From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 1 01:14:16 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:14:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> Richard Hills: Many SOs deprecate a professional asking a question to which the professional already knows the answer, so that the pro's sponsor partner is therefore enlightened. Nigel: I vaguely remember the author of an editorial in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods, confessing unashamedly to asking questions of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit, in World Championships. If this is against the law, should it be? At the end of the auction, I see little harm in this -- to facilitate full disclosure. Of course, one would never sanction specific questions that focus on a particular defence. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 1 01:39:54 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:39:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> Alain Gottcheiner Astigmatic or long-sighted persons ... will not have the same problems with symmetrical cards, because they are color- coded; colorblind people will have more problems with the new, ambiguous, designs. Nigel: Why not go further and simplify card design in the obvious way: (1) Use 4 shades and colours that most colour blind people can discriminate. (2) Increase the size of number and symbol and place them at all four corners. to cater for the myopic and left-handed. (3) Remove symbols from the middle of the card to avoid any ambiguity with odd-numbers. This inconveniences only people who would rather count symbols than read numerals. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 1 02:19:15 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:19:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <005801c2673d$e2879ec0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001e01c268a5$ccde2bc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c268c1$ecae54e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000d01c268e8$d17e1e40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > This post from Marvin apparently just confirms that ACBL > for some unknown and surprising reason issued a different > "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" than what was agreed > upon within WBF? > Not surprising, since the ACBL By-laws state in regard to the ACBLLC that: "The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission." Marv wrote: > > Evidently the baby has been thrown out with the bath somewhere along the > > line, as dummy should certainly have the right to call the TD for a violation > > of the Properties by anyone. > > And also the Proprieties. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 1 02:33:39 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:33:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> Message-ID: <002901c268ea$a7cf1e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > I vaguely remember the author of an editorial > in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods, > confessing unashamedly to asking questions of > the Blue Team for his partner's benefit, > in World Championships. That was Edgar Kaplan, in a special situation that others can describe for you.. > If this is against the law, should it be? > At the end of the auction, I see little harm > in this -- to facilitate full disclosure. > Of course, one would never sanction specific > questions that focus on a particular defence. The WBFLC at Lille 1998 declared that "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 1 07:25:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:25:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: <4A256C45.00220D85.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Brian Meadows wrote: [snip] >If bunnies are going to step up into tournaments, >then they must expect to run into unfamiliar >systems. Clubs can take a similar approach - the >last UK club I played at designated two nights a >week as "anything goes", two nights a week as >"beginner nights" (simple Acol only) and the >remaining two were general licence. > >Equal opportunities for all, and everyone was >happy (plus all the nights were well attended!) [snip] A similar sensible policy is followed by a bridge club in Canberra, whose playing population is mostly bunnies (but with expert proprietors). On Tuesday nights the field self-selects into a walk-in pairs or a walk-in teams. Expert players, using the dreaded Red conventions, play in the walk-in teams. But some bunnies wish to learn from the experts, and also opt for the walk-in teams. Playing in the walk-in pairs is a bunny pair whom are willing to devise their own incomprehensible system. Naturally, it is not very good - given the bunnies' lack of experience - but why should only experts be permitted to devise wacky systems? (The only problem is that the wacky bunnies often infract L75, but the TD ensures that the pedestrian opponents of the wacky bunnies are not disadvantaged.) Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 1 08:18:11 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:18:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> Message-ID: <3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be> Nigel, why do you want to write on something you have absolutely no knowledge on ? Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner > Astigmatic or long-sighted persons ... > will not have the same problems with > symmetrical cards, because they are color- > coded; colorblind people will have more > problems with the new, ambiguous, designs. > > Nigel: Why not go further and simplify card > design in the obvious way: > (1) Use 4 shades and colours that most > colour blind people can discriminate. they do > (2) Increase the size of number and symbol > and place them at all four corners. > to cater for the myopic and left-handed. they do > (3) Remove symbols from the middle of the card > to avoid any ambiguity with odd-numbers. > This inconveniences only people who would > rather count symbols than read numerals. > I personally would find that more distracting. I see a five when it's played - and would see a 4 if the middle symbol would go. But all of you who comment on this ought to wait until you have played one tournament with them. Rest assured, 30 boards is all you need before they are familiar. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Oct 1 08:28:35 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:28:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Arrow switching in Montreal (was WBF comments) Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>The finals of the Open and Women's pairs, >>>though, used a different movement which >>>seems as though it should lead to balanced >>>comparisons. >>> >>>Each pair plays every other over the >>>course of five sessions, and pairs switch >>>directions every few rounds. I know this >>>movement well because I investigated the >>>foul-up that occurred in Lille. Ton replied: >>**** these movements are aimed to get as >>much balance as possible. And there too we >>try to find the best combination between >>complexity and fairness of the movement. It >>also depends on the number of pairs playing. Marv asked: >Is it possible to describe how this is done? >I'd like to recommend the same sort of thing >to the ACBL Competition and Conventions >committee, but don't have the know-how to do >so. In Australia's premier matchpoint pairs final, each pair plays each other over the course of three sessions. (28 pairs, 3-board rounds.) Since the final is barometer-scored, a Flower Howell movement is used. This allows human traffic to be minimised, as each round a pair moves to an *adjacent* table. Best wishes Richard The basic movement when playing a barometer is based on the so called endless howell where one pair is fixed and all others move to an adjacent table as is done in the Flower howell (why this name, it is rather prozaic?). And yes to get this desired balance pairs are changing directions. Nothing new, that is how every howell works. Therefore the thing can be played using these old fashioned table cards telling pairs where to go for the next round. And that explains the disaster