observe his pulse. Look for tells. Judge his sincerity. I just rule he said simple squeeze. No mind reading for me. I have seen sociopaths lie, and I am not good enough to catch them. I can't see how my way leads to anarchy. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Mar 26 00:18:47 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 00:18:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> Message-ID: <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> Am 25.03.2016 um 23:41 schrieb Robert Frick: > Let me try again. Someone claims on a simple squeeze. You come to the table and he says he meant double squeeze. Both are reasonable. > > Herman, I believe, is saying that he will now try to read the player's mind. I did not completely read what went on earlier, so I take your word for it. > Look deep into his eyes. Observe his pulse. Look for tells. Judge his sincerity. > > I just rule he said simple squeeze. No mind reading for me. I have seen sociopaths lie, and I am not good enough to catch them. Well, I know Herman personally, I have some idea of his abilities as a dirctor ( never mind that we often disagree, that has nothing to do with it). He would catch many a liar, believe me. Sociopaths.... they may be a different case altogether. I have seen some, and I didn`t always catch them, as a TD. A lot of things are know now are hindsight, and we know what Churchill said about that. I would like to encourage you to believe that you _can_ catch them, and at the same time realize that you are human, therefor fallible, and that you might _not_ catch them this time... I have had to do with people who lied to me, and to everybody else. Sometimes I caught them, sometimes not, I will never know how good my success rate was, probably not as good as I would like to have it be, but assuming that you are not good enough looks like a way to certain defeat to me. Confidence in one`s own abilities is important to a TD, while realization of one`s shortcomings (and work to remove them) is important, too. > > I can't see how my way leads to anarchy. I can`t, either. Do what you feel comfortable with. It is you that has to look in the mirror in the morning. If you can do that all is well. Your style may change over the years, or it may not, and whether that is right or wrong only you can say. If it works for you your players are going to be comfortable, too, and that is what they can ask of a TD. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 26 01:23:17 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:23:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> Message-ID: Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and which are not? On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:18:47 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 25.03.2016 um 23:41 schrieb Robert Frick: >> Let me try again. Someone claims on a simple squeeze. You come to the table and he says he meant double squeeze. Both are reasonable. >> >> Herman, I believe, is saying that he will now try to read the player's mind. > > I did not completely read what went on earlier, so I take your word for it. > >> Look deep into his eyes. Observe his pulse. Look for tells. Judge his sincerity. >> >> I just rule he said simple squeeze. No mind reading for me. I have seen sociopaths lie, and I am not good enough to catch them. > > Well, I know Herman personally, I have some idea of his abilities as a > dirctor ( never mind that we often disagree, that has nothing to do with > it). He would catch many a liar, believe me. Sociopaths.... they may be > a different case altogether. I have seen some, and I didn`t always > catch them, as a TD. A lot of things are know now are hindsight, and we > know what Churchill said about that. I would like to encourage you to > believe that you _can_ catch them, and at the same time realize that you > are human, therefor fallible, and that you might _not_ catch them this > time... I have had to do with people who lied to me, and to everybody > else. Sometimes I caught them, sometimes not, I will never know how good > my success rate was, probably not as good as I would like to have it be, > but assuming that you are not good enough looks like a way to certain > defeat to me. Confidence in one`s own abilities is important to a TD, > while realization of one`s shortcomings (and work to remove them) is > important, too. > >> >> I can't see how my way leads to anarchy. > > I can`t, either. Do what you feel comfortable with. It is you that has > to look in the mirror in the morning. If you can do that all is well. > Your style may change over the years, or it may not, and whether that is > right or wrong only you can say. If it works for you your players are > going to be comfortable, too, and that is what they can ask of a TD. > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Mar 26 07:57:53 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:57:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56F632F1.9080302@t-online.de> No. If don`t "know" they mispulled, then I rule they didn`t. Especially in this mispull-situations you can read a lot out of how and when they react, and if they don`t react they are unlikely to have mispulled. The liars are usually not the biggest problem, more difficult are those who subconsciously rationalized what they did or didn`t do. They tell the truth as they perceive it. They do _not_ lie, they tell you what they think (by now) has happened. Problem is, that is not what _really_ happened... Example: you ask players how long some opp hesitated. You ask n players, you get n answers. You let someone demonstrate the pause, they all agree. Time is most difficult to tell without chronometers... Am 26.03.2016 um 01:23 schrieb Robert Frick: > Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and which are not? > > From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 26 18:14:47 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:14:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <56F4EF9F.8080906@skynet.be> <56F523EE.9050106@gmx.de> Message-ID: <56F6C387.7030405@skynet.be> And this is where we differ in opinion: agot schreef: > Le 25.03.2016 12:41, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : >> Astute observation Herman; I had the same thought. Aside from that it >> might be a simple case of linguistic carelessness on part of the >> speaker. I suspect it would be a very hard line to interpret this (the >> plural) so seriously. >> > > Of course. (and BTW Herman is right in distinguishing between English > and Flemish) > > Say that there is one outstanding high trump, and you intend to play > your side cards (which are all high) until they ruff, keeping your last > trump to ruff their return. > > That's a classical case for claiming, and you'll claim by saying "I play > everything but trumps". (let's be careful : at least that's the standard > way to do it in French) > > Well, taking it literally, this is an impossible claim, because if they > don't ruff at all, you'll have to lead your trump at trick 13. > > Of course, the TD will allow the claim. > And I don't call this mind-reading. > Whereas I do call it mind-reading. The player has stated something which proves that he has a correct view of the board. But it is not his statement that we are judging upon, but his state of mind. After all, we MIGHT (and don't attacl me on this, I stress the might) rule exactly the same way on a claimer who does not state anything. Which is clear evidence that we are not ruling on the uttered phrase, but on the state of mind. For which we use the uttered phrase as evidence. I call that mind-reading. Assisted mind-reading, but mind-reading after all. And you do the same if you rule against the silent claimer. You will say "you may well have known this, but I cannot be certain of it since you did not say whay you should have said." Again, mind-reading. There is no way you can rule in this game without some form of mind-reading. And the better you are at reading the minds of the players, the less trouble you will have with players saying "but it's clear that ...". You may well be in favour of laws that require less mind-reading, and a lot has been done in the past to make the laws less reliant on mind-reading, but you will not be able to do away with all mind-reading. Herman. > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 26 18:19:43 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:19:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I > calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. > (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In > this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and > which are not? > Yes. I don't want laws that tell me which way to rule in this case. If the laws tell me to rule against them, then I feel bad in those cases in which I am certain the players was telling the truth. And I don't imagine anyone will advocate laws telling the TD to trust everyone explicitly. Herman. > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:18:47 -0400, Matthias Berghaus > wrote: > >> Am 25.03.2016 um 23:41 schrieb Robert Frick: >>> Let me try again. Someone claims on a simple squeeze. You come to >>> the table and he says he meant double squeeze. Both are >>> reasonable. >>> >>> Herman, I believe, is saying that he will now try to read the >>> player's mind. >> >> I did not completely read what went on earlier, so I take your word >> for it. >> >>> Look deep into his eyes. Observe his pulse. Look for tells. Judge >>> his sincerity. >>> >>> I just rule he said simple squeeze. No mind reading for me. I >>> have seen sociopaths lie, and I am not good enough to catch >>> them. >> >> Well, I know Herman personally, I have some idea of his abilities >> as a dirctor ( never mind that we often disagree, that has nothing >> to do with it). He would catch many a liar, believe me. >> Sociopaths.... they may be a different case altogether. I have seen >> some, and I didn`t always catch them, as a TD. A lot of things are >> know now are hindsight, and we know what Churchill said about that. >> I would like to encourage you to believe that you _can_ catch them, >> and at the same time realize that you are human, therefor fallible, >> and that you might _not_ catch them this time... I have had to do >> with people who lied to me, and to everybody else. Sometimes I >> caught them, sometimes not, I will never know how good my success >> rate was, probably not as good as I would like to have it be, but >> assuming that you are not good enough looks like a way to certain >> defeat to me. Confidence in one`s own abilities is important to a >> TD, while realization of one`s shortcomings (and work to remove >> them) is important, too. >> >>> >>> I can't see how my way leads to anarchy. >> >> I can`t, either. Do what you feel comfortable with. It is you that >> has to look in the mirror in the morning. If you can do that all is >> well. Your style may change over the years, or it may not, and >> whether that is right or wrong only you can say. If it works for >> you your players are going to be comfortable, too, and that is what >> they can ask of a TD. >> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Mar 26 19:43:51 2016 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:43:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <349A67B3-5751-40B6-B46F-4574C89BC0F0@comcast.net> > On Mar 26, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Robert Frick schreef: >> Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I >> calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. >> (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In >> this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and >> which are not? >> > > Yes. > > I don't want laws that tell me which way to rule in this case. > If the laws tell me to rule against them, then I feel bad in those cases > in which I am certain the players was telling the truth. > And I don't imagine anyone will advocate laws telling the TD to trust > everyone explicitly. > > Herman. But does this not raise sizable possibilities for introducing bias or favoritism?despite even the best directors' claims that they would never, never do that? ?bp > >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:18:47 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >> wrote: >> >>> Am 25.03.2016 um 23:41 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>> Let me try again. Someone claims on a simple squeeze. You come to >>>> the table and he says he meant double squeeze. Both are >>>> reasonable. >>>> >>>> Herman, I believe, is saying that he will now try to read the >>>> player's mind. >>> >>> I did not completely read what went on earlier, so I take your word >>> for it. >>> >>>> Look deep into his eyes. Observe his pulse. Look for tells. Judge >>>> his sincerity. >>>> >>>> I just rule he said simple squeeze. No mind reading for me. I >>>> have seen sociopaths lie, and I am not good enough to catch >>>> them. >>> >>> Well, I know Herman personally, I have some idea of his abilities >>> as a dirctor ( never mind that we often disagree, that has nothing >>> to do with it). He would catch many a liar, believe me. >>> Sociopaths.... they may be a different case altogether. I have seen >>> some, and I didn`t always catch them, as a TD. A lot of things are >>> know now are hindsight, and we know what Churchill said about that. >>> I would like to encourage you to believe that you _can_ catch them, >>> and at the same time realize that you are human, therefor fallible, >>> and that you might _not_ catch them this time... I have had to do >>> with people who lied to me, and to everybody else. Sometimes I >>> caught them, sometimes not, I will never know how good my success >>> rate was, probably not as good as I would like to have it be, but >>> assuming that you are not good enough looks like a way to certain >>> defeat to me. Confidence in one`s own abilities is important to a >>> TD, while realization of one`s shortcomings (and work to remove >>> them) is important, too. >>> >>>> >>>> I can't see how my way leads to anarchy. >>> >>> I can`t, either. Do what you feel comfortable with. It is you that >>> has to look in the mirror in the morning. If you can do that all is >>> well. Your style may change over the years, or it may not, and >>> whether that is right or wrong only you can say. If it works for >>> you your players are going to be comfortable, too, and that is what >>> they can ask of a TD. >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Blml mailing >>>> list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at tameware.com Sat Mar 26 23:10:19 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:10:19 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments Message-ID: As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments per Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160326/6563e323/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 23:13:10 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:13:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael schreef: > Robert Frick schreef: > > Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I > > calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. > > (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In > > this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and > > which are not? > > > > Yes. > > I don't want laws that tell me which way to rule in this case. > If the laws tell me to rule against them, then I feel bad in those cases > in which I am certain the players was telling the truth. > And I don't imagine anyone will advocate laws telling the TD to trust > everyone explicitly. > A question for Herman (and for other directors with the same with as Herman here): So instead of ruling in a predictable way in this kind of situation in order to reduce director-caused variance in rulings, you are sure that you can do so much better that it is worth it to you to announce which players you believe are lying? Why? Do you really imagine that your divining powers are wonderful enough to justify publicly appraising the character of your customers? I have seen directors who thought they were hot at imagining who is lying and who is not, but in my opinion, they were kidding themselves. In many cases, their decisions look to me exactly like favoritism, because they "know" their regular customers, and so believe them. Thus, their friends got better rulings. But if you really are so hot at divining who is lying, Herman, then you're in the wrong profession. You can draw seven-figure incomes in private industry with that skill---assuming you can demonstrate your skill. Have you demonstrated your skill to anyone? What percent of the time do your guesses turn out proven correct? How do you know that your success rate is so high that it overwhelms the downsides I have mentioned? Jerry Fusselman From lskelso at ihug.com.au Sat Mar 26 23:36:12 2016 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:36:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F70EDC.7090502@ihug.com.au> Hello Adam None that I am aware of. Regards Laurie On 27/03/2016 9:10 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments > per Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most > favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that > was at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? > From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Mar 26 23:47:21 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:47:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F71179.40405@t-online.de> Am 26.03.2016 um 23:10 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: > As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments > per Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most > favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that > was at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? > > > I don`t think so From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 27 00:50:34 