From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 09:02:49 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:02:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L10c In-Reply-To: <58b3dda8.484a1c0a.6b004.0840@mx.google.com> References: <65f19b09-aaa2-09ac-80b9-11a37f9131b5@skynet.be> <58b3dda8.484a1c0a.6b004.0840@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: I think Herman was remembering the 1997 laws. Richard Hills: The laws of chess have not fundamentally changed since the Renaissance (when "chess of the maddened queen" was introduced). If the WBF adopted a similar policy of updating its laws every half-millennium, instead of every ten years, it would simplify Herman remembering which iteration of the fabulous Lawbook was operative. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, February 27, 2017, wrote: > I think Herman was remembering the 1997 laws. > > > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Richard Hills > > *Sent: *26 February 2017 06:56 > *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Subject: *[BLML] L10c > > > > Herman De Wael: > > > > [snip] > > However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: > the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may > accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But > when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Not so. Herman has slightly misinterpreted the (admittedly ambiguous) 2007 > Law 55. The forthcoming unambiguous 2017 Law 55 will reveal that it is not > necessarily the defender first to speak who decides for the partnership, > but rather: > > > > "If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the > player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail". > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, February 24, 2017, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > Richard is correct as to the insufficient bid. Since only you can > accept, any agreement by which partner can influence you is illegal > communication. > However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: > the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may > accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But > when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. > And if this is illegal communication, then there is nothing anyone can > do about it. > Herman. > > Richard Hills wrote: > > Mike Dodson: > > > > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids > > made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s > > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention > > to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner > > is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our > > advantage. > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > 1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether > > or not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1). > > 2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in > > my opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from > > Partner). > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson > > >> wrote: > > > > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient > > bids made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s > > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call > > attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I > > assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he > > feels it is to our advantage. If it?s a lead out of turn and an > > opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say > > nothing unless I have a clear preference. Allowing partner to speak > > first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems > > allowed after a LOoT. > > > > If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling > > attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory > > by L10 (without consulting partner). Further as a director, should > > I rule against a player who didn?t notice a lead or bid from an > > unexpected source. And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the > > pause? PP on general principles or disqualification for deliberate > > violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I?ll know). > > > > Mike Dodson > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14006 - Release Date: > 02/23/17 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170302/31457aec/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 2 19:35:31 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:35:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L10c In-Reply-To: References: <65f19b09-aaa2-09ac-80b9-11a37f9131b5@skynet.be> <58b3dda8.484a1c0a.6b004.0840@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:02:49 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Gordon Rainsford: > > I think Herman was remembering the 1997 laws. > > Richard Hills: > > The laws of chess have not fundamentally changed since the Renaissance > (when "chess of the maddened queen" was introduced). > > If the WBF adopted a similar policy of updating its laws every > half-millennium, instead of every ten years, it would simplify Herman > remembering which iteration of the fabulous Lawbook was operative. :-) :-) relevance? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Monday, February 27, 2017, wrote: > >> I think Herman was remembering the 1997 laws. >> >> >> >> Sent from Mail for >> Windows 10 >> >> >> >> *From: *Richard Hills >> >> *Sent: *26 February 2017 06:56 >> *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List >> >> *Subject: *[BLML] L10c >> >> >> >> Herman De Wael: >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: >> the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may >> accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But >> when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. >> [snip] >> >> >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> >> >> Not so. Herman has slightly misinterpreted the (admittedly ambiguous) 2007 >> Law 55. The forthcoming unambiguous 2017 Law 55 will reveal that it is not >> necessarily the defender first to speak who decides for the partnership, >> but rather: >> >> >> >> "If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the >> player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail". >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Richard Hills >> >> On Friday, February 24, 2017, Herman De Wael > > wrote: >> >> Richard is correct as to the insufficient bid. Since only you can >> accept, any agreement by which partner can influence you is illegal >> communication. >> However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: >> the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may >> accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But >> when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. >> And if this is illegal communication, then there is nothing anyone can >> do about it. >> Herman. >> >> Richard Hills wrote: >> > Mike Dodson: >> > >> > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids >> > made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s >> > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention >> > to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner >> > is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our >> > advantage. >> > [snip] >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > 1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether >> > or not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1). >> > 2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in >> > my opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from >> > Partner). >> > >> > Best wishes, >> > >> > Richard Hills >> > >> > On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson > >> > > >> wrote: >> > >> > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient >> > bids made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s >> > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call >> > attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I >> > assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he >> > feels it is to our advantage. If it?s a lead out of turn and an >> > opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say >> > nothing unless I have a clear preference. Allowing partner to speak >> > first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems >> > allowed after a LOoT. >> > >> > If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling >> > attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory >> > by L10 (without consulting partner). Further as a director, should >> > I rule against a player who didn?t notice a lead or bid from an >> > unexpected source. And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the >> > pause? PP on general principles or disqualification for deliberate >> > violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I?ll know). >> > >> > Mike Dodson >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> > >> > >> > No virus found in this message. >> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14006 - Release Date: >> 02/23/17 >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 02:45:56 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:45:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of Message-ID: In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge I included this joke: POTUS See Trump In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' time. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170303/66dab603/attachment.html From mdholmes8 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 3 04:34:25 2017 From: mdholmes8 at yahoo.com (Michael Holmes) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:34:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1326162047.107614.1488512065777@mail.yahoo.com> Richard, I don't find your joke funny! ?Further, I don't think this is the forum for this! ?I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! ?Let's keep it to bridge. Mike Holmes?Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush ; Rebecca Plush Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge I included this joke: POTUSSee Trump In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' time. Best wishes, Richard Hills _______________________________________________ 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/20170303/44c14251/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Fri Mar 3 05:16:37 2017 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 05:16:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of Message-ID: On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit.Regards,Anton Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Michael Holmes Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush , Rebecca Plush Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of Richard, I don't find your joke funny! ?Further, I don't think this is the forum for this! ?I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! ?Let's keep it to bridge. Mike Holmes?Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush ; Rebecca Plush Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge I included this joke: POTUSSee Trump In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' time. Best wishes, Richard Hills _______________________________________________ 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/20170303/cc69c0da/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 06:47:40 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:47:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: <1326162047.107614.1488512065777@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1326162047.107614.1488512065777@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mike Holmes: [snip] Let's keep it to bridge. Richard Hills: On Wednesday night I visited the cinema to watch the sing-a-long version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The relevance of this to bridge is that in one scene King Arthur wished to cross a bridge. But his path was blocked by a Black Knight, who gave this ruling, "None shall Pass." Therefore Arthur and the Black Knight fought. Every time Arthur removed a limb from the Black Knight he claimed victory. But the Black Knight insisted on continuing. Likewise, the 2017 Lawbook permits play to continue after a claim (provided that all four players concur). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, March 3, 2017, Michael Holmes wrote: > Richard, > > I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the forum > for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! Let's keep it > to bridge. > > Mike Holmes > > Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Richard Hills > > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Cc:* Richard Neville >; Rebecca > Plush >; Rebecca Plush < > rebecca at rebeccaplush.id.au > > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM > *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge > I included this joke: > > POTUS > See Trump > > In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the > fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant > joke in four years' time. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170303/49b8e51e/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Mar 3 07:05:21 2017 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 17:05:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. There should be more examples of how to apply some of the Laws, always promised but never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of a.witzen Sent: Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. Regards, Anton Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Michael Holmes Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush , Rebecca Plush Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of Richard, I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the forum for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! Let's keep it to bridge. Mike Holmes Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 _____ From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush ; Rebecca Plush Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge I included this joke: POTUS See Trump In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' time. Best wishes, Richard Hills _______________________________________________ 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/20170303/6e0578de/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 09:59:29 2017 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:59:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <0c3d2bb6-97c7-b87d-ee41-3b2fec43031c@gmail.com> On 03/03/2017 01:05 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. Well, Putin is certainly laughing at it! Brian. As was the Kaplan > > L25. There should be more examples of how to > > apply some of the Laws, always promised but > > never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *a.witzen > *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > > > On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as > beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. > > Regards, > > Anton > > > > > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Michael Holmes > > Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Cc: Richard Neville >, Rebecca Plush > >, Rebecca Plush > > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > Richard, > > > > I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the > forum for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! > Let's keep it to bridge. > > > > Mike Holmes > > > > Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *From:*Richard Hills > > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Cc:* Richard Neville >; Rebecca Plush > >; Rebecca Plush > > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM > *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > > > In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate > Bridge I included this joke: > > > > POTUS > > See Trump > > > > In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to > the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the > irrelevant joke in four years' time. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Mar 4 03:53:27 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 13:53:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. [snip] Richard Hills: The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, replacing it with a more sensible clause. The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law 25 (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A call (or designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration is now deemed intentional. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan > > L25. There should be more examples of how to > > apply some of the Laws, always promised but > > never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org > ] *On Behalf Of * > a.witzen > *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > > > On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as > beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. > > Regards, > > Anton > > > > > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Michael Holmes > > Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Cc: Richard Neville >, Rebecca > Plush >, Rebecca Plush < > rebecca at rebeccaplush.id.au > > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > Richard, > > > > I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the forum > for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! Let's keep it > to bridge. > > > > Mike Holmes > > > > Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Richard Hills > > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Cc:* Richard Neville >; Rebecca > Plush >; Rebecca Plush < > rebecca at rebeccaplush.id.au > > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM > *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > > > In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge > I included this joke: > > > > POTUS > > See Trump > > > > In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the > fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant > joke in four years' time. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170304/fff2f0bd/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 04:23:28 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 14:23:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law 75. Two of these that I particularly like are: 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of Misinformation the Director may unearth evidence that the offending side has "no agreed meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the Director can adjust the score if the non-offending side was damaged by not receiving the correct "no agreed meaning" explanation. 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation was erroneous. But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second thoughts are more correct than their own initial explanation? To prevent giving unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the 2017 Law 20F4) now permits the player to defer summoning the Director to correct their own possibly erroneous explanation until the Correction Period. The player retains the option to summon the Director earlier (plus if the player belatedly realises their own misexplanation after the expiry of the Correction Period, then they must summon the Director immediately then). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, replacing > it with a more sensible clause. > > The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law 25 > (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A call (or > designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration is now deemed > intentional. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan >> >> L25. There should be more examples of how to >> >> apply some of the Laws, always promised but >> >> never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Tony (Sydney) >> >> >> >> *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On >> Behalf Of *a.witzen >> *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM >> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >> >> >> >> On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as >> beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. >> >> Regards, >> >> Anton >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. >> >> A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam >> >> >> >> -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- >> Van: Michael Holmes >> Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) >> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush < >> Blizzard at dptech.net>, Rebecca Plush >> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >> >> Richard, >> >> >> >> I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the forum >> for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! Let's keep it >> to bridge. >> >> >> >> Mike Holmes >> >> >> >> Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Richard Hills >> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Cc:* Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush < >> Blizzard at dptech.net>; Rebecca Plush >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM >> *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >> >> >> >> In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge >> I included this joke: >> >> >> >> POTUS >> >> See Trump >> >> >> >> In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the >> fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant >> joke in four years' time. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20170305/8188caa8/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 07:10:56 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 17:10:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: The 2007 Law 23 (Awareness of Potential Damage) was poorly located in the 2007 Lawbook. It applied to both the auction and play, but it was nestled amongst auction-only Laws. So in 2017 the Awareness of Potential Damage has been renumbered Law 72C. To quote Eeyore, this move created a Useful Pot of empty space. Cunningly the 2017 Drafting Committee filled the Law 23 casual vacancy with the new concept of Comparable Call. This idea dramatically simplifies a Director's task in ruling on insufficient bids (and also in ruling on calls out-of-rotation). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, March 5, 2017, Richard Hills > wrote: > The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law 75. > Two of these that I particularly like are: > > 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of Misinformation > the Director may unearth evidence that the offending side has "no agreed > meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the Director can adjust the score > if the non-offending side was damaged by not receiving the correct "no > agreed meaning" explanation. > > 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director > IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation was > erroneous. > > But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second thoughts > are more correct than their own initial explanation? To prevent giving > unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the 2017 Law 20F4) now > permits the player to defer summoning the Director to correct their > own possibly erroneous explanation until the Correction Period. The player > retains the option to summon the Director earlier (plus if the player > belatedly realises their own misexplanation after the expiry of the > Correction Period, then they must summon the Director immediately then). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > >> Tony Musgrove: >> >> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, >> replacing it with a more sensible clause. >> >> The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law 25 >> (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A call (or >> designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration is now deemed >> intentional. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan >>> >>> L25. There should be more examples of how to >>> >>> apply some of the Laws, always promised but >>> >>> never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> >>> Tony (Sydney) >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *a.witzen >>> *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM >>> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >>> >>> >>> >>> On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as >>> beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Anton >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. >>> >>> A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- >>> Van: Michael Holmes >>> Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) >>> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush < >>> Blizzard at dptech.net>, Rebecca Plush >>> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >>> >>> Richard, >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the forum >>> for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! Let's keep it >>> to bridge. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Holmes >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* Richard Hills >>> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> *Cc:* Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush < >>> Blizzard at dptech.net>; Rebecca Plush >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM >>> *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >>> >>> >>> >>> In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate >>> Bridge I included this joke: >>> >>> >>> >>> POTUS >>> >>> See Trump >>> >>> >>> >>> In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to >>> the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the >>> irrelevant joke in four years' time. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20170305/79ca5af2/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 07:54:08 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 17:54:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: The movies Sliding Doors and Groundhog Day are fantasies whose core concept is the idea, "Small changes can cause dramatically different outcomes." Likewise the 2017 Drafting Committee inserted a small change into Law 91 (Penalize or Suspend), replacing "contestant" with "player or contestant", thus granting the Director more flexibility. For example, this permits the Director to disqualify** a cheat while permitting their entirely innocent partner to continue play with an authorised substitute. Best wishes, Richard Hills ** subject to approval from the Tournament Organizer On Sunday, March 5, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > The 2007 Law 23 (Awareness of Potential Damage) was poorly located in the > 2007 Lawbook. It applied to both the auction and play, but it was nestled > amongst auction-only Laws. So in 2017 the Awareness of Potential Damage has > been renumbered Law 72C. > > To quote Eeyore, this move created a Useful Pot of empty space. Cunningly > the 2017 Drafting Committee filled the Law 23 casual vacancy with the new > concept of Comparable Call. This idea dramatically simplifies a Director's > task in ruling on insufficient bids (and also in ruling on calls > out-of-rotation). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > >> The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law 75. >> Two of these that I particularly like are: >> >> 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of Misinformation >> the Director may unearth evidence that the offending side has "no agreed >> meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the Director can adjust the score >> if the non-offending side was damaged by not receiving the correct "no >> agreed meaning" explanation. >> >> 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director >> IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation was >> erroneous. >> >> But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second thoughts >> are more correct than their own initial explanation? To prevent giving >> unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the 2017 Law 20F4) now >> permits the player to defer summoning the Director to correct their >> own possibly erroneous explanation until the Correction Period. The player >> retains the option to summon the Director earlier (plus if the player >> belatedly realises their own misexplanation after the expiry of the >> Correction Period, then they must summon the Director immediately then). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: >> >>> Tony Musgrove: >>> >>> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. >>> [snip] >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, >>> replacing it with a more sensible clause. >>> >>> The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law 25 >>> (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A call (or >>> designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration is now deemed >>> intentional. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> >>>> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan >>>> >>>> L25. There should be more examples of how to >>>> >>>> apply some of the Laws, always promised but >>>> >>>> never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tony (Sydney) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On >>>> Behalf Of *a.witzen >>>> *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM >>>> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as >>>> beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Anton >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. >>>> >>>> A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- >>>> Van: Michael Holmes >>>> Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) >>>> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush < >>>> Blizzard at dptech.net>, Rebecca Plush >>>> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >>>> >>>> Richard, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the forum >>>> for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! Let's keep it >>>> to bridge. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Holmes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* Richard Hills >>>> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> *Cc:* Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush < >>>> Blizzard at dptech.net>; Rebecca Plush >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM >>>> *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate >>>> Bridge I included this joke: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> POTUS >>>> >>>> See Trump >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to >>>> the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the >>>> irrelevant joke in four years' time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/20170305/9ff420fb/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 5 08:00:28 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:00:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: I'm glad you like this, Richard. So do I. It's a tenet of the DWS that a player should be allowed to select NOT to give UI to his partner. Herman. Richard Hills wrote: > The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law 75. > Two of these that I particularly like are: > > 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of Misinformation > the Director may unearth evidence that the offending side has "no agreed > meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the Director can adjust the > score if the non-offending side was damaged by not receiving the correct > "no agreed meaning" explanation. > > 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director > IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation was > erroneous. > > But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second > thoughts are more correct than their own initial explanation? To prevent > giving unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the 2017 Law > 20F4) now permits the player to defer summoning the Director > to correct their own possibly erroneous explanation until the Correction > Period. The player retains the option to summon the Director earlier > (plus if the player belatedly realises their own misexplanation after > the expiry of the Correction Period, then they must summon the Director > immediately then). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > > Tony Musgrove: > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, > replacing it with a more sensible clause. > > The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law > 25 (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A > call (or designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration > is now deemed intentional. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan____ > > L25. There should be more examples of how to____ > > apply some of the Laws, always promised but____ > > never delivered (except some from Max Bavin)____ > > __ __ > > Cheers,____ > > __ __ > > Tony (Sydney)____ > > __ __ > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] > *On Behalf Of *a.witzen > *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of____ > > __ __ > > On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such > as beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit.____ > > Regards,____ > > Anton____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.____ > > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam____ > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Michael Holmes > Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush > , Rebecca Plush > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of ____ > > Richard,____ > > __ __ > > I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is > the forum for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of > you! Let's keep it to bridge.____ > > __ __ > > Mike Holmes____ > > ____ > > Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187____ > > __ __ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Richard Hills > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Cc:* Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush > ; Rebecca Plush > *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM > *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of____ > > __ __ > > In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of > Duplicate Bridge I included this joke:____ > > __ __ > > POTUS____ > > See Trump____ > > __ __ > > In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was > irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters > will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' time.____ > > __ __ > > Best wishes,____ > > __ __ > > Richard Hills____ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > __ > ______ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14056 - Release Date: 03/04/17 > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 5 08:03:17 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:03:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5aae2560-44ee-9c5f-65c6-961a74c40e5a@skynet.be> I think Richard is missing one point here: Richard Hills wrote: > The 2007 Law 23 (Awareness of Potential Damage) was poorly located in > the 2007 Lawbook. It applied to both the auction and play, but it was > nestled amongst auction-only Laws. So in 2017 the Awareness of Potential > Damage has been renumbered Law 72C. > > To quote Eeyore, this move created a Useful Pot of empty space. > Cunningly the 2017 Drafting Committee filled the Law 23 casual vacancy > with the new concept of Comparable Call. This idea dramatically > simplifies a Director's task in ruling on insufficient bids (and also in > ruling on calls out-of-rotation). This does NOT simplify the director's task, who now has to make a decision as to whether or not a substitute call is comparable. In previous versions, he could simply say: "if you change 2H to 3H it's OK", almost without checking the meanings of both. So this change does NOT simplify his task, but it does give him more leeway to making sensible rulings. I like it, FWIW. Herman. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017, Richard Hills > wrote: > > The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law > 75. Two of these that I particularly like are: > > 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of > Misinformation the Director may unearth evidence that the offending > side has "no agreed meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the > Director can adjust the score if the non-offending side was damaged > by not receiving the correct "no agreed meaning" explanation. > > 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director > IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation > was erroneous. > > But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second > thoughts are more correct than their own initial explanation? To > prevent giving unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the > 2017 Law 20F4) now permits the player to defer summoning the > Director to correct their own possibly erroneous explanation until > the Correction Period. The player retains the option to summon the > Director earlier (plus if the player belatedly realises their > own misexplanation after the expiry of the Correction Period, then > they must summon the Director immediately then). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > > Tony Musgrove: > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, > replacing it with a more sensible clause. > > The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of > Law 25 (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of > "unintentional". A call (or designation of dummy's card) based > on loss of concentration is now deemed intentional. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove > wrote: > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan____ > > L25. There should be more examples of how to____ > > apply some of the Laws, always promised but____ > > never delivered (except some from Max Bavin)____ > > __ __ > > Cheers,____ > > __ __ > > Tony (Sydney)____ > > __ __ > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of *a.witzen > *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of____ > > __ __ > > On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, > such as beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit.____ > > Regards,____ > > Anton____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.____ > > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam____ > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Michael Holmes > Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca > Plush , Rebecca Plush > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of ____ > > Richard,____ > > __ __ > > I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this > is the forum for this! I love the game of bridge like the > rest of you! Let's keep it to bridge.____ > > __ __ > > Mike Holmes____ > > ____ > > Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187____ > > __ __ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Richard Hills > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Cc:* Richard Neville ; Rebecca > Plush ; Rebecca Plush > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM > *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of____ > > __ __ > > In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of > Duplicate Bridge I included this joke:____ > > __ __ > > POTUS____ > > See Trump____ > > __ __ > > In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was > irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American > voters will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' time.____ > > __ __ > > Best wishes,____ > > __ __ > > Richard Hills____ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > __ > ______ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14059 - Release Date: 03/05/17 > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 08:28:31 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:28:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: <5aae2560-44ee-9c5f-65c6-961a74c40e5a@skynet.be> References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> <5aae2560-44ee-9c5f-65c6-961a74c40e5a@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: > To quote Eeyore, this move created a Useful Pot of empty space. > Cunningly the 2017 Drafting Committee filled the Law 23 casual vacancy > with the new concept of Comparable Call. This idea dramatically > simplifies a Director's task in ruling on insufficient bids (and also in > ruling on calls out-of-rotation). Herman De Wael: This does NOT simplify the director's task, who now has to make a decision as to whether or not a substitute call is comparable. In previous versions, he could simply say: "if you change 2H to 3H it's OK", almost without checking the meanings of both. [snip] Richard Hills: In both the previous 2007 Law 27B1(a) and the forthcoming 2017 Law 27B1(a) the Director can make an "almost" straightforward ruling a la Herman. Rather, it is the revised 2017 Law 27B1(b) which cross-references the new 2017 Law 23. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, March 5, 2017, Herman De Wael > wrote: > I think Richard is missing one point here: > > Richard Hills wrote: > > The 2007 Law 23 (Awareness of Potential Damage) was poorly located in > > the 2007 Lawbook. It applied to both the auction and play, but it was > > nestled amongst auction-only Laws. So in 2017 the Awareness of Potential > > Damage has been renumbered Law 72C. > > > > To quote Eeyore, this move created a Useful Pot of empty space. > > Cunningly the 2017 Drafting Committee filled the Law 23 casual vacancy > > with the new concept of Comparable Call. This idea dramatically > > simplifies a Director's task in ruling on insufficient bids (and also in > > ruling on calls out-of-rotation). > > This does NOT simplify the director's task, who now has to make a > decision as to whether or not a substitute call is comparable. > In previous versions, he could simply say: "if you change 2H to 3H it's > OK", almost without checking the meanings of both. > > So this change does NOT simplify his task, but it does give him more > leeway to making sensible rulings. > > I like it, FWIW. > Herman. > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017, Richard Hills > > wrote: > > > > The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law > > 75. Two of these that I particularly like are: > > > > 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of > > Misinformation the Director may unearth evidence that the offending > > side has "no agreed meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the > > Director can adjust the score if the non-offending side was damaged > > by not receiving the correct "no agreed meaning" explanation. > > > > 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director > > IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation > > was erroneous. > > > > But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second > > thoughts are more correct than their own initial explanation? To > > prevent giving unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the > > 2017 Law 20F4) now permits the player to defer summoning the > > Director to correct their own possibly erroneous explanation until > > the Correction Period. The player retains the option to summon the > > Director earlier (plus if the player belatedly realises their > > own misexplanation after the expiry of the Correction Period, then > > they must summon the Director immediately then). > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills > wrote: > > > > Tony Musgrove: > > > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, > > replacing it with a more sensible clause. > > > > The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of > > Law 25 (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of > > "unintentional". A call (or designation of dummy's card) based > > on loss of concentration is now deemed intentional. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove > > wrote: > > > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan____ > > > > L25. There should be more examples of how to____ > > > > apply some of the Laws, always promised but____ > > > > never delivered (except some from Max Bavin)____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Cheers,____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Tony (Sydney)____ > > > > __ __ > > > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org > > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of *a.witzen > > *Sent:* Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM > > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of____ > > > > __ __ > > > > On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, > > such as beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit.____ > > > > Regards,____ > > > > Anton____ > > > > __ __ > > > > __ __ > > > > __ __ > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.____ > > > > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam____ > > > > > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > > Van: Michael Holmes > > Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) > > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca > > Plush , Rebecca Plush > > > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of ____ > > > > Richard,____ > > > > __ __ > > > > I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this > > is the forum for this! I love the game of bridge like the > > rest of you! Let's keep it to bridge.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Mike Holmes____ > > > > ____ > > > > Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 > 928-9187____ > > > > __ __ > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > > > > *From:*Richard Hills > > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Cc:* Richard Neville ; Rebecca > > Plush ; Rebecca Plush > > > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM > > *Subject:* [BLML] Indexing, The Art of____ > > > > __ __ > > > > In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of > > Duplicate Bridge I included this joke:____ > > > > __ __ > > > > POTUS____ > > > > See Trump____ > > > > __ __ > > > > In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was > > irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American > > voters will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' > time.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Best wishes,____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Richard Hills____ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > __ > > ______ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14059 - Release Date: > 03/05/17 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170305/e8e1893b/attachment-0001.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sun Mar 5 16:18:00 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 02:18:00 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <641b1837.96d4c.15a9f0c7df1.Webtop.93@bigpond.com> ? Where do you get 50% from, Richard? "Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100% mistakes, as a "must do". Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director later. Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he has gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current wording. I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying, eg, "I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and clubs," is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over weak spades or hearts and clubs. I agree better to keep quiet if not 100% sure of an error. Jan ? ------ Original Message ------ On Sunday, 5 Mar, 2017 At 1:23 PM, Richard Hills wrote: The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law 75. Two of these that?I particularly like are: 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of Misinformation the Director may?unearth evidence that the offending side has "no agreed meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the Director can adjust the score if the non-offending side was damaged by not receiving the correct "no agreed meaning"?explanation. 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier?explanation was erroneous. But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own?second thoughts are more correct than their own?initial explanation? To prevent giving unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the 2017 Law 20F4) now permits the player to defer summoning the Director to?correct?their own?possibly erroneous explanation until the Correction Period. The player retains the option to summon the Director earlier (plus if the player belatedly realises their own?misexplanation?after the expiry of the Correction Period, then they must summon the Director immediately then). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: Tony Musgrove: Exactly, POTUS is a good joke.??As was the Kaplan L25. [snip] Richard Hills: The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, replacing it with a more sensible clause. The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law 25 (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A call (or designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration is now deemed intentional. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove wrote: Exactly, POTUS is a good joke.? As was the Kaplan L25.? There should be more examples of how to apply some of the Laws, always promised but never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) ? Cheers, ? Tony (Sydney) ? From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of a.witzen Sent: Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of ? On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. Regards, Anton ? ? ? Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Michael Holmes Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush , Rebecca Plush Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of Richard, ? I don't find your joke funny!? Further, I don't think this is the forum for this!? I love the game of bridge like the rest of you!? Let's keep it to bridge. ? Mike Holmes ? Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 ? From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush ; Rebecca Plush Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of ? In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge I included this joke: ? POTUS See Trump ? In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant joke in four years' time. ? Best wishes, ? Richard Hills _______________________________________________ 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/20170305/7835b6ca/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 04:29:43 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:29:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: <641b1837.96d4c.15a9f0c7df1.Webtop.93@bigpond.com> References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> <641b1837.96d4c.15a9f0c7df1.Webtop.93@bigpond.com> Message-ID: Jan Peach: Where do you get 50% from, Richard? Richard Hills: Out of my own fertile (and entirely unofficial) imagination. Jan Peach: "Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100% mistakes, as a "must do". Richard Hills: An immediate correction of a player's own misexplanation is still a permitted option under the new 2017 Laws 20F4 / 75. Jan Peach: Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director later. Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he has gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current wording. I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying, eg, "I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and clubs," is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over weak spades or hearts and clubs. I agree better to keep quiet if not 100% sure of an error. Richard Hills: The issue is not to "get normal table results". Many years ago the American expert partnership of Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles very scientifically reached a grand slam in clubs with a Trump suit of AKx opposite a void. And the issue is not "to keep quiet", which may be a Misinformation infraction. Rather the issue, in my highly unofficial opinion, is to have an uncontested auction correctly explained during the Clarification Period without having the earlier auction poisoned by unnecessarily large amounts of UI. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, March 6, 2017, Jan Peach wrote: > > Where do you get 50% from, Richard? > "Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't > readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100% > mistakes, as a "must do". > > Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director > later. > > Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he > has gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current > wording. > I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying, > eg, "I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and > clubs," is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over > weak spades or hearts and clubs. I agree better to keep quiet if not 100% > sure of an error. > Jan > > ------ Original Message ------ > On Sunday, 5 Mar, 2017 At 1:23 PM, Richard Hills > wrote: > > The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law 75. > Two of these that I particularly like are: > > 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of Misinformation > the Director may unearth evidence that the offending side has "no agreed > meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the Director can adjust the score > if the non-offending side was damaged by not receiving the correct "no > agreed meaning" explanation. > > 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director > IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation was > erroneous. > > But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second thoughts > are more correct than their own initial explanation? To prevent giving > unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the 2017 Law 20F4) now > permits the player to defer summoning the Director to correct their > own possibly erroneous explanation until the Correction Period. The player > retains the option to summon the Director earlier (plus if the player > belatedly realises their own misexplanation after the expiry of the > Correction Period, then they must summon the Director immediately then). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan L25. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, replacing > it with a more sensible clause. > > The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law 25 > (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A call (or > designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration is now deemed > intentional. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Exactly, POTUS is a good joke. As was the Kaplan > L25. There should be more examples of how to > apply some of the Laws, always promised but > never delivered (except some from Max Bavin) > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > a.witzen > Sent: Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as > beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit. > Regards, > Anton > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Michael Holmes > Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: Richard Neville , Rebecca Plush < > Blizzard at dptech.net>, Rebecca Plush > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > Richard, > > I don't find your joke funny! Further, I don't think this is the forum > for this! I love the game of bridge like the rest of you! Let's keep it > to bridge. > > Mike Holmes > > Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187 > > > From: Richard Hills > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: Richard Neville ; Rebecca Plush < > Blizzard at dptech.net>; Rebecca Plush > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM > Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of > > In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge > I included this joke: > > POTUS > See Trump > > In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the > fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant > joke in four years' time. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170306/6d3ff601/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 07:29:29 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:29:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] African or European swallow? Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] It's a tenet of the DWS that a player should be allowed to select NOT to give UI to his partner. Herman. Richard Hills: The movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail lacked the budget to hire horses. So the Pythons ingeniously solved this problem by having the knights' squires pretend to be horses by banging coconut shells together. By again mentioning the DWS (whose core tenet is intentionally giving Misinformation in response to a question), Herman has sunk from flogging a dead horse to flogging a dead coconut. See the 2017 Laws 20F1, 21B, 75B1 and especially the brand new 2017 Law 75D. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170306/72175f06/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon Mar 6 08:27:36 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 18:27:36 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> <641b1837.96d4c.15a9f0c7df1.Webtop.93@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <60e846b5.a019.15aa28430c3.Webtop.90@bigpond.com> ------ Original Message ------ On Monday, 6 Mar, 2017 At 1:29 PM, Richard Hills wrote: Jan Peach: Where do you get 50% from, Richard? Richard Hills: Out of my own fertile (and entirely unofficial) imagination. Jan Peach: "Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100% mistakes, as a "must do". Richard Hills: An immediate correction of a player's own misexplanation is still a permitted option under the new 2017 Laws 20F4 / 75. Jan Peach: Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director later. Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he has gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current wording. I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying, eg, "I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and clubs," is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over weak spades or hearts and clubs. I?agree better to keep quiet if not 100% sure of an error. Richard Hills: The issue is not to "get?normal table results". Many years ago the American expert partnership of Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles very scientifically reached a grand slam in clubs with a Trump suit of AKx opposite a void. And the issue is not "to keep quiet", which may be a Misinformation infraction. Rather the issue, in my highly unofficial opinion, is to have an uncontested auction correctly explained during the Clarification Period without having the earlier auction poisoned by unnecessarily large amounts of UI. Best wishes, Richard Hills snip Jan: Protecting infractors is not on my wish list. As you allude to elsewhere, the WBFLC has already clarified that creating UI by carrying out one's obligations is not an infraction. I trust that electing to correct one's own mis-explanation asap during the auction will still be covered by that minute. FWIW I think most will correct immediately. Judgement rulings don't always help infractors though sadly the tendency is to expect non-offenders to land on their feet in the dark. Keeping quiet until the end of the auctiin may be worth the gamble. Increasing judgement rulings at club level may even help the game. Nothing like experience to improve. I don't see that being a contested auction or uncontested makes any difference. If I have understood correctly, choosing to keep quiet during the auction when certain that one has given wrong information will not be an infraction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170306/f2125a59/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 6 08:39:33 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 08:39:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] African or European swallow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I cannot let this rest. Richard Hills wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > It's a tenet of the DWS that a player should be allowed to select NOT to > give UI to his partner. > Herman. > > Richard Hills: > > The movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail lacked the budget to hire > horses. So the Pythons ingeniously solved this problem by having the > knights' squires pretend to be horses by banging coconut shells together. > > By again mentioning the DWS (whose core tenet is intentionally giving > Misinformation in response to a question), The intention is not to give Misinformation, the intention is to omit giving Unauthorized Information. While doing so, the information that is given correctly describes the intended meaning of partner's bid and paints an accurate picture of partner's hand. It is the intention of the DWS'er to correctly explain the systemic meaning of the bid during the correction period. Giving the systemic meaning sooner could be construed as deliberately misinforming oppoonents of partner's meaning and hand. I failto see why Richard (and others) cannot look past the "no lying to opponents" argument to see the bigger picture that avoiding giving UI is a good thing. Herman. > Herman has sunk from flogging > a dead horse to flogging a dead coconut. See the 2017 Laws 20F1, 21B, > 75B1 and especially the brand new 2017 Law 75D. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17 > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 01:48:42 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:48:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: <60e846b5.a019.15aa28430c3.Webtop.90@bigpond.com> References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> <641b1837.96d4c.15a9f0c7df1.Webtop.93@bigpond.com> <60e846b5.a019.15aa28430c3.Webtop.90@bigpond.com> Message-ID: Jan Peach: [big snip] I don't see that being a contested auction or uncontested makes any difference. Richard Hills: In an uncontested auction the non-bidding side does not need to know an accurate explanation of the opposing partnership understandings until the Clarification Period. (Although one Futile Willie has argued that he wants to ask a question whenever it is his turn to call. This approach might be an infraction of the new 2017 Law 20G2, which prohibits a player from asking a question when his sole intent is to elicit an incorrect explanation.) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, March 6, 2017, Jan Peach wrote: > > ------ Original Message ------ > On Monday, 6 Mar, 2017 At 1:29 PM, Richard Hills > wrote: > > Jan Peach: > > Where do you get 50% from, Richard? > > Richard Hills: > > Out of my own fertile (and entirely unofficial) imagination. > > Jan Peach: > > "Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't > readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100% > mistakes, as a "must do". > > Richard Hills: > > An immediate correction of a player's own misexplanation is still a > permitted option under the new 2017 Laws 20F4 / 75. > > Jan Peach: > > Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director > later. > > Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he > has gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current > wording. > I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying, > eg, "I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and > clubs," is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over > weak spades or hearts and clubs. I agree better to keep quiet if not 100% > sure of an error. > > Richard Hills: > > The issue is not to "get normal table results". Many years ago the > American expert partnership of Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles very > scientifically reached a grand slam in clubs with a Trump suit of AKx > opposite a void. > > And the issue is not "to keep quiet", which may be a Misinformation > infraction. > > Rather the issue, in my highly unofficial opinion, is to have an > uncontested auction correctly explained during the Clarification Period > without having the earlier auction poisoned by unnecessarily large amounts > of UI. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > snip > > Jan: > Protecting infractors is not on my wish list. As you allude to elsewhere, > the WBFLC has already clarified that creating UI by carrying out one's > obligations is not an infraction. I trust that electing to correct one's > own mis-explanation asap during the auction will still be covered by that > minute. > > FWIW I think most will correct immediately. Judgement rulings don't always > help infractors though sadly the tendency is to expect non-offenders to > land on their feet in the dark. Keeping quiet until the end of the auctiin > may be worth the gamble. > > Increasing judgement rulings at club level may even help the game. Nothing > like experience to improve. > > I don't see that being a contested auction or uncontested makes any > difference. > > If I have understood correctly, choosing to keep quiet during the auction > when certain that one has given wrong information will not be an infraction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170307/4c727b10/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 04:20:48 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:20:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] African or European swallow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Monty Python: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Herman De Wael: [snip] Giving the systemic meaning sooner could be construed as deliberately misinforming opponents of partner's meaning and hand. [snip] Richard Hills: Listen, strange Directors lying about the definition of "misinforming" is no basis for a system of 2017 Lawbook interpretatation. Clarifying previous standard practice, the 2017 Law 75D1 specifically defines: "Players are expected to disclose their partnership agreements accurately (see Law 20F1); failure to do so constitutes Misinformation." On Monday, March 6, 2017, Herman De Wael wrote: > I cannot let this rest. > > Richard Hills wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > > > > [snip] > > It's a tenet of the DWS that a player should be allowed to select NOT to > > give UI to his partner. > > Herman. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > The movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail lacked the budget to hire > > horses. So the Pythons ingeniously solved this problem by having the > > knights' squires pretend to be horses by banging coconut shells together. > > > > By again mentioning the DWS (whose core tenet is intentionally giving > > Misinformation in response to a question), > > The intention is not to give Misinformation, the intention is to omit > giving Unauthorized Information. While doing so, the information that is > given correctly describes the intended meaning of partner's bid and > paints an accurate picture of partner's hand. > It is the intention of the DWS'er to correctly explain the systemic > meaning of the bid during the correction period. Giving the systemic > meaning sooner could be construed as deliberately misinforming > oppoonents of partner's meaning and hand. > I failto see why Richard (and others) cannot look past the "no lying to > opponents" argument to see the bigger picture that avoiding giving UI is > a good thing. > Herman. > > > Herman has sunk from flogging > > a dead horse to flogging a dead coconut. See the 2017 Laws 20F1, 21B, > > 75B1 and especially the brand new 2017 Law 75D. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: > 03/06/17 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170307/acc33667/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Mar 7 07:48:26 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:48:26 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of In-Reply-To: References: <000101d293e4$24d98f30$6e8cad90$@optusnet.com.au> <641b1837.96d4c.15a9f0c7df1.Webtop.93@bigpond.com> <60e846b5.a019.15aa28430c3.Webtop.90@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <3897ccb7.7aeff.15aa786b1fe.Webtop.84@bigpond.com> ------ Original Message ------ On Tuesday, 7 Mar, 2017 At 10:48 AM, Richard Hills wrote: Jan Peach: [big snip] I don't see that being a contested auction or uncontested makes any difference. Richard Hills: In an uncontested auction the non-bidding side does not need to know an accurate explanation of the opposing partnership understandings until the Clarification Period. (Although one Futile Willie has argued that he wants?to ask a?question?whenever it is his turn to call. This approach might be an infraction of the new 2017 Law 20G2, which prohibits a player from?asking?a?question when his?sole intent is to elicit an incorrect explanation.) Best wishes, Richard Hills An auction may be uncontested because at least one pass is based on the misinformation. Do offenders now choose what opponents need to know? I can see that they might not want opponents to benefit from having both the wrong and right explanation but should the laws be helping offenders so much? I have snipped everything below as my response has bounced twice. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170307/277b6085/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 06:59:56 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:59:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Romani ite domum Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/2982080.stm Many ignore the headings in the Laws. But correct wording of headings may help a Director understand the principle of a Law. Compare and contrast the headings of the 2007 versus 2017 Law 64 (Procedure after Establishment of a Revoke): 2007 64A - Rectification following a Revoke 64B - No Rectification 64C - Director Responsible for Equity 2017 64A - Automatic Trick Adjustment 64B - No Automatic Trick Adjustment 64C - Redress of Damage The 2017 headings tell it like it is, a guiding star for Director Caspar, Director Melchior and Director Balthazar. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170308/04ff832e/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 04:40:19 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:40:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Romani ite domum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another example of sloppy 2007 wording being corrected in 2017 is Law 40A1(b). 2007 Law 40A1(b): "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." Two problems with this 2007 wording: (1) Modern methods are mostly multifarious. Therefore it is usually a practical impossibility to disclose all partnership understandings before commencing. (2) In the second sentence the word "shall" is defined by the Introduction as "a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". Hence the completely accurate 2017 Law 40A1(b): "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done." On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/2982080.stm > > Many ignore the headings in the Laws. But correct wording of headings may > help a Director understand the principle of a Law. Compare and contrast the > headings of the 2007 versus 2017 Law 64 (Procedure after Establishment of a > Revoke): > > 2007 > 64A - Rectification following a Revoke > 64B - No Rectification > 64C - Director Responsible for Equity > > 2017 > 64A - Automatic Trick Adjustment > 64B - No Automatic Trick Adjustment > 64C - Redress of Damage > > The 2017 headings tell it like it is, a guiding star for Director Caspar, > Director Melchior and Director Balthazar. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170310/62a3b086/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 02:42:55 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:42:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Romani ite domum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2017 Introduction, paragraphs 4 & 5: The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling. The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Commentary at the end, an innovation, gives examples to help in this respect. Richard Hills: The 2007 Law 75 gave an indicative example on how the Director should treat the infraction of misinformation and the non-infraction of mistaken call (plus a potential use-of-UI infraction). The 2017 Law 75 has been rewritten to delete the indicative example, presumably because examples are discussed in the appended Commentary. As in 2007, the 2017 Introduction and the 2017 Definitions are officially part of the Laws. It has not yet been announced whether the 2017 Commentary is officially part of the Laws, or instead merely semi-official advice. Best wishes, Richard Hills P.S. And as in 2007, the 2017 Index is NOT part of the Laws. Any Director misinformed by the 2017 Index should not blame the WBF Drafting Committee, but rather blame me. On Friday, March 10, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > Another example of sloppy 2007 wording being corrected in 2017 is Law > 40A1(b). > > 2007 Law 40A1(b): > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership > understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The > Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." > > Two problems with this 2007 wording: > (1) Modern methods are mostly multifarious. Therefore it is usually a > practical impossibility to disclose all partnership understandings before > commencing. > (2) In the second sentence the word "shall" is defined by the Introduction > as "a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". > > Hence the completely accurate 2017 Law 40A1(b): > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership > understandings to opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner > in which this is done." > > On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/2982080.stm >> >> Many ignore the headings in the Laws. But correct wording of headings may >> help a Director understand the principle of a Law. Compare and contrast the >> headings of the 2007 versus 2017 Law 64 (Procedure after Establishment of a >> Revoke): >> >> 2007 >> 64A - Rectification following a Revoke >> 64B - No Rectification >> 64C - Director Responsible for Equity >> >> 2017 >> 64A - Automatic Trick Adjustment >> 64B - No Automatic Trick Adjustment >> 64C - Redress of Damage >> >> The 2017 headings tell it like it is, a guiding star for Director Caspar, >> Director Melchior and Director Balthazar. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170311/2f6df0ad/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 09:03:51 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:03:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 23 - Comparable Call Message-ID: LAW 23 - COMPARABLE CALL A. Definition A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call if it: 1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or 2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or 3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call. B. No Rectification When a call is cancelled (as per Law 29B) and the offender chooses at his proper turn to replace the irregularity with a comparable call, then both the auction and play continue without further rectification. Law 16C2 does not apply, but see C following. C. Non-Offending Side Damaged If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(ii), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)]. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170314/e5c78653/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 01:43:00 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:43:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 23 - Comparable Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The 2017 Law 23 (Comparable Call) cross-references a number of other 2017 Laws. In addition the 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions) cross-references Law 23, stating that there are not any lead restrictions if a withdrawn call is replaced by a comparable call. (Although the Director can still rectify damage via Law 23C.) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, March 14, 2017, Richard Hills wrote: > LAW 23 - COMPARABLE CALL > > A. Definition > > A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call if it: > > 1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn > call, or > > 2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the > withdrawn call, or > > 3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that > attributable to the withdrawn call. > > B. No Rectification > > When a call is cancelled (as per Law 29B) and the offender chooses at his > proper turn to replace the irregularity with a comparable call, then both > the auction and play continue without further rectification. Law 16C2 does > not apply, but see C following. > > C. Non-Offending Side Damaged > > If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), > 30B1(b)(ii), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the > play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome > of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the > non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law > 12C1(b)]. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170315/43b06156/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 07:24:45 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:24:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40A4 Message-ID: 2017 Law 40A4: "The agreed meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (this requirement does not restrict style and judgement, only method)." Richard Hills: Some years ago a world-class expert was sponsored by a ferret. (In Aussie cricket slang the bunnies go in after the batsmen, and the ferret goes in after the bunnies.) So the expert devised a method of one-way transfers - the sponsor would transfer, but the expert would not, thus causing the Hideous Hog expert to be more frequently declarer. The ABF quickly took decisive and appropriate disciplinary action against that partnership and their illegal CPU. On the other hand, I legally exercise my "style and judgement" to more frequently leap to slam than my various partners choose to do. Therefore, given that two very different concepts are discussed by the 2017 Law 40A4, I have chosen to mention these two concepts separately in the 2017 Index. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170315/8592aa3f/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 02:01:49 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:01:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Game of Knowns Message-ID: The charm of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of imperfect information - a game of unknown knowns. You commence a deal's auction knowing little about pard's cards. But as the bidding and defence continues, the nature of pard's cards are progressively revealed. Or alternatively you could take a short cut by infracting the 2017 Law 16B1: Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism. (a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. (b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170317/80dbc56e/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 02:26:33 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:26:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Game of Knowns Message-ID: The charm of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of imperfect information - a game of unknown knowns. You commence a deal's auction knowing little about pard's cards. But as the bidding and defence continues, the nature of pard's cards are progressively revealed. Or alternatively you could take a short cut by infracting the 2017 Law 16B1: Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism. (a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. (b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170317/7d24149f/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Mar 17 13:23:46 2017 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:23:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Game of Knowns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96EC4786-EFCD-4BDC-9237-BE332846D742@verizon.net> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > The charm of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of imperfect information - a game of unknown knowns. You commence a deal's auction knowing little about pard's cards. But as the bidding and defence continues, the nature of pard's cards are progressively revealed. Or alternatively you could take a short cut by infracting the 2017 Law 16B1: > > Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism. > > (a) > A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. > > (b) > A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. Introducing ?logical alternative? here is unnecessary; why complicate the language with an unneeded definition? Why not, ?A player may not choose? if the other call or play is an action that a significant proportion??? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170317/4b1e1d2b/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 14:06:34 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (gordonr60 at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:06:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Game of Knowns In-Reply-To: <96EC4786-EFCD-4BDC-9237-BE332846D742@verizon.net> References: <96EC4786-EFCD-4BDC-9237-BE332846D742@verizon.net> Message-ID: <58cbdf59.96451c0a.55267.f698@mx.google.com> TD1 consulting TD2: ?Do you think that 4S is an action?that a significant proportion of?the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and?some might select?? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Eric Landau Sent: 17 March 2017 12:52 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Game of Knowns On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Richard Hills wrote: The charm of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of imperfect information - a game of unknown knowns. You commence a deal's auction knowing little about pard's cards. But as the bidding and defence continues, the nature of pard's cards are progressively revealed. Or alternatively you could take a short cut by infracting the 2017 Law 16B1: Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. ?This includes remarks,?questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture,?movement or mannerism. ? (a) A player may not choose?a call or play?that is?demonstrably?suggested?over?another?by unauthorized information?if the other call or play is?a?logical alternative. ? (b) A?logical alternative is an action?that a significant proportion of?the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and?some might select. Introducing ?logical alternative? here is unnecessary; why complicate the language with an unneeded definition? ?Why not, ?A player may not choose? if the other call or play is an action that a significant proportion??? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170317/1fe7a5eb/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Mar 17 20:13:33 2017 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:13:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Game of Knowns In-Reply-To: <58cbdf59.96451c0a.55267.f698@mx.google.com> References: <96EC4786-EFCD-4BDC-9237-BE332846D742@verizon.net> <58cbdf59.96451c0a.55267.f698@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:06 AM, gordonr60 at gmail.com wrote: > TD1 consulting TD2: ?Do you think that 4S is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select?? Or, since any wording fails if they haven?t read the law, what?s wrong with, ?Do you think that 4S is a legal action?" > From: Eric Landau > > On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Richard Hills > wrote: > > The charm of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of imperfect information - a game of unknown knowns. You commence a deal's auction knowing little about pard's cards. But as the bidding and defence continues, the nature of pard's cards are progressively revealed. Or alternatively you could take a short cut by infracting the 2017 Law 16B1: > > Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism. > > (a) > A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. > > (b) > A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. > > Introducing ?logical alternative? here is unnecessary; why complicate the language with an unneeded definition? Why not, ?A player may not choose? if the other call or play is an action that a significant proportion??? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170317/50591028/attachment-0001.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 13:00:22 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (gordonr60 at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:00:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Game of Knowns In-Reply-To: References: <96EC4786-EFCD-4BDC-9237-BE332846D742@verizon.net> <58cbdf59.96451c0a.55267.f698@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <58cd2155.c791df0a.ffe2d.170a@mx.google.com> I find it straightforward enough to ask ?Do you think 4S is a logical alternative?? I like the way the new law is broken up. I think it adds to its clarity. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Eric Landau Sent: 17 March 2017 19:13 To: gordonr60 at gmail.com Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Game of Knowns On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:06 AM, gordonr60 at gmail.com wrote: TD1 consulting TD2: ?Do you think that 4S is an action?that a significant proportion of?the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and?some might select?? Or, since any wording fails if they haven?t read the law, what?s wrong with, ?Do you think that 4S is a legal action?" From:?Eric Landau ? On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Richard Hills wrote: ? The charm of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of imperfect information - a game of unknown knowns. You commence a deal's auction knowing little about pard's cards. But as the bidding and defence continues, the nature of pard's cards are progressively revealed. Or alternatively you could take a short cut by infracting the 2017 Law 16B1: ? Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. ?This includes remarks,?questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture,?movement or mannerism. ? (a) A player may not choose?a call or play?that is?demonstrably?suggested?over?another?by unauthorized information?if the other call or play is?a?logical alternative. ? (b) A?logical alternative is an action?that a significant proportion of?the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and?some might select. ? Introducing ?logical alternative? here is unnecessary; why complicate the language with an unneeded definition? ?Why not, ?A player may not choose? if the other call or play is an action that a significant proportion??? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170318/f2974cd4/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 00:19:49 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:19:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Halo or Horns Message-ID: Extract from the 2017 Lawbook's Preface: "But no praise is too high for the Secretary, Laurie Kelso, who did all the collating and clerical work, most of the drafting, and devoted countless hours of his time. Without him the job would never have been finished." In a previous life I worked for the Recruitment Section of the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship (now less invitingly remodelled into Immigration and Border Protection, with quasi-military uniforms for some staff). In recruitment I learnt about the Halo or Horns effect. After a recruitment panel has interviewed a particularly competent candidate, then the Halo effect means that the panel underestimates the merits of the next candidate. Likewise, after a recruitment panel has interviewed a pointy-haired candidate (see the satirical comic strip Dilbert), then the Horns effect means that the panel overestimates the merits of the next candidate. During the half-decade process of creating the 2017 Lawbook, zillions of suggestions were received by Laurie Kelso. To prevent Halo or Horns, Laurie replaced the names of suggestors with code numbers. Prolific suggestors (such as myself) were given more than one code number. To prevent the prior WBF LC Official Interpretations gaining a Halo, they too were given a code number. Now that the drafting of the 2017 Lawbook has been finalised, Laurie has promised to reveal the names behind the code numbers to other members of the 2017 Drafting Committee. This will embarrass one clever but slightly forgetful committee member, who will discover that in committee debate he argued against one of his own suggestions. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170327/ede1a760/attachment.html