in Lille where one of these cards was wrong, sending the pairs back in stead of forward. A human mistake of course, since such a mistake is impossible when you use a software programme for a print out. (and from now on I don't want to be remembered in any way of this disaster) People are trying to improve movements for decades already, and mostly this means that they want to improve the balance (players being compared with all other contestants on the same number of boards). I know fanatics who had running their computers for days to find the best solutions. At this moment the best book I know of is Swedish, produced by three people: Hans Olof Hallen chief TD in Europe for many years, Per Jannersten, involved in bridge equipment for many years and a mathematical professor (Hanssen?, yes it should have been in my office even). It is a wonderful book in which consistency is combined with accuracy and usefulness. Balance of movements is a main aim. And it gives for example the howell movement for a barometer for tables up to you don't need anymore. Even better than producing this book was their decision to have it translated in English. Therewith it has become a must for every NBO and serious tournament organizer. I am sure the ACBL has this book available. ton From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 1 08:50:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930123134.00ab4ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > > > > > 2D : explained as classical Multi, weak 2H/S or strong NT or strong > > > 4441 > > > 2H : explained as to play facing hearts (would you expect anything > > > else > > > ?) > > > >Yes. I expect you tell those who are unfamiliar with the Multi that it > >denies 4 (or 5) hearts. This is an inference available to you from the > >failure to bid 2S. > > > > I know he might hold 4/5 hearts, and you expect me to lie by telling he > might not ? Of course I don't expect you to lie. When I was taught "Classical Multi" this *was* an inference. If the correct inference is "normally denies 4+ hearts" say that (or denies 4+ H unless weak and 44+ in the majors and opponents look bored). If there is genuinely no inference about H length your explanation is fine. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 1 12:37:29 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:37:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI / awakening case Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021001131739.02bd15a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, We had some recent threads about the right to be awakened by partner's bid.= =20 Here is a case, submitted to me by West in the following deal : QJxxx Ax Kx Axx Kxxx Ax xx KQ109xx 1C 1Ha 3Ca 4Sa 4NT 1H is a transfer to spades, and West intended it as such. East doesn't realize it. He alerts (but for some other reason, presumably=20 Walsh inferences), and bids 3C, showing 7-7=BD tricks, long clubs and 3-card= =20 raise of partner's suit (he thinks West has H). West alerts 3C, and isn't asked to explain. He then bids 4S (sign-off), on= =20 the assumption that partner showed 3 *spades* (which he did, in EW's= system). East, still asleep, thinks 4S is a splinterbid, and blackwoods. Now put yourself in West's seat. Over a signoff, and holding a well-defined= =20 hand, East should pass, so West knows something happens. He is a convinced= =20 exponent of the principles "when you don't understand, pass" and "when a=20 wheel gets loose and you don't know what the truimp suit can be, play in=20 NT". Thus he passes. The question : is West allowed to realize that the bidding sequence is=20 impossible : a) behind screens ? b) without screens, when East bids 4NT after having alerted (but not=20 explained) the 4S bid ? The story at the table : 1) West took a very long time, looked at the ceiling, closed his eyes etc.= =20 , then passed. 2) His antics awakened East, who before the lead stated he had forgotten=20 the system and shown clubs cum hearts. 3) South made her normal heart lead, which happens to be the best one. 4) 4NT made, but only because of very poor defense (though not irrational). Thank you for your advice. Alain. From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 1 13:12:33 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:12:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI / awakening case References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021001131739.02bd15a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00b201c26943$d2fb8720$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" We had some recent threads about the right to be awakened by partner's bid. Here is a case, submitted to me by West in the following deal : QJxxx Ax Kx Axx Kxxx Ax xx KQ109xx 1C 1Ha 3Ca 4Sa 4NT 1H is a transfer to spades, and West intended it as such. East doesn't realize it. He alerts (but for some other reason, presumably Walsh inferences), and bids 3C, showing 7-7½ tricks, long clubs and 3-card raise of partner's suit (he thinks West has H). West alerts 3C, and isn't asked to explain. He then bids 4S (sign-off), on the assumption that partner showed 3 *spades* (which he did, in EW's system). East, still asleep, thinks 4S is a splinterbid, and blackwoods. Now put yourself in West's seat. Over a signoff, and holding a well-defined hand, East should pass, so West knows something happens. He is a convinced exponent of the principles "when you don't understand, pass" and "when a wheel gets loose and you don't know what the truimp suit can be, play in NT". Thus he passes. The question : is West allowed to realize that the bidding sequence is impossible : a) behind screens ? b) without screens, when East bids 4NT after having alerted (but not explained) the 4S bid ? The story at the table : 1) West took a very long time, looked at the ceiling, closed his eyes etc. , then passed. 2) His antics awakened East, who before the lead stated he had forgotten the system and shown clubs cum hearts. 3) South made her normal heart lead, which happens to be the best one. 4) 4NT made, but only because of very poor defense (though not irrational). I don't know what is the rule elsewhere, but in Norway we are instructed that a player may "compensate" for his partner's misunderstandings as long as he is aware of those solely from the calls themselves and not from alerts or missing alerts, wrong explanations etc. And he must not attempt to inform partner that he (partner) has mistaken or forgotten their agreements by any special behaviour like pauses etc. Therefore it is perfectly OK for West here to pass after the 4NT bid, but highly improper to act as described above. However, as East now had no chance to make another call I cannot se any damage possible; on the contrary East became (in this case) just able to inform opponents (before the opening lead) of the mistakes he had made, thus actually reducing possible damage from his previous errors to an absolute minimum. As a consequence I see no reason for adjustment. (Screens or no screens) An interesting question is if there isn't any hand East could have to justify his calls? How would East have bid a hand according to their agreements holding something like 30 HCP? Could not the bids and alerts be exactly the same up to and including the 4NT bid? As I see it West infers from the "impossible" calls (only!) that East must have forgotten their agreements; this is within the privileges that West enjoys, but West could as well be mistaken and his pass over 4NT would then be a fatal mistake. regards Sven From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 1 13:24:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930163313.00aa27c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain: > >And what, for that matter, is wrong with devising something > deliberately >designed to be a "'bunny-killer' system" if you believe > you're about to >play against a field of bunnies? > > AG: perhaps -only perhaps- because in a field of genuine bunnies you > don't need complex methods; playing well wil be enough, and less risky. I agree - in a "pure" bunny field. In a more typical field of 70-80% bunnies and a few good partnerships the winners will normally be the ones that really crucify the bunnies - this may require a different approach. I also recommend a high variance approach when not an underdog (unless you are clearly overdog). I think you will win more often and place 2nd-5th less often. I have heard that some players get 65% sessions that don't consist of 13 tops and 7 bottoms - I will probably never be one of those. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 1 13:24:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > But all of you who comment on this ought to wait until you have played > one tournament with them. Rest assured, 30 boards is all you need > before they are familiar. Been there, done that... Sure they are familiar and useable - but how many tournaments do I have to play before they stop being so ugly I can't bear to get the T-shirt? Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 1 14:16:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] MI / awakening case Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00b201c26943$d2fb8720$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sven wrote: > 1) West took a very long time, looked at the ceiling, closed his eyes > etc. , then passed. > > Therefore it is perfectly OK for West here to pass after the 4NT bid, > but highly improper to act as described above. I wouldn't be too hard on West here. He has complex UI problem to deal with and to his actions sound like genuine thought* not attempted communication. Sure he makes UI available and we will adjust if it matters, but without criticism. *At least it's what I do when faced with a really tough problem - *despite* trying to control it. Tim From gester@lineone.net Tue Oct 1 14:56:42 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:56:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <002901c268ea$a7cf1e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006c01c26953$1c348040$24182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > > > I vaguely remember the author of an editorial > > in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods, > > confessing unashamedly to asking questions of > > the Blue Team for his partner's benefit, > > in World Championships. > > That was Edgar Kaplan, in a special situation that > others can describe for you.. > > > If this is against the law, should it be? > > At the end of the auction, I see little harm > > in this -- to facilitate full disclosure. > > Of course, one would never sanction specific > > questions that focus on a particular defence. > > The WBFLC at Lille 1998 declared that "It is held > illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be > aware of the information in the reply." > +=+=+ Well, now, perhaps we had better look more closely at the law. Law 16A: ".... makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, question ....". The key words are "by means of". The question itself does not have to contain the information; "by means of" only requires that the question is instrumental in making the information available - in using the question to bounce the information from opponent to partner the player has conveyed the information 'by means of'. As for the purposeful question designed to do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Tue Oct 1 13:20:07 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:20:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> Message-ID: <1ykT8TB3LZm9EwIt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Nigel Guthrie writes >Richard Hills: >Many SOs deprecate a professional asking a >question to which the professional already >knows the answer, so that the pro's sponsor >partner is therefore enlightened. >Nigel: >I vaguely remember the author of an editorial >in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods, >confessing unashamedly to asking questions of >the Blue Team for his partner's benefit, >in World Championships. >If this is against the law, should it be? >At the end of the auction, I see little harm >in this -- to facilitate full disclosure. Communication between partners is ok so long as it facilitates full disclosure? No, I don't think so! >Of course, one would never sanction specific >questions that focus on a particular defence. What is the difference? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Oct 1 13:24:03 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:24:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? In-Reply-To: <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> Message-ID: >Alain Gottcheiner > Astigmatic or long-sighted persons ... > will not have the same problems with > symmetrical cards, because they are color- > coded; colorblind people will have more > problems with the new, ambiguous, designs. Are you sure? I should like to hear from someone who is colour-blind. After all the new cards I have played with have different shades of black and red [black, grey, red, pink]. Now, since the most common form of colour-blindness *by far* is inability to distinguish between red and green I would have thought that people with colour-blindness would find the new cards *easier* for distinguishing suits. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 1 16:53:50 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <002901c268ea$a7cf1e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Sep 30, 2002 06:33:39 PM Message-ID: <200210011553.LAA28658@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Marvin L. French writes: > > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > > > I vaguely remember the author of an editorial > > in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods, > > confessing unashamedly to asking questions of > > the Blue Team for his partner's benefit, > > in World Championships. > > That was Edgar Kaplan, in a special situation that others can describe > for you.. You're forgetting one thing though. Kaplan is clear that this wasn't a one off. Quoting now: We hope this doesn't shock anyone, but dozens of times our publisher has asked about opponents' calls for his partner's benefit, rather than his own, and he is unrepentant. Here is an instance from the '67 Bermuda Bowl (Followed by the Belladonna-Avarelli example) Steve Willner has called this the Kaplan question. Seeking clarification of an answer that you know to be inadequate for partner's benefit. And to answer Nigel's later question as to whether this was prohibited by the proprieties, Kaplan notes in another place that he wrote that section and may be presumed to know the intent of the lawmakers. However it's worth noting that he didn't choose to either challenge or endorse the Lille declaration that Marv cites. He may have changed his mind. Or he may have decided that it wasn't worth the energy. He was in the final stages of a terminal illness at the time. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 1 17:00:26 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:00:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> <3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003201c26963$cb63f680$f29468d5@default> Herman De Wael: Nigel, why do you want to write on something you have absolutely no knowledge on? Nigel Guthrie: In a democracy even the relatively ignorant, like myself, are entitled to an opinion. I am delighted to learn from those who correct me. I have played with symmetrical playing cards. Alan Gottcheiner said the colour blind have trouble with them: I suggested the obvious solution: choose appropriate shades and colours. Another of my suggestions: removing all the pips from the middle of the card: manifestly solves the odd card pip problem. Finally, I surmised that putting numerals and symbols in all four corners may help left-handed people. I cannot see how any of this is in the least controversial. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 1 17:09:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <006c01c26953$1c348040$24182850@pacific> Grattan wrote: > As for the purposeful question designed to > do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. > Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but Terribly difficult. Who would have thought to ask Edgar why he asked the question. > the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award > an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing > light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. Ah yes. Edgar Kaplan that well known bridge criminal. So how does the adjustment go exactly? 