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:50:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F632F1.9080302@t-online.de> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F632F1.9080302@t-online.de> Message-ID: So, as I understand it, two players might claim mispull in about the same situations, and you and Herman will look at one and decide the player is telling the truth and rule in his favor. You will look at the other and say "I think you are not telling the truth, even though you might think you are," and rule against that player. Yes, I do not want to be in that kitchen. On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:57:53 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > No. If don`t "know" they mispulled, then I rule they didn`t. Especially > in this mispull-situations you can read a lot out of how and when they > react, and if they don`t react they are unlikely to have mispulled. The > liars are usually not the biggest problem, more difficult are those who > subconsciously rationalized what they did or didn`t do. They tell the > truth as they perceive it. They do _not_ lie, they tell you what they > think (by now) has happened. Problem is, that is not what _really_ > happened... Example: you ask players how long some opp hesitated. You > ask n players, you get n answers. You let someone demonstrate the pause, > they all agree. Time is most difficult to tell without chronometers... > > Am 26.03.2016 um 01:23 schrieb Robert Frick: >> Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and which are not? >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 27 10:25:08 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:25:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <349A67B3-5751-40B6-B46F-4574C89BC0F0@comcast.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <349A67B3-5751-40B6-B46F-4574C89BC0F0@comcast.net> Message-ID: <56F798E4.6020002@skynet.be> Robert Park schreef: > >> On Mar 26, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >> >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I >>> calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. >>> (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In >>> this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and >>> which are not? >>> >> >> Yes. >> >> I don't want laws that tell me which way to rule in this case. >> If the laws tell me to rule against them, then I feel bad in those cases >> in which I am certain the players was telling the truth. >> And I don't imagine anyone will advocate laws telling the TD to trust >> everyone explicitly. >> >> Herman. > > But does this not raise sizable possibilities for introducing bias or favoritism?despite even the best directors' claims that they would never, never do that? > Yes it would, and it does, but for the alternative, see my text above. Surely you don't want either of those two alternate scenarios? > ?bp > > >> >>> >>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:18:47 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 25.03.2016 um 23:41 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>> Let me try again. Someone claims on a simple squeeze. You come to >>>>> the table and he says he meant double squeeze. Both are >>>>> reasonable. >>>>> >>>>> Herman, I believe, is saying that he will now try to read the >>>>> player's mind. >>>> >>>> I did not completely read what went on earlier, so I take your word >>>> for it. >>>> >>>>> Look deep into his eyes. Observe his pulse. Look for tells. Judge >>>>> his sincerity. >>>>> >>>>> I just rule he said simple squeeze. No mind reading for me. I >>>>> have seen sociopaths lie, and I am not good enough to catch >>>>> them. >>>> >>>> Well, I know Herman personally, I have some idea of his abilities >>>> as a dirctor ( never mind that we often disagree, that has nothing >>>> to do with it). He would catch many a liar, believe me. >>>> Sociopaths.... they may be a different case altogether. I have seen >>>> some, and I didn`t always catch them, as a TD. A lot of things are >>>> know now are hindsight, and we know what Churchill said about that. >>>> I would like to encourage you to believe that you _can_ catch them, >>>> and at the same time realize that you are human, therefor fallible, >>>> and that you might _not_ catch them this time... I have had to do >>>> with people who lied to me, and to everybody else. Sometimes I >>>> caught them, sometimes not, I will never know how good my success >>>> rate was, probably not as good as I would like to have it be, but >>>> assuming that you are not good enough looks like a way to certain >>>> defeat to me. Confidence in one`s own abilities is important to a >>>> TD, while realization of one`s shortcomings (and work to remove >>>> them) is important, too. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't see how my way leads to anarchy. >>>> >>>> I can`t, either. Do what you feel comfortable with. It is you that >>>> has to look in the mirror in the morning. If you can do that all is >>>> well. Your style may change over the years, or it may not, and >>>> whether that is right or wrong only you can say. If it works for >>>> you your players are going to be comfortable, too, and that is what >>>> they can ask of a TD. >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 27 10:32:10 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:32:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman schreef: > Herman De Wael schreef: >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I >>> calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. >>> (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In >>> this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and >>> which are not? >>> >> >> Yes. >> >> I don't want laws that tell me which way to rule in this case. >> If the laws tell me to rule against them, then I feel bad in those cases >> in which I am certain the players was telling the truth. >> And I don't imagine anyone will advocate laws telling the TD to trust >> everyone explicitly. >> > > A question for Herman (and for other directors with the same with as > Herman here): > > So instead of ruling in a predictable way in this kind of situation in > order to reduce director-caused variance in rulings, you are sure that > you can do so much better that it is worth it to you to announce which > players you believe are lying? Why? Do you really imagine that your > divining powers are wonderful enough to justify publicly appraising > the character of your customers? > > I have seen directors who thought they were hot at imagining who is > lying and who is not, but in my opinion, they were kidding themselves. > In many cases, their decisions look to me exactly like favoritism, > because they "know" their regular customers, and so believe them. > Thus, their friends got better rulings. > > But if you really are so hot at divining who is lying, Herman, then > you're in the wrong profession. You can draw seven-figure incomes in > private industry with that skill---assuming you can demonstrate your > skill. > > Have you demonstrated your skill to anyone? What percent of the time > do your guesses turn out proven correct? How do you know that your > success rate is so high that it overwhelms the downsides I have > mentioned? > > Jerry Fusselman Jerry, what's the alternative? A player tells you he's mispulled. The opponents don't object. You take the lawbook, which says: "any statement by any player must be disbelieved without recourse". You rule that his bid should stand. This is no way to be ruling. You have to be allowed to trust that some people (most, even) will sometimes tell the truth. You must accept that some people will get away with a misbid by claimoing it's a mispull. (*) Laws which tell us to never trust players simply won't work. Laws which tell us to always trust players obviously won't work. So the only laws left are those in which the TD has to decide whether someone is lying or not. And if you don't like that, go find another sport. Surely deciding upon intent and mind-reading are not necessary for football referees (insert any other sport, I'm sure many have laws that distinguish between intentional and non-intentional fouls) Herman. (*) BTW, by claiming it's a mispull, he has not given any information about his hand to partner, so what's the harm even if he's lying. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 27 10:34:34 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:34:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F632F1.9080302@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56F79B1A.3000005@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > So, as I understand it, two players might claim mispull in about the same situations, and you and Herman will look at one and decide the player is telling the truth and rule in his favor. > > You will look at the other and say "I think you are not telling the truth, even though you might think you are," and rule against that player. > > Yes, I do not want to be in that kitchen. > Then which kitchen you want to be in? Either you tell the first, of whom you are convinced he's telling the truth, that the laws tell you to consider he's not. Or you tell the opponents of the second one, of whom the whole table knows he's lying, that the laws tell you that you must trust what he says. Two kitchens I don't want to be in. Herman. > > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:57:53 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> No. If don`t "know" they mispulled, then I rule they didn`t. Especially >> in this mispull-situations you can read a lot out of how and when they >> react, and if they don`t react they are unlikely to have mispulled. The >> liars are usually not the biggest problem, more difficult are those who >> subconsciously rationalized what they did or didn`t do. They tell the >> truth as they perceive it. They do _not_ lie, they tell you what they >> think (by now) has happened. Problem is, that is not what _really_ >> happened... Example: you ask players how long some opp hesitated. You >> ask n players, you get n answers. You let someone demonstrate the pause, >> they all agree. Time is most difficult to tell without chronometers... >> >> Am 26.03.2016 um 01:23 schrieb Robert Frick: >>> Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and which are not? >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sven at svenpran.net Sun Mar 27 10:46:19 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:46:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001d18805$24939200$6dbab600$@svenpran.net> > Herman De Wael [...] > Surely deciding upon intent and mind-reading are not necessary for football > referees [...] [Sven Pran] Have you never seen a football player obtaining a free kick or even a penalty kick by "filming" (pretending an irregularity from an opponent)? Football referees have similar problems, and they have to make their decision within split seconds. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 27 11:55:14 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:55:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <000001d18805$24939200$6dbab600$@svenpran.net> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> <000001d18805$24939200$6dbab600$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <56F7AE02.8060303@skynet.be> My point exactly, Sven. And sometimes they give yellow cards for a "schwalbe" which then turns out not to have been one. No TD job is easy, and nothing we can do about that. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael > [...] >> Surely deciding upon intent and mind-reading are not necessary for > football >> referees > [...] > > [Sven Pran] > Have you never seen a football player obtaining a free kick or even a > penalty kick by "filming" (pretending an irregularity from an opponent)? > > Football referees have similar problems, and they have to make their > decision within split seconds. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From bpark56 at comcast.net Sun Mar 27 12:35:24 2016 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:35:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F7AE02.8060303@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> <000001d18805$24939200$6dbab600$@svenpran.net> <56F7AE02.8060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: In my view, truthfulness & mispull should not be issues. Perhaps the rules don?t say so now, but why can?t it be, ?You made a mistake, live with it!? ?bp > On Mar 27, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > My point exactly, Sven. > And sometimes they give yellow cards for a "schwalbe" which then turns > out not to have been one. > No TD job is easy, and nothing we can do about that. > > Herman. > > Sven Pran schreef: >>> Herman De Wael >> [...] >>> Surely deciding upon intent and mind-reading are not necessary for >> football >>> referees >> [...] >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Have you never seen a football player obtaining a free kick or even a >> penalty kick by "filming" (pretending an irregularity from an opponent)? >> >> Football referees have similar problems, and they have to make their >> decision within split seconds. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Mar 27 14:38:57 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:38:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:10:19 +0100, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments per > Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most > favorable >result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was > at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? > In Austria, only at club level, and I propose to change that as well. -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160327/f1e9fc6b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 27 21:58:54 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:58:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> Message-ID: In American football, they do distinguish intentional from unintentional fouls. But they never ask the players and try to read their minds. My understanding in soccer is that, if the referee thinks something illegal has happened, he does NOT ask the players if they did anything wrong. If, after having given a penalty, the player earnestly says he did nothing wrong, do referees change the ruling because he seems to be telling the truth? Herman, I just want to be clear on this. In a mispull situation, if you think a player does not seem to be telling the truth, you will tell him this? And, yes, in a mispull situation, I just look at the auction and the hands to make my decision. If I think a player is 60% chance of lying, I make the same decision I would make for someone who seemed to be telling the truth. Once you have called a player a liar, do you have ethical obligations to report this? I honestly don't know. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 28 10:36:40 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:36:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56F8ED18.6090601@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > In American football, they do distinguish intentional from > unintentional fouls. But they never ask the players and try to read > their minds. > No, but if a referee decides an action was intentional, has he not "read" the mind of the player? > My understanding in soccer is that, if the referee thinks something > illegal has happened, he does NOT ask the players if they did > anything wrong. If, after having given a penalty, the player > earnestly says he did nothing wrong, do referees change the ruling > because he seems to be telling the truth? > Indeed not. > Herman, I just want to be clear on this. In a mispull situation, if > you think a player does not seem to be telling the truth, you will > tell him this? > Yes. > And, yes, in a mispull situation, I just look at the auction and the > hands to make my decision. If I think a player is 60% chance of > lying, I make the same decision I would make for someone who seemed > to be telling the truth. > And does that seem fair to you? You say "in the same situation". So in both cases, a player has "mispulled" 3Cl when he actually has 8 clubs, but 3Cl is a two-suiter. Based on that, you decide not to allow the mispull. How can you say that one player is lying and the other isn't? And we always have the escape f "I know you are telling the truth, but you did the axact same thing as someone who would have been lying, so...". Actually something we shall be saying to both players. The fact remains that you can only allow the correction of the mispull if you decide to believe the player. And that is mindreading, no matter how many other clues you are using. > Once you have called a player a liar, do you have ethical obligations > to report this? I honestly don't know. If I can prove he is lying, I will. But the laws allow me to rule against him without calling him a liar. Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 13:30:37 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:30:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Made by sheep for chimpanzees Message-ID: David Burn, final stanza of "I claimed it on a double squeeze": Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air And made by sheep for chimpanzees But that is scarcely my affair - I claimed it on a double squeeze. The claimant (David Burn's team-mate) was asked to continue play by his opponents. As the claimant was unaware of the Law 68D requirement that play cease he obeyed the opponents' request. Alas, during the extended play declarer pulled a wrong card, ruining the timing for the double squeeze. Under the 1997 Laws the sheep on the Appeals Committee had no alternative but to rule the double squeeze claim valid, and hence rule that the contract made. (Not relevant to the ruling is the unsubstantiated rumour that an opponent was a chimpanzee, intentionally infracting Law 68D in the hope that declarer would make a later mistake.) Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160328/d99cd615/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 28 15:21:30 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:21:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F8ED18.6090601@skynet.be> References: <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> <56F8ED18.6090601@skynet.be> Message-ID: To me, if I see someone smiling and conclude he is happy, that is not mind reading. If I see him sharpening his pencil and decide he wants a sharper pencil, that is not mind reading. To me, "mind reading" was was trying to tell if someone was lying based on nonverbal cues. Like tone of voice. I think most people use loudness and seeming sincerity. I guess you, being an expert, use many other cues. When the manager of the club says, with sincerity and complete confidence, that she mispulled a pass and meant 1 no trump, I don't make any effort whatsoever to decide if she is lying. I tell her (and anyone else) that I can't rule mispull in this situation. When a player claims mispull on a step response (like Blackwood), I simply tell the player I don't accept mispulls in that situation. I give a much longer explanation if it seems appropriate. On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:36:40 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Robert Frick schreef: >> In American football, they do distinguish intentional from >> unintentional fouls. But they never ask the players and try to read >> their minds. >> > > No, but if a referee decides an action was intentional, has he not > "read" the mind of the player? > >> My understanding in soccer is that, if the referee thinks something >> illegal has happened, he does NOT ask the players if they did >> anything wrong. If, after having given a penalty, the player >> earnestly says he did nothing wrong, do referees change the ruling >> because he seems to be telling the truth? >> > > Indeed not. > >> Herman, I just want to be clear on this. In a mispull situation, if >> you think a player does not seem to be telling the truth, you will >> tell him this? >> > > Yes. > >> And, yes, in a mispull situation, I just look at the auction and the >> hands to make my decision. If I think a player is 60% chance of >> lying, I make the same decision I would make for someone who seemed >> to be telling the truth. >> > > And does that seem fair to you? > You say "in the same situation". So in both cases, a player has > "mispulled" 3Cl when he actually has 8 clubs, but 3Cl is a two-suiter. > Based on that, you decide not to allow the mispull. How can you say that > one player is lying and the other isn't? > And we always have the escape f "I know you are telling the truth, but > you did the axact same thing as someone who would have been lying, > so...". Actually something we shall be saying to both players. > > The fact remains that you can only allow the correction of the mispull > if you decide to believe the player. And that is mindreading, no matter > how many other clues you are using. > >> Once you have called a player a liar, do you have ethical obligations >> to report this? I honestly don't know. > > If I can prove he is lying, I will. But the laws allow me to rule > against him without calling him a liar. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 28 17:11:55 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:11:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: References: <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> <56F8ED18.6090601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56F949BB.2070107@skynet.be> Robert, would you mind re-reading what you posted here? It does not make sense. Robert Frick schreef: > To me, if I see someone smiling and conclude he is happy, that is not > mind reading. If I see him sharpening his pencil and decide he wants > a sharper pencil, that is not mind reading. > To me, that is exactly what mind-reading is. Using external clues to determine the mind of a person. Being happy, or wanting to write in pencil, are states of mind. You decide that the playeer has those states of mind, and so you are mind-reading. > To me, "mind reading" was was trying to tell if someone was lying > based on nonverbal cues. Like tone of voice. I think most people use > loudness and seeming sincerity. I guess you, being an expert, use > many other cues. > Indeed, and what is the difference between using tone of voice and looking at a smile. Both are external clues used to determine a state of mind. The difference is quantitative at best, but not qualitative, and not warranting a different name. Certainly not if you will then use that different name in an attempt to have the laws exclude one and not the other. > When the manager of the club says, with sincerity and complete > confidence, that she mispulled a pass and meant 1 no trump, I don't > make any effort whatsoever to decide if she is lying. I tell her (and > anyone else) that I can't rule mispull in this situation. > And so do I, trying to be as diplomatic as possible. I use the external evidence, the distance of separation between the two cards, as a clue of the state of mind of the manager, and yes, that means I believe she is not telling the truth. > When a player claims mispull on a step response (like Blackwood), I > simply tell the player I don't accept mispulls in that situation. I > give a much longer explanation if it seems appropriate. > And when the entire table agrees that he pulled out 5D and the 5H came with it, and he put the 5H card away as soon as he noticed? Do you still rule against him? Then you'd be wrong. My point is that you cannot write laws that will cover every single occasion. You don't accept 1NT/Pass, or Blackwood responses, but what about responses to some other convention - one you have never heard of. Or do you rule against all conventional answers? You simply cannot write laws to cover all cases. The only law that makes sense is the current L25, and that one forces you to discover the intent of the player. And since you don't accept mind-reading, how are you going to do that? In a sense, your pre-set rules, possibly adapted along the road, are just shortcuts to your mind-reading after all. Only you don't want to call it mindreading. A rose, by any other name, ... (forgive me if the quote is not totally correct) Herman. > > > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:36:40 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> >> >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> In American football, they do distinguish intentional from >>> unintentional fouls. But they never ask the players and try to >>> read their minds. >>> >> >> No, but if a referee decides an action was intentional, has he not >> "read" the mind of the player? >> >>> My understanding in soccer is that, if the referee thinks >>> something illegal has happened, he does NOT ask the players if >>> they did anything wrong. If, after having given a penalty, the >>> player earnestly says he did nothing wrong, do referees change >>> the ruling because he seems to be telling the truth? >>> >> >> Indeed not. >> >>> Herman, I just want to be clear on this. In a mispull situation, >>> if you think a player does not seem to be telling the truth, you >>> will tell him this? >>> >> >> Yes. >> >>> And, yes, in a mispull situation, I just look at the auction and >>> the hands to make my decision. If I think a player is 60% chance >>> of lying, I make the same decision I would make for someone who >>> seemed to be telling the truth. >>> >> >> And does that seem fair to you? You say "in the same situation". So >> in both cases, a player has "mispulled" 3Cl when he actually has 8 >> clubs, but 3Cl is a two-suiter. Based on that, you decide not to >> allow the mispull. How can you say that one player is lying and the >> other isn't? And we always have the escape f "I know you are >> telling the truth, but you did the axact same thing as someone who >> would have been lying, so...". Actually something we shall be >> saying to both players. >> >> The fact remains that you can only allow the correction of the >> mispull if you decide to believe the player. And that is >> mindreading, no matter how many other clues you are using. >> >>> Once you have called a player a liar, do you have ethical >>> obligations to report this? I honestly don't know. >> >> If I can prove he is lying, I will. But the laws allow me to rule >> against him without calling him a liar. >> >> Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml >> mailing list Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From g3 at nige1.com Mon Mar 28 20:00:51 2016 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:00:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Adam Wildavsky] As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments per Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? [Petrus Schuster OSB] In Austria, only at club level, and I propose to change that as well. [Nige1] Another small step in the wrong direction. Current rules reward and encourage players who break the law. For example, weighted