1. You asked an illegal question after receiving improper disclosure. 2. We hold the response to be suggestive UI which your partner acted upon. 3. Absent the UI what would have happened? 4. Your partner would have played differently and got an inferior score. 5. Although obviously your partner would not have received the information to which he was entitled. 6. So you would have felt damaged and requested a ruling. 7. We would find that MI had occurred and adjust in your favour to... ...the table result. Some of us might, were it not for Lille, have arrived there by 1. The question gave no UI. Result stands. Nice to have a seven step process to achieve the same result. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 1 17:21:44 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:21:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au><003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <1ykT8TB3LZm9EwIt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <006601c26966$b492dea0$f29468d5@default> Marvin French reminds us that it was the Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who knew Italian methods but asked questions of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit in World Championships (: so he must have judged it to be ethical, at the time :) David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner asks about the auction but from your own knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe their explanation omits salient information. From moranl@netvision.net.il Tue Oct 1 18:31:50 2002 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:31:50 +0200 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20021001193052.00a259e0@mail.netvision.net.il> WTP? Keep quiet, and at the end of the hand if you believe you were damaged call the TD who will adjust/not adjust. Isn't this what laws 21 and 40C are about? Eitan Levy >At 17:21 01/10/02 +0100, you wrote: >>Marvin French reminds us that it was the >>Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who >>knew Italian methods but asked questions >>of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit >>in World Championships (: so he must have >>judged it to be ethical, at the time :) >>David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al >>say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner >>asks about the auction but from your own >>knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe >>their explanation omits salient information. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 1 17:44:59 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.1.20021001193052.00a259e0@mail.netvision.net.il> from "Eitan Levy" at Oct 01, 2002 07:31:50 PM Message-ID: <200210011644.MAA29339@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Eitan Levy writes: > > > WTP? Keep quiet, and at the end of the hand if you believe you were damaged > call the TD who will adjust/not adjust. Isn't this what laws 21 and 40C are > about? And the fear that he wouldn't get a proper adjustment is precisely what motivated Kaplan to act as he did. I think it's a reasonable fear. MI cases are potentially complex. I know the risk is greater with the no AC push of the ACBL. > Eitan Levy > >At 17:21 01/10/02 +0100, you wrote: > >>Marvin French reminds us that it was the > >>Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who > >>knew Italian methods but asked questions > >>of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit > >>in World Championships (: so he must have > >>judged it to be ethical, at the time :) > >>David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al > >>say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner > >>asks about the auction but from your own > >>knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe > >>their explanation omits salient information. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 1 17:58:54 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:58:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> <3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be> <003201c26963$cb63f680$f29468d5@default> Message-ID: <009e01c2696b$def7e3c0$f29468d5@default> Herman De Wael: Nigel, why do you want to write on something you have absolutely no knowledge on? Nigel Guthrie: In a democracy even the relatively ignorant, like myself, are entitled to express an opinion. I am delighted to learn from those who correct me. I play often with symmetrical playing cards. Alan Gottcheiner said the colour blind have trouble with them: I suggested the obvious solution: choose appropriate shades and colours. Another of my suggestions: removing ALL the pips from the middle of the card: manifestly solves the odd card pip ambiguity. Finally, I surmised that putting large numerals and symbols in all four corners may help the short-sighted and left-handed. I cannot see how any of this is in the least controversial. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 1 17:54:02 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Oct 01, 2002 05:09:00 PM Message-ID: <200210011654.MAA29472@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Tim West-meads writes: > > In-Reply-To: <006c01c26953$1c348040$24182850@pacific> > Grattan wrote: > > > As for the purposeful question designed to > > do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. > > Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but > > Terribly difficult. Who would have thought to ask Edgar why he asked the > question. As it happens he answered the question in the editorial. Quoting again: What should Kaplan have done instead - waited until play ended, and afterwards, if the Italians had scored well, go to committee and allege that he had been damaged, that his side would have defended better if Kay had been properly informed? Oh, sure! Even if the committee judged that Belladonna was responsible for volunteering an explanation of partner's huddle-club rebid (quite a novel proposition!), and even if the Americans were able to demonstrate to a committee specifically how the defense had been adversely affected by Kay's misapprehension (and this is hard to do), how on earth would Kaplan answer, when someone on the committee said to him. "*You* know the Roman System - how come you kept silent? Maybe you were after a double shot: a good result, otherwise a good protest"? Or perhaps Kaplan should have called the director before the opening lead to complain of Belladonna's "infraction" in failing to explain about the huddle-club rebid. That would be effective, no matter what the director ruled, since Kay, no fool he, would then ask appropriate questions himself. Only, handling it that way would surely poison the atmosphere at the table. No thanks, says Kaplan. If he had it all to do over, he'd do the same again. In fact, he has *done* so again, often. And will do so in the future. No one can convince him that Proprieties II, B1 was intended to outlaw such conduct (particularly since he wrote that section himself). > > the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award > > an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing > > light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. > > Ah yes. Edgar Kaplan that well known bridge criminal. > So how does the adjustment go exactly? > > 1. You asked an illegal question after receiving improper disclosure. > 2. We hold the response to be suggestive UI which your partner acted upon. Possible. The question *may* pass UI -- as any question might, but Kaplan also addressed that in the editorial. The answer to the question is always AI. > 3. Absent the UI what would have happened? > 4. Your partner would have played differently and got an inferior score. > 5. Although obviously your partner would not have received the information > to which he was entitled. > 6. So you would have felt damaged and requested a ruling. > 7. We would find that MI had occurred and adjust in your favour to... > ...the table result. > > Some of us might, were it not for Lille, have arrived there by > 1. The question gave no UI. Result stands. > Nice to have a seven step process to achieve the same result. > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 1 18:12:00 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Oct 2002 10:12:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: <011002274.36720@webbox.com> Nigel wrote: >David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al >say that is now illegal. It was illegal then. However, this did not matter much. >OK. Suppose partner >asks about the auction but from your own >knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe >their explanation omits salient information. As I wrote to a friend who asked me that very question only the other day: "It is for the opponents to tell me what their methods are, not for my partner. If their explanation is deficient, and our side is damaged thereby, there is a means by which we may be granted redress. In the meantime, what is clear is that any communication between partners, other than by means of calls and plays, is not permitted." David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 1 18:40:20 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 18:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: Message-ID: <00b801c26971$a57c4180$f29468d5@default> Gordon Bower: ...How DARE you *punish* someone for doing something explicitly permitted (and by one reasonable reading, required!) by the laws? ...someone is owed an apology and a refund the directors who think this is ridiculous need lined up against the nearest wall and shot... Nigel: Nobody would quibble with the rest of your argument but surely the TDs should escape with a flogging. TDs do a good job when you consider how convoluted, ambiguous, and plain daft some of the laws are. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 1 18:39:35 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:39:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au><003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <1ykT8TB3LZm9EwIt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006601c26966$b492dea0$f29468d5@default> Message-ID: <3D99DDD7.1010204@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Marvin French reminds us that it was the > Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who > knew Italian methods but asked questions > of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit > in World Championships (: so he must have > judged it to be ethical, at the time :) > David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al > say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner > asks about the auction but from your own > knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe > their explanation omits salient information. > Exactly, that's the problem. Do you keep schtum, and ask for a ruling afterwards ? Now that's bridge lawyering ! Besides, how can you be certain that you do know that they are playing it the same way you think? They might well have changed their methods recently. So why not ask for the clarification? I can see a clear difference between a Kaplan question and a Pro one. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 1 18:47:12 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:47:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> <3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be> <003201c26963$cb63f680$f29468d5@default> Message-ID: <3D99DFA0.4000101@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Herman De Wael: > Nigel, why do you want to write on > something you have absolutely no > knowledge on? > Nigel Guthrie: > In a democracy even the relatively > ignorant, like myself, are entitled > to an opinion. I am delighted to learn > from those who correct me. I apologise for the antagonising tone, which I have now re-read. I don't apologise for the words - I don't think nyou knew enough about this to complain. > I have played with symmetrical playing > cards. Have you ? quite strange : > Alan Gottcheiner said the colour > blind have trouble with them: I suggested > the obvious solution: choose appropriate > shades and colours. They are different, and I have heard bad-sighted people find this appropriate. I don't think colour blind people would be helped with any set of shades or colours - usually these people don't have a big problem with shapes as well. ther of my > suggestions: removing all the pips > from the middle of the card: manifestly > solves the odd card pip problem. And introduces another one for poor-sighted people. Counting a five is easy now - not in your system. I have remarked a problem with the nines - which have a different pattern now (or is it the seven ?) > Finally, I surmised that putting numerals > and symbols in all four corners may help > left-handed people. I cannot see how any > of this is in the least controversial. > It is not, but it has been fifteen years since I last played with any cards not having numerals and symbols in all corners. So while not controversial (not at all !) I fail to see why this would be a helpful suggestion - it has been common practice for eons. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 1 20:40:35 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Oct 01, 2002 01:14:16 AM Message-ID: <200210011940.PAA01631@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > Richard Hills: > Many SOs deprecate a professional asking a > question to which the professional already > knows the answer, so that the pro's sponsor > partner is therefore enlightened. > Nigel: > I vaguely remember the author of an editorial > in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods, > confessing unashamedly to asking questions of > the Blue Team for his partner's benefit, > in World Championships. Hadn't seen this in context before. Norman Kay has been called many things before, but sponsor partner is a new one on me. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 1 21:11:59 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:11:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <000101c261be$aba6a1a0$a59868d5@default> References: <010101c25f98$9bdfd340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021001160550.00b12a70@pop.starpower.net> At 05:56 PM 9/21/02, Nigel wrote: >Mr OS takes a strange but successful action, >seemingly suggested by UI. His opponent Mrs >NOS calls the TD and Mr OS justifies his >action by reference to undocumented "system". > >IMO the TD should give all benefit of doubt >to NOS and that does not imply that OS is a >liar or a cheat. > >"Of course, Mr OS, there is no imputation of >misbehaviour on your part; we accept that you >are purer than fresh fallen snow; but I have >to rule against you because otherwise it would >be hard to rule against a known cheat, who >persisted in actions like yours with nefarious >intent. At best he would complain of bias. >At worst, he could sue for slander. Anyway, >we can hardly enforce a harsher law for novices >& strangers than for friends & known experts". Mr. OS claims that his action was mandated by his system. But he doesn't have written documentation, so you automatically rule against him. But for all you know, he might be able to send you to ten different people in the room, all of whom have played his system with him, and all of whom could verify that he is telling the truth, that his action was indeed mandated by his system. Don't you think your ruling might be a bit over-hasty? It is the duty and responsibility of the TD to collect, examine and evaluate whatever relevant evidence he has available to him before making a ruling. He fails in his duty if he examines only that portion of the relevant evidence that happens to have been written down. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 1 21:25:09 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:25:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? In-Reply-To: <3D99DFA0.4000101@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> <3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be> <003201c26963$cb63f680$f29468d5@default> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021001161745.00b14100@pop.starpower.net> At 01:47 PM 10/1/02, Herman wrote: >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> Finally, I surmised that putting numerals >> and symbols in all four corners may help left-handed people. I >> cannot see how any >> of this is in the least controversial. > >It is not, but it has been fifteen years since I last played with any >cards not having numerals and symbols in all corners. So while not >controversial (not at all !) I fail to see why this would be a helpful >suggestion - it has been common practice for eons. Only right of the pond. The cards used by the ACBL still have only the traditional two indices. Symmetry, of course, is not affected. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 1 22:47:35 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:47:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <011002274.36720@webbox.com> Message-ID: <008601c26994$42158ca0$2150e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > > Nigel wrote: > > >David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al > >say that is now illegal. > > It was illegal then. However, this did not matter much. > +=+ Actually I think it matters when it was that it happened. Under the 1975 Laws it was as plainly illegal as it is today. Under the 1963 Laws it was apparently, or possibly, legal. Edgar was a relatively junior member of the WBFLC when the 1975 laws were written. By the way, the 'et al' includes the general agreement of the WBFLC. In which regard Ron Johnson may care to remind himself that Edgar was already beyond challenge or endorsement in 1998 when the WBFLC put the fact of the law firmly on record. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 2 00:04:04 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:04:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? In-Reply-To: References: <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021001190259.01c48008@mail.comcast.net> At 08:24 AM 10/1/2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >Alain Gottcheiner > > Astigmatic or long-sighted persons ... > > will not have the same problems with > > symmetrical cards, because they are color- > > coded; colorblind people will have more > > problems with the new, ambiguous, designs. > > Are you sure? I should like to hear from someone who is colour-blind. >After all the new cards I have played with have different shades of >black and red [black, grey, red, pink]. Now, since the most common form >of colour-blindness *by far* is inability to distinguish between red and >green I would have thought that people with colour-blindness would find >the new cards *easier* for distinguishing suits. I played with a set of four-color cards that matched the color of bidding boxes: green clubs, orange diamonds, red hearts, and blue spades. I don't know whether the shades of the red and green were such that color-blind people could tell the difference. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 2 00:55:05 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:55:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be><005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default><3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be><003201c26963$cb63f680$f29468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021001161745.00b14100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00e501c269a6$0cba0380$f29468d5@default> Herman: It has been fifteen years since I last played with any cards not having numerals and symbols in all corners. So while not controversial (not at all !) I fail to see why this would be a helpful suggestion - it has been common practice for eons. Eric: Only right of the pond. The cards used by the ACBL still have only the traditional two indices. Symmetry, of course, is not affected. Nigel: I approve of symmetrical playing cards. Yes I know there is variety -- even among symmetrical playing cards. My suggestion was for large indices with pips at the corners (for the short sighted) and, for spot cards, the rest of the face blank -- no other pips -- to avoid problems with odd numbered cards. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 2 01:16:39 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 01:16:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: <00f501c269a9$0f1f6360$f29468d5@default> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Ron Johnson" Sent: 02 October 2002 01:10 Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Ron Johnson: Hadn't seen this in context before. Norman Kay has been called many things before, but sponsor partner is a new one on me. Nigel: I neither said that nor implied it. But since you bring the matter up: the calibre of your partner does not affect whether it is legal to ask opponents' questions for his benefit; but if anything it is more understandable when your partner is a tyro. IMO, unless the asker volunteers, it is hard to tell why he is asking questions. Hence, this is another unenforceable law. Kaplan was right. Such questions should be legal unless they focus on a specific defence. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 2 01:25:51 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 01:25:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus? Message-ID: <010301c269aa$52e6a800$f29468d5@default> I have received an BLML email with an attachment, purporting to be from "Steve Wilner" to which my virus software objects From Anne Jones" I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) engine. Anne From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 2 05:35:16 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:35:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: Message-ID: <004501c269cd$1dfe1c40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-meads" > Some of us might, were it not for Lille, have arrived there by > 1. The question gave no UI. Result stands. > Nice to have a seven step process to achieve the same result. > Not quite the same. When a pro deliberately commits an infraction by asking a question solely for client's benefit, there should be some sort of repercussion, UI or no UI, damage or no damage. A lecture ought to suffice in most cases. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@tameware.com Wed Oct 2 05:08:42 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:08:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Knockout Pairs (was Direction switches in the ACBL) In-Reply-To: <001b01c264bd$e0e9a400$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <001b01c264bd$e0e9a400$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 11:02 AM -0700 9/25/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >I have just submitted a proposal for a new 6-session NABC+ pair event that >should provide "the best competition and the least random scores." When you first mentioned this I thought the concept was bizarre. You've convinced me now -- this would be a fine event. When trying to persuade the ACBL, though, one must take into account that the ACBL does not seem to have any particular interest in conducting events that run true to form. As for the technical merits, I am somewhat concerned about the incentives for the pairs in the 27-52 bracket. I don't think they'll play their best unless there's something at stake for them besides just where they finish in the low overalls. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From nancy@dressing.org Wed Oct 2 05:40:53 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:40:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Virus References: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> Message-ID: <001301c269cd$e3f8f0f0$6401a8c0@hare> The virus arrived here but was caught by Norton's. Hope all are protected and that Steve's computer is OK... Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:30 PM Subject: [blml] Virus > I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had > many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? > > This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A > Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous > > This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending > itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) > engine. > > Anne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 2 05:37:20 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:37:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au><003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <1ykT8TB3LZm9EwIt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006601c26966$b492dea0$f29468d5@default> Message-ID: <005201c269ce$08540a20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > Marvin French reminds us that it was the > Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who > knew Italian methods but asked questions > of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit > in World Championships (: so he must have > judged it to be ethical, at the time :) > David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al > say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner > asks about the auction but from your own > knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe > their explanation omits salient information. > You have observed an irregularity, and must call the TD at once. Let the TD straighten it out. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 2 05:49:31 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:49:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au><003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <1ykT8TB3LZm9EwIt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006601c26966$b492dea0$f29468d5@default> Message-ID: <005501c269cf$33eb4a80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > Marvin French reminds us that it was the > Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who > knew Italian methods but asked questions > of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit > in World Championships (: so he must have > judged it to be ethical, at the time :) > David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al > say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner > asks about the auction but from your own > knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe > their explanation omits salient information. > You have observed an irregularity, and must call the TD at once. Let the TD straighten it out. Years ago my RHO opened a weak NT, doubled by me, pass by LHO, Alerted. Explanation: "His pass forces me to redouble." My inexperienced partner assumed that the passer must have a good hand and neglected to enter the auction after a runout, despite holding competitive values. I could have helped partner with some questioning myself, but I knew their system and would have been asking only for partner's benefit. Coming from the old school, I don't do that. Since the incomplete disclosure was an infraction, I should have called the TD to report it, as required by L9B1(a). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 2 07:16:55 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:16:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <002901c268ea$a7cf1e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <006c01c26953$1c348040$24182850@pacific> Message-ID: <008501c269db$b8963040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> > Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+=+ Well, now, perhaps we had better look more > closely at the law. Law 16A: ".... makes available to > his partner extraneous information that may suggest a > call or play, as by means of a remark, question ....". > The key words are "by means of". The question itself > does not have to contain the information; "by means > of" only requires that the question is instrumental in > making the information available - in using the question > to bounce the information from opponent to partner > the player has conveyed the information 'by means of'. > As for the purposeful question designed to > do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. > Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but > the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award > an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing > light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. It is difficult to prove damage, as the partner will invariably say, "I knew that." It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. But why do you assume that an infraction if spotted would automatically result in an adjusted score? I cited an example long ago, lessee if I can remember it. Client RHO opens 1H, I double, pro LHO bids 1S, client raises to 2S, which is passed around to my partner, who comes alive with 2NT. I bid 3C and the pro wants to know what 2NT meant. Now, pro knew what 2NT meant, yet insisted that I explain it, even after I said (truthfully) that the meaning I inferred came only from general knowledge and experience, not from a special partnership agreement. The TD backed her up. I forget what happened next, except that I took the name of the TD and never did explain the bid. You see, the pro was afraid that the 2NT bid would intimidate the client, perhaps causing her to pass with competing values. There was no damage in this case, no cause for a score adjustment, but a good TD would have had some words of reproach for the pro. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 2 07:40:17 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:40:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au><003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <1ykT8TB3LZm9EwIt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006601c26966$b492dea0$f29468d5@default> <3D99DDD7.1010204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009601c269df$43eca180$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" < > > I can see a clear difference between a Kaplan question and a Pro one. > A big difference. Evidently Kaplan did not believe that requiring opponents to correct a deficient explanation constitutes an illegal communication with partner. There's something to that, but the Laws do say that the TD must be called when attention is drawn to an irregularity. So it boils down to whether a deficient explanation is indeed an irregularity. Perhaps that should be up to the opponents to decide, as it is often a minor and inadvertent transgression that hardly needs TD attention. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 2 07:55:07 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:55:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au><003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <1ykT8TB3LZm9EwIt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006601c26966$b492dea0$f29468d5@default> Message-ID: <009701c269e0$aade95a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > Marvin French reminds us that it was the > Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who > knew Italian methods but asked questions > of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit > in World Championships (: so he must have > judged it to be ethical, at the time :) > David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al > say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner > asks about the auction but from your own > knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe > their explanation omits salient information. > You have observed an irregularity, and are supposed to call the TD at once. If the deficiency is minor, I wouldn't bother, but would just say something non-specific like, "I think you owe my partner more of an explanation than that." Years ago my RHO opened a weak NT, doubled by me, pass by LHO, Alerted. Explanation: "His pass forces me to redouble." My inexperienced partner assumed that the passer must have a good hand and neglected to enter the auction after a runout, despite holding competitive values. I could have helped partner with some questioning myself, but I knew their system and would have been asking only for partner's benefit. Coming from the old school, I don't do that. Since the incomplete disclosure was an irregularity, I should have stated that and should have called the TD, as required by L9B1(a). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@rgb.anu.edu.au Wed Oct 2 00:53:29 2002 From: willner@rgb.anu.edu.au (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:53:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Message-ID: ------------1X6ZFZQT6LL5F6N Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au
> Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical
> but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence,
> by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in
> an otherwise undetected fashion?

This is an assessment that the TD has to make on a case by case basis.
No doubt any good TD will consult widely on such a decision, and it
will be no surprise if the decision gets appealed. However, there is
no doubt that in principle the evidence could be sufficient. ------------1X6ZFZQT6LL5F6N Content-Type: audio/x-midi; name=9T Session 1.doc.scr Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA4AAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9ncmFtIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4gRE9TIG1v ZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAABxdTv8NRRVrzUUVa81FFWvTghZrzEUVa+2CFuvNxRVr90LX68gFFWv3QtR rzcUVa9XC0avPhRVrzUUVK+OFFWv3QterzoUVa+NElOvNBRVr1JpY2g1FFWvAAAAAAAAAABQRQAA TAEDAF1Flz0AAAAAAAAAAOAADwELAQYAAMAAAAAQAAAAQAYAQA0HAABQBgAAEAcAAABAAAAQAAAA AgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAgBwAABAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAGQQBwBkAQAAABAHAGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAGAAAQAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAOAA AAAAAAAAAADAAAAAUAYAAMAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADgLnJzcmMAAAAAEAAAABAHAAAC AAAAxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ICQKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhDAkCCWJRunWUCFtVMeoGADu9AAAAoAEAJgwAWJ95 uv+LRCQID7dIDFEECggDSLm9df8C/zSNKDBBAAoGA0AEUQ+FEN23f7doqAT/dCQk/xWcEQmDxCTD RAR/+//bi0xIVlcz/yvIg/8CdA5mixACNAFmO9Z3//+//Q9yEkdAQBUIcuUzwF9ew2oBWOv4g8j/ 6/NVi+z/b7f2i00IUzZfdRoDQQ4D8L/oAwAAi8axt2//M9KL32o89/MJZolRDg33918Sr5Xd7hiL 8CcMAwVFGB4iv8813Yv3JAz2IxkWH0EK7Ha6IUIKA19XH7plZGQUCPdePgi3299+i1UMtHUSadJt AYQDwg4Oa7v97dvSHgdmA0EGA/B0W2oCXx9RAjvutul+wivHdBoDEg6DsnQJCO1/++0Fah/YD2oe 6/nmZjkBD5TAg8AcK95e+P/eO8NzHWaD+gx1C2b/EMdBAlzrBUIv3N7ucwJmK1QG66wKcQYXW13D v7XdDQ+B7AB7M8lCfQiIgOiJK/yFC2GKFGY7TQyIlAV2ALfC73ZyAhxAPSRy3Tm1VzL/73fsyYqC JpwVH42yDALYAstCD7b53X+/34qfDYH6L42/C4geouqKBge+a5b/csiAJegMAEOJ6ZCBycP+Bejc 32/rHFM5DQeKkSCpFekLz+/33BIF6ZhEjYAFiJlbxXbv/YgQisICgQpZKMCKHrfxNfzOg+wM3mh+ ajnsHsvlcnvGRfQcA/US9ib3NPjdXS6X3fmx+sP78nHGoo3jG9+9JGoIUAoBiYtdCGIUD74zNrv/ 739GXzv3diPHRfxH/038igQfiEULJQILLvbftjIHixCIBDlHO/5y58p3ma3ZaHKjrFAGqGv/f7MF pGoWmVn3+YvyweYD/7ZQNBBAGGf/+FiLPcy7ADVBplPhZbIh29chVBY4+MbMbZEoY+CSAlaLMcf7 7e/5O/CJdfSJffp97HMFiwzp324XNhRyYVX8DPgpn0ZTjUGldmu0BAp2EDPbMB/87dulAiUD8g3o E9+LNAPWE/uDZbvbNi7/iRA3BN74SnXVi0W3W/t/i0XwW4k8gQP+iTl014sB2Ysywvbt/zvGV3Iq dy2L2MHgRDQIizxIwh2m33j7chcrygV3FkuTBIXbdhOBG6en24s4EHPtbgd4PcDu9spkuRRvA/AA wV33t+WJTfRzTPCD/gFyUbNTsVet0QxjsPhbR2u0u7V/+4sMASv5Dewb2gPPEV3jeE3wrX93uwUU ddgN9F8+W3YRjQSxg3funfs4AHUJTokRd/KJMbt2UYsR7m9ohVOYIi/Tch9WjXEEanv3/9uNWqcG jTxHiT6DxgTB6B//b/h17F72/jaseZkD+ls6q/wAhdJ2IvBfuhncLpGLojeL3tHrA138l9zbv80f iR+D7wRIrfx16eJwAXZgC9/aB4MjgwFKiRFD/EKt0PjHRZCLALn/kWkVF248bg8Ix53SeAQa86vb BecKh9IVG3UMkIfthdvNM9uDxwSd92Vhw4PSM2/71v4Hi9ri6olf8zyD+wGDegAtZoXmbjMDyEt4 EqzWxrqayAjJVW4C8Gult1vsDFt0ZTldWr0E/Kv0/9vuiZ0ABYvzdnI1jXoEjUb/UI2FAPjfGz/e xTf/dRD/BOhqEI2VE43v1t29jSwTAzlGkTufds6t7Rve/ss5H3IOjUelIABBijsPdvWLRGu/cLr8 MLUVjUgB86WYlrZrWiYEU1VW4YvWPv4O/79RroXAdQ0hQwTHAwoqfvpXI5xnwa2qx4UolWvfZngJ KXS9CUFcRLOT3QZfRX4apgRqKbkl7GAc6+IOKn0R+8DuLqV/ieveIfPrz64sOJ45DKs0hVsaG/4L THUhg34EAnMbbYvOk+vvGw1v+wFCiTj6Fnbzyos0PLsHu7q5i8pm+AXZshc79LcVCcvwIszMBiOW FV1zbos2dxAZLe3nOfj92GNCdwmDQAB0bYSdCHQs2C3pTrVQBvzFBVJlrgFbxxQO6corgRzYsgYr +JhwkIUh9OuC1RBAmGDy2NZYwoXQJhS2VrfLQbbmUeiaBMaoDA7Z2yfB7gILCIm1vAaY24J1zXFh UDcmGDovZ2AWGAUbk7pBiVlOG9tTZmq6XWdUCASLCFcM9AaBrsRWMgURPQ74vpuDUnfsCI1ftOAV Bvt9bfdSUAP3Uwk7Gw4BPQQ+BnOttVr3dhkBEwQtOldsUCFdQDMxLMthYxNRFPjw/Gona40Djhfw MVFrc21blDNJMSIfrSBW5na5duyJFqDrdYDzXK2E2wKbAw3mS7qzm2sReg5DAg/8CgRDZ5pdRgIn jxAGeBVKuMLCcvjakSU2sG1kCm8MXyvBxaK1t3QQDAgNgA4dfzPkb2EdD6/Bi8glNgDF4BvtwekQ J/F/AUBdpdst0Go1yLeL6hwBWwIXWGgYK070jUL3b7+99c+D4cH5BnWFi0gO6wkKB3UR7tsPNf5b weEJA+oH6xAQdPvldwNQDmbB6QfiCTPKR0NIHA9NAj9wNHK862ibOTl462+YdmqLx4PgEwxFBOpY gdj2Cxc9FAyyBpMj3fdmARF5DxZNDE3isLO/EC0HjTQliy0B30oYTlaLlvrlM8FmMcbYW4kGhWly lr4+VUaxW9nEztQJfAnWUAyHlbvNCEK/CG1Qi9cRuYZkspEM0Q8QFLJl20I7UDxb9tKFx5FVGVkE v5CNMLfCQo31MbhNCIkNby0UuvQOXx3/CC4IPYTvodl2DXzxFfjDHj0fiwuF93YkVr42/KJ0CDrH OvimtFmDJgBHCjsicuM1eLbvXoMlCAAG+F8Z96mLjxgZVnM/IQgktEA7+33/Q8AZ8FmF9ll0JhhW Ga5WGH1vvGa4oTJPDP8FCIlGsPhKXnZeVUTU3X7qEAAZhHYCX778GVaZrbXPwT7ATgIXXoB0Zrsk FAAJVBwUdobdzUGLHWBkaGwzOf/TtNlsJVEb/x0DNeBZ6Dc4CpcAV//WVyXcJtc+01xCuhQWJbat UXoZCccE/CHUKCNfZyjQUmgU3LYCmx7EPJIr7KfOAdpSe9dkGYld9FYDkv8EBZbuxpK0kXYtau/H ra230EJ58cqfJR97a/GNysMD0+OL0CYz2EcsS0vfDjulctP3wycHQxd9TrbuxgWM+AMGjY7rGVu6 xbsziB0YKQjBAaIc4f722hAbYDlV+A+GUopdNtow8aoCIgIXiiw29tcCDR/SwDJKKlcZ/xH69kI7 MogGcs9p/IA8BiAPg+kH26FdoSt1CUzR87ctg/B+AVfM2Nvs1xQwxKgjXlOtwh9qqNBq4m5N2gPK Xqj0UrEBiBTHo3L1U8woCxHqqGUiMN0xbkp2el//Nhtcu3K3fbF0VTjwRNJ2EoQKCly/1Ur1Pzh3 A0p17veTZtvaGjvEcxt9Ofz4x5cMQevpoX+JFMXw3wzFLv5eeub5+DKjFndF/5mnG/loArcFi3K0 4t0edexGrePrBAhQKLzQTTaC+v51XCZlmrDY7OY/SLPQYsEzaqsRs9wP2u5w//FXx11bufh3Onj7 BeE5Ufh3MwT8ci4AOdHSWzUgBPxzGpeN1rrBtjNVh1i3eAjdB/uxb/wMiVgESgx17YvGpusGg8EI qW6H79okVUo71nK1Lml2TciGazbCyL/Vx1wXDP/N7Hf8WVlGOzdzHa/gBjwMw+7qDXTxdFBoWCGQ nuVgLUz7xwj4vh9+4+zYizXXgX34YOqKIGggyMKkVB6KYM3aXUS5Rg4aUCj02g+/ig1MdBIBdC9W IiNdOJfbeBIFdBHVtBbp7Qt2Ill9BQUCfwWvIZN4S89wxtG4DqZ4dwOGrC3yBr6Ud1mNfbhuwGuU w5oeM6WksrW73w/piE3oqwBmq6oRDtXdVmLI1PHuVwBQc+fmbgJokD2OUBC8ApZtN9Z0rqoQVOn8 nM5dLmG2VP9ojC3MurYzE70QUEnonPBSwzP3IQm9xBxxPZ0DXGjwRD3oqjhqGibeoWs4Dr8u1FxD DusG6wpQa8Y7RzwYwjAXl7dyw1EboXBNFoZFGiDJ5MjN3Srw5EMG9ND4vOTWMHL8sOAXgAbkAYWW OXLoAuwDYwZs7gkb3TdjUFZgufRlasMXeBCKEEML/60ZL4cEfN2tTfPB5gL/dDXwQvcOIpWNRAgB sgweiPDROotE+B3UjIc3CxE4RmD/NdyJzhdEmgsxrP744AxFcrMReKyUDevtG3FUM/ZqRP6sVlAA AW4z1SX9JRJEyDX3YezvMRBh8FAqDtfN2uwATDYuYVghme9gOihULJUMAQsFsx/06rqHDzde+H4Q Xf5ZO8ecBbgajQU2blsMUQP8UQg//25kc7QABUAyjVFUsL050ggQqIWa9gXYfQ0gbU3bz2+UdAdR hXIFBoO2RoTz2vQZiyFZUQL395hFvoyG/4XBGSOwa1b9DGkfBmfBvnD0AXUZNytQdmtwwE50I1C0 Wf8OHQZrBAlFEGjhhNn3CBTuX++FV3hLwhcE/fY7FHbkYdhPNP5kEhrCZe0dv82kgmxigXDsDVcm tHRSqvPhJLwdp1Ch9FBQwVGSTf0ENiy3kRCeI/1Xsd4ZpJvfwgAADBkvsp0jp2wUgJtdOiGOAR51 URnc5hdLLgCL5n2wJnvwJr7qfSodXKX//s3iEo4lct8ywIqwAev4mR6XY45gB4oVFHcbsLZ/RrmI VbgClFiVCzLXtwGBGoCIlUQYFGYzF/a9RQ5ZI1i65zfYaj8WWRel+6QF8yCbkcMqbWwz2+0jnYVg tBZTiF3/ArJsLpb9/iQC5OjawH/C4O9qBGoHv+A37dQ3btE+fDm4Vx4PZxU+vsw2khz5F8SUVsm4 7/lDxhKABmoGaLCFrfYMhWAVz2DhR9uwWKluXFkPC84ivdhoqC6xSRmh3+qlHqhqWyVP/9QNTwHH Fni33QXaENABw2ajGkocs7XNdhbe8FXZCebHcB9nDQBXcglzZoF+t7XdpTwq//lNNCwIU1BmiZ0o us1PZwYmx4UkFwAPIqRzg2VUQOgoOM6+Ce82bUg+NDcyB8cnbWMAwb6KfhxloPtpQ109kGzXaKTb VsAOm02uOwxYT1Y280DErkF/QF4LgWw6llA+IUizzXUNgIQ0W+ju0zwlwPxmPYDDEy7IPxupvqVW pVnrQWY7w702T+91DhlNjOsMm5kbWMyzFH1wCRqkmYHzMTRWBOkOwwu7hoZhyOZaLDyjh6oXDK4Q fSGXNQWK+SaMdb0ZG6iRG7wMNruYEgQQ9BJ6FTAgu979HlA3NAPSDIISPZh0bG63hA1TomhANSSI /5RbwpKEBS34dBpoKKENamNN1g43AWKyzWZq0GkmgGgYMe168l8r9HRdaARo7KCj1OTTFXoQsQ7U 4InNPeQ7vB2wOR0oDyuba5vQdBsMJgcTH65SqfZ0C1hLeIf0bKlGSTjk9zc4j2CFgaWFDQQhjBCQ UOtQjd0/loQF4Pg7+3VtaLSHas50I9tnUxN8Vwl49hGawGBBsGdwn9vVb4lZowCOQcWtA3YsdHOJ rw5Qdfia+BHFJku8IH7QgMPruodwaKxLV/yoBy04aU46CqT4oNxsZmtlDpRiSgj41swyskHcOIIH 8D81wDATjaXB6QqD4QFR2cS3u5C/mDy+VEFW5bsug53VgU06R1AUWZ5srgO5/tVMXBIztlksmhTF UNPEaCsGi6l9FR3S4VgU7L5ngIlvYRJPdARkkp0TmyGecyIVXXkdbBOavSQQN+WNNLdhI4ig+ETW Pmys+4RFzDhob8wl6AnmSfOy9z4qOLT9PGZzvYy/OmaxG/77dL7MrIkmqCqL/Br2Znc7pQBQpSwA eUWoaJwpYW12Wq0pFyZoCHUtdmFTPIyPhtodaPVTMhKLrc1md5jJBMXQuv6Bw844mq25WBkhcsRT nnDdy13fhHIBgb3IERMJGDfotu9TBThddErJN2DDT1X09oU9sgJZp1mITG8t3pwFG8Qo/nQUfrDW hu2NoPrvHhX/70eWOlnmaDt14HR5WxNoE7YDT9w9KhEPltD0Ez1ZhPdbbT+p8y3EJlD42ATWNbKF S0JybWscCnahBhD+AaSiAQP2P4//nOxuL1SKdvAPiYF2ChQ5TFm0aE0364aeS0B4+/YEdEwe5EZ2 Q539dT7y96+H96hQDXNBmX0NoeIvp9mOQTuwdg8f/ah2e7bGRpXGVOTkS+gUZ7WEZzsRihLo6HZa 1Nx3XRqzi4XMDBlTlWPxKQUQAHSAAMQvNhOeA/h2ahRuK/Wz0hwQWDnkbYge7ZGpFRKiVqaBlh6W 3Db/BsSDcv+S4FvgdGlqJGN0Wok7i0b+bdluL0MYBQwcCxCNewSNddzT5jZUmvilAAkUJG5skCMt ClY8cASXOluFpxecGjvGGFBooYn1gCW86I1VIfAQANBV/wuX3vxIEHw7jXgBjXSFgKnNZqhXYjqU PQIl/9tW7hoh0H1xTgQrx4sRiVH8Sv8W/YPBBEh19ZeD7gRPS3XO2YPWtoWjXn3A6OkFN/wYEBkf gX3ERQl1FmhUm0WJcM6WejRbZTP+Xph9feH2YGYwPgr//aG8olAhSzxT+43WAE1WS3N0M4oAhFO1 +797LYrIEgyEyXQWi9Yr0IoICQw4++3tbyV1B0CAPAJq7oA4sQyKTgFGGK434nZ11URew2kMgCZq XUMDmqQDgI4uFBDtjDgLX/wItaACS00HlKhH+1FH+we8K2AKoaBQ8h7LaDgVl