rulings reward law-breakers and disappoint their victims.? A common example is when a player is tempted to use UI to get a top score when complying with the law would leave him with a bottom. Rules that are complex, unnecessary, incomprehensible, or non-deterrent should be simplified and rationalised -- or expurgated. Otherwise we have a cheaters? charter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160328/2b1a72d2/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Mar 28 20:30:21 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:30:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <20160328180911.A2CF7B3400B1@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <20160328180911.A2CF7B3400B1@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <56F9783D.1040502@t-online.de> Am 28.03.2016 um 20:00 schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > > [Adam Wildavsky] > > As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments > per Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most > favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that > was at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? > > [Petrus Schuster OSB] > > In Austria, only at club level, and I propose to change that as well. > > [Nige1] > > Another small step in the wrong direction. Current rules reward and > encourage players who break the law. > This is known as proof by assertion.... > For example, weighted rulings reward law-breakers and disappoint their > victims. > I never had players disappointed by a weighted ruling.... > A common example is when a player is tempted to use UI to get a top > score when complying with the law would leave him with a bottom. > If that were so, then the weighted ruling should leave him not much better off, as actions not deemed a LA may not be part of the weighting. And any action that _is_ a LA may be taken. Soo where is the problem? > Rules that are complex, > Not really, not for a good TD. > unnecessary > Says who? > , incomprehensible, > or maybe just not understood? > or non-deterrent > recipients of a weighted score usually feel deterred all right, and what`s more, they feel treated fairly, not arbitrarily, which is even more important. > should be simplified and rationalised -- or expurgated. Otherwise we > have a cheaters? charter. > Ok, so you went on this vein for years. Now come over with the goods. Tell us a case where a _competent_ ruling handed the non-offenders a worse score that they would likely have gotten without 12C1c. Competent, mind you, as some case where someone messed up is no proof of anything. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 28 22:09:25 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:09:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <56F9783D.1040502@t-online.de> References: <20160328180911.A2CF7B3400B1@relay4.webreus.nl> <56F9783D.1040502@t-online.de> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Berghaus Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:30 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments Am 28.03.2016 um 20:00 schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > > [Adam Wildavsky] > > As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments > per Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most > favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that > was at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? > > [Petrus Schuster OSB] > > In Austria, only at club level, and I propose to change that as well. > > [Nige1] > > Another small step in the wrong direction. Current rules reward and > encourage players who break the law. > This is known as proof by assertion.... > For example, weighted rulings reward law-breakers and disappoint their > victims. > I never had players disappointed by a weighted ruling.... > A common example is when a player is tempted to use UI to get a top > score when complying with the law would leave him with a bottom. > If that were so, then the weighted ruling should leave him not much better off, as actions not deemed a LA may not be part of the weighting. And any action that _is_ a LA may be taken. Soo where is the problem? > Rules that are complex, > Not really, not for a good TD. > unnecessary > Says who? > , incomprehensible, > or maybe just not understood? > or non-deterrent > recipients of a weighted score usually feel deterred all right, and what`s more, they feel treated fairly, not arbitrarily, which is even more important. > should be simplified and rationalised -- or expurgated. Otherwise we > have a cheaters? charter. > Ok, so you went on this vein for years. Now come over with the goods. Tell us a case where a _competent_ ruling handed the non-offenders a worse score that they would likely have gotten without 12C1c. Competent, mind you, as some case where someone messed up is no proof of anything. ***** I will instead offer the reverse. Some years ago my side bid to a sensible 2S when the opponents outbid insensibly to 3H. The insensibility being that it was tempo and mannerisms that made it apparent 3H was a much better contract for the opponents. The TD agreed on that point; however disagreed on the point of proper remedy. I thought 8 tricks in 2S was a fair remedy and I objected to the 9 tricks that were awarded- as the route was not particularly clear, I could see some miniscule fraction (not permitted) of 9 tricks but being forced by L12 to accept 100% of an unlikely but possible outcome was repugnant. As an aside. Of the hundreds of valid claims of damage I have made, this is the only one that resulted in an adjustment- and it is curious that I found the adjustment to be unjustly high- and as such am still hostile to it. As you may surmise, I am hostile to the notion of remedies that pervert justice. I am not saying that the ACBL has finally gotten it right, but they've at least reentered the galaxy on this one. regards roger pewick From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Mar 28 22:41:01 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:41:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: References: <20160328180911.A2CF7B3400B1@relay4.webreus.nl> <56F9783D.1040502@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56F996DD.4040809@t-online.de> Am 28.03.2016 um 22:09 schrieb r pewick: > I will instead offer the reverse. Some years ago my side bid to a > sensible 2S when the opponents outbid insensibly to 3H. The > insensibility being that it was tempo and mannerisms that made it > apparent 3H was a much better contract for the opponents. The TD > agreed on that point; however disagreed on the point of proper remedy. > I thought 8 tricks in 2S was a fair remedy and I objected to the 9 > tricks that were awarded- as the route was not particularly clear, I > could see some miniscule fraction (not permitted) of 9 tricks but > being forced by L12 to accept 100% of an unlikely but possible outcome > was repugnant. As an aside. Of the hundreds of valid claims of damage > I have made, this is the only one that resulted in an adjustment- and > it is curious that I found the adjustment to be unjustly high- and as > such am still hostile to it. As you may surmise, I am hostile to the > notion of remedies that pervert justice. You said that much better than I managed to do, thank you. 12C1c is aimed at giving both sides the expected score without any infraction. Since we don`t know which way a two-way finesse is about to be taken, or whether someone always solves a difficult problem, we weight the score. So offenders don`t have to suffer -140, but you don`t have to, either, and it can be something you suffer. I remember, after reading your account, a decision I was given long before weighted scores. It gave me a trick I was unlikely (to put it mildly) to have won, and I reacted much like you did. It was about an overtrick in a partscore, too, and nobody (including dummy and me) wanted me to have that trick, but the TD had no choice (as the laws were written then) but to give it to me. Everyone involved would have loved a weighted score, but this was in the 1990ies, before even the 1997 laws.... Thank you for reminding me, I am going to use that argument when next I teach a course for aspiring TDs. > I am not saying that the ACBL has finally gotten it right, but they've > at least reentered the galaxy on this one. regards roger pewick > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 29 09:31:32 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:31:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> Roger and Matthias have said it better than I could, but I'd like to add my 2 cents: Nigel Guthrie schreef: > [Adam Wildavsky] > > As of January 1 of this year the ACBL is using weighted adjustments per > Law 12C1c. Are there any jurisdictions continuing to use the "most > favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was > at all probable" adjustments of Law 12C1e? > > [Petrus Schuster OSB] > > In Austria, only at club level, and I propose to change that as well. > > [Nige1] > > Another small step in the wrong direction. Current rules reward and > encourage players who break the law. > > For example, weighted rulings reward law-breakers and disappoint their > victims. A common example is when a player is tempted to use UI to get > a top score when complying with the law would leave him with a bottom. > There are no weighted scores after use of UI. So get this one out of your head, Nigel. > Rules that are complex, unnecessary, incomprehensible, or non-deterrent > should be simplified and rationalised -- or expurgated. Otherwise we > have a cheaters? charter. > And this one is also completely wrong. Why should complex rules be a cheater's charter? If a law is too complex, then it may be used wrongly by an less-competent director. But why should this benefit the cheater? Is it not equally possible that the non-offender gets too much? Again, an argument that holds no water. You may be against weighted scores, Nigel, but your arguments are completely wrong. Could it be that you are against something you don't know? Then arguing against it is just conservatism. Trust the people who have been using it for 20 years now. Weighted scores are not too complex, they are not a cheater's charter and players understand and accept them. As for the difficulty for Directors - yes, they are difficult. And establishing the weights is a difficult thing. But with weighted scores, the discussion is whether to award 30% or 20%. Without them, the discussion is between 100% and 0%. Which do you prefer? I know which one I do. Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 30 02:06:38 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:06:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Helpless Dummy Message-ID: Interesting though straightforward ruling: Declarer's LHO, on lead, led the ace of diamonds. Declarer didn't see it. Declarer did not call for a card from dummy; dummy did not play a card. Declarer's RHO now played the queen of diamonds. Declarer, thinking that was the lead and having K10x of diamonds, played the king. That did not work well. It was agreed by all that if RHO had not played prematurely, everyone would have sat around until declarer was told of the ace of diamonds lead. So it was agreed by all that the infraction of playing out of turn gained a trick. The laws are clear -- no rectification. (I would have preferred the 1997 laws: "forfeits the right to penalize") Curiously, I can't think of any advantages to forbidding the dummy to point out irregularities. Just lots of disadvantages. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Mar 30 07:12:37 2016 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:12:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> References: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Herman de Wael] There are no weighted scores after use of UI. So get this one out of your head, Nigel. [Nigel] Alleged use of UI. Thank you Herman. I learn something new every day. But, are you sure? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160330/5b86b7f5/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 30 09:25:11 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:25:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <20160330051256.C0209B308049@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> <20160330051256.C0209B308049@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <56FB7F57.4040206@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > [Herman de Wael] > > There are no weighted scores after use of UI. So get this one out of > > your head, Nigel. > > [Nigel] > > */Alleged/* use of UI. Thank you Herman. I learn something new every > day. But, are you sure? > No, use of UI. There are no rectifications after non-use of UI, so if we're talking of a rectification the alleged use has become "use". OK? And yes, I am certain. This is what is called the Reveley ruling, and it has been called illegal by every single one in authority. Mind you, the phrasing is not completely correct: there can be weighted scores after UI, but only in the sense that there can be different outcomes AFTER the action that was illegal was changed into a legal one. Example: Offenders use hesitation Blackwood to reacht 6H. Non-offenders defend to 6Sp. TD decides to rule back to 5H, but since 6H has not been played at the table, he does not know how many tricks to award: 12 or 13. He can give a weighted score of 60% of +480 and 40% of +510. What he cannot do is say "without the UI, offenders would have bid 6 in 30% of the cases, so I give 70% of +480 and 30% of +980", since that includes partly the illegal action. And you are right Nigel, such rulings would encourage illegal behaviour, since it awards the offender by giving them 30% more than the good player who follows the UI laws and stays in 5H. Which is precisely why these rulings are not allowed. OK? Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 30 16:17:55 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:17:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] tangled In-Reply-To: <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> References: <27397a2f006352e9cfd7eb58c14c33fb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56EEE7A0.305@nhcc.net> <000801d182f1$d84b2e70$88e18b50$@svenpran.net> <964fd91fe2e4b1ca8686f642f0017c16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56F2BC41.9090601@nhcc.net> <4167517B-B0FC-42F6-8B50-E1EF2768A584@comcast.net> <56F39C2E.80505@skynet.be> <052ce09684776941ba9e05786d5b537b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <2281541B-957D-4363-A360-8D6FC3F3EDF9@verizon.net> <56F5C757.5010708@t-online.de> <56F6C4AF.3070108@skynet.be> <56F79A8A.6090403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56FBE013.2070004@nhcc.net> On 2016-03-27 4:32 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jerry, what's the alternative? > A player tells you he's mispulled. The alternative is for the Laws to say that a call, once made, cannot be changed. That's what it already says (absent special circumstances, such as MI) for played cards, even for declarer. Under the present Laws, I agree with Herman that some degree of mind reading is required. That doesn't mean I like it. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Wed Mar 30 23:24:25 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> References: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <405A8C9C-F0FB-4EF8-B27B-9EDE21F3B273@wesleyan.edu> On 2016 Mar 28, at 14:00, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Current rules reward and encourage players who break the law. For example, weighted rulings reward law-breakers and disappoint their victims. A common example is when a player is tempted to use UI to get a top score when complying with the law would leave him with a bottom. ?The Laws ... are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.? [Intro] ?The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.? [12B1] ?In order to do equity ... an assigned adjusted score may be weighted ....? [12C1c] If you feel that a player who should have known better should be ?punished? for violating 16B1/73C, assess a procedural [90] or disciplinary [91] penalty, but adjust the result to ?rectify damage? and ?do equity? [12C]. On 2016 Mar 29, at 03:31, Herman De Wael wrote: > There are no weighted scores after use of UI. Sure there are. If the table result stemmed from a violation of 16B1/73C, you have to use 12C1c to assign an adjusted score. What you can?t do is give a non-zero weight to any result that, given the UI, could be achieved only by violating 16B1/73C (including the table result). Example: N bids 4H. W at favorable vulnerability bids 4S when P is a logical alternative and W has extraneous information from E that demonstrably suggests bidding 4S. The table result is 4SXE-2, NS+300. Your analysis (including looking at results from other tables) suggests that N had a 50/50 chance of making 4H if W had passed. Compute a 12C1c adjusted score for NS: 60% of the matchpoints for +620 plus 40% of the matchpoints for -100 (plus 0% of the matchpoints for +300). If this is better for NS than the table result, replace the table result with the adjusted score. (At your discretion give EW a procedural or disciplinary penalty, regardless of whether you adjust the score.) Right? Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: From g3 at nige1.com Thu Mar 31 01:33:32 2016 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:33:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <405A8C9C-F0FB-4EF8-B27B-9EDE21F3B273@wesleyan.edu> References: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> <405A8C9C-F0FB-4EF8-B27B-9EDE21F3B273@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: [Timothy N HILL] ?The Laws ... are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.? [Intro] ?The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.? [12B1] ?In order to do equity ... an assigned adjusted score may be weighted ....? [12C1c] [Nigel] That?s the nub of the problem. In many cases, especially when UI is used, the law-breaker would have had a worse result had he complied with the law. Few infractions are noticed, reported, or ruled against. On the rare occasions when a director rules against a habitual law-breaker, equity mitigates deterrence. In the long term, his ?carelessness? is rewarded. Often victims complain that that the derisory redress wasn?t worth the hassle of calling the director, especially in the confusion of ?protect yourself?, SEWOG, and weighed rulings (Incidentally, the latter pointless and unnecessary rules should just be dropped) [Timothy N HILL] If you feel that a player who should have known better should be ?punished? for violating 16B1/73C, assess a procedural [90] or disciplinary [91] penalty, but adjust the result to ?rectify damage? and ?do equity? [12C]. [Nigel] In practice, directors rarely and inconsistently impose procedural or disciplinary penalties. I asked a director with decades of top-level experience about them. He told me that players resent them. They regard them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. The director has never imposed one. Far better to include an element deterrence in basic rulings. [Herman De Wael] There are no weighted scores after use of UI. So get this one out of your head, Nigel. [Timothy N HILL] Sure there are. If the table result stemmed from a violation of 16B1/73C, you have to use 12C1c to assign an adjusted score. What you can?t do is give a non-zero weight to any result that, given the UI, could be achieved only by violating 16B1/73C (including the table result). [Nigel] Thus, top directors cannot agree on how the law applies to simple basic cases with agreed facts. When laws are incomprehensible, over-subjective and non-deterrent, would-be honest players become frustrated, disillusioned, and paranoid. Cheating is never justified but when the rules are a mess, it becomes more understandable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160330/d9fcd04f/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Mar 31 09:06:34 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:06:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <20160330234358.2B907B6F0406@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> <405A8C9C-F0FB-4EF8-B27B-9EDE21F3B273@wesleyan.edu> <20160330234358.2B907B6F0406@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <56FCCC7A.2040606@t-online.de> Am 31.03.2016 um 01:33 schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > > [Timothy N HILL] > > ?The Laws ... are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where > non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.? [Intro] ?The objective of a > score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to > take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its > infraction.? [12B1] ?In order to do equity ... an assigned adjusted > score may be weighted ....? [12C1c] > > [Nigel] > > That?s the nub of the problem. In many cases, especially when UI is > used, the law-breaker would have had a worse result had he complied > with the law. Few infractions are noticed, reported, or ruled against. > On the rare occasions when a director rules against a habitual > law-breaker, equity mitigates deterrence. In the long term, his > ?carelessness? is rewarded. Often victims complain that that the > derisory redress wasn?t worth the hassle of calling the director, > especially in the confusion of ?protect yourself?, SEWOG, and weighed > rulings (Incidentally, the latter pointless and unnecessary rules > should just be dropped) > > [Timothy N HILL] > > If you feel that a player who should have known better should be > ?punished? for violating 16B1/73C, assess a procedural [90] or > disciplinary [91] penalty, but adjust the result to ?rectify damage? > and ?do equity? [12C]. > > [Nigel] > > In practice, directors rarely and inconsistently impose procedural or > disciplinary penalties. > Seems that you know other directors than I do. > I asked a director with decades of top-level experience about them. > He told me that players resent them. > Well, who wouldn`t? But the crux of the matter often lies in hiw you sell your decision. Players should not resent the decision, they should realize they did something wrong. If you don`t make them realize that, they are not going to understand why they are handed a PP, and then it is the director`s fault. > They regard them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. > You may observe that Tim began his last sentence above with " should have known better...". How would you call that? If that is someone who often plays in your game it shouldn`t come to that, some measures should have been taken if said player has violated _that_ rule a couple of times before. Yes, we have penalized players, we have banned players (temporarily) from our club games, which always had a healthy effect. All came back (except the one who died, sad to say), and all showed much better behaviour afterwards. > The director has never imposed one. Far better to include an element > deterrence in basic rulings. > This is your moment. Show us how an element of deterrence is put into basic rulings. Tell us how the job is done. Please. > [Herman De Wael] > > There are no weighted scores after use of UI. So get this one out of > your head, Nigel. > > [Timothy N HILL] > > Sure there are. If the table result stemmed from a violation of > 16B1/73C, you have to use 12C1c to assign an adjusted score. What you > can?t do is give a non-zero weight to any result that, given the UI, > could be achieved only by violating 16B1/73C (including the table result). > > [Nigel] > > Thus, top directors cannot agree on how the law applies to simple > basic cases with agreed facts. > Thus, top directors do not speak the same mother language. If you had read Herman`s mails you would have noticed that he himself noted that his wording was not correct. He meant to express that in UI rulings there can be no part of a disallowed action in a weighted ruling (except in quite unusual circumstances where an allowed action may lead to the same contract reached by disallowed means, which is so rare usually to be reported on BLML, in other words nearly non-existent. > When laws are incomprehensible, > To you... > over-subjective > What, in the name of all saints, does that mean? > and non-deterrent, > I usually manage to deter players all right, and I am not known for being overly harsh.... > would-be honest players become frustrated, > Not where I play or direct, not that I know of. > disillusioned, > With what? Their level of play? Happens all the time. The directors? Again, not where I play, but I am willling to admit that in my neck of the woods we have a multitude of good directors. So have you, I believe. I wonder why you are so afflicted? > and paranoid. > Hmm. Am I answering a mail by such a person, I wonder? You are very big in asserting things, but less so with offering proof of those assertions. Asserting something over and over again does not make it more true. Show us a player who started to cheat because of the laws, who quit Bridge because of the laws, even one who developed a problem because of the laws. I started playing 30 years ago ( more, in fact, but near enough), and I haven`t met such a person. Not one. I know a few people who quit Bridge. The laws where no factor, and most of them came back to Bridge when the problem that kept them away was solved. In an earlier mail I asked you to show us proof, to show us cases that support your assertions. Silence.... Little wonder, you have none. Now the ACBL, after having refused to implement weighted scores for a long time, is about to do so. Only idiots on the other side of the water? Or rather people who gathered information from the NBOs that used them, and reasessed their position? Announcements, long time in use in England and other NBOs, have been introduced as of January 1st in my country. What prophets we had, all of a sudden. The end of the world i s near, and, more important, the end of Bridge. Did it happen? Neither, curiously. I wonder why.... > Cheating is never justified but when the rules are a mess, it becomes > more understandable. > There are a couple of cheating cases in the focus of interest in the last few months. So, show us where the messy laws made them cheaters. Go on, I am really interested to know how those people where made to cheat by our actual laws, (or even by the laws in use then, if you can do _that_ ) even though some of them where suspected 30 years ago. Chronological misorientation? Time-travelling suggestions? Let me remind you that half of a famous English pair had a history in other card games, too. All the fault of our current rules, I suppose. It can`t be otherwise, UI, weighted scores and other messy things did not exist back then. Fascinating thing, isn`t it? You may be in for a Nobel prize if you can prove that our current rules are to blame for cheaters long ago. Go on, I am rooting for you. I never communicated with a Nobel prize winner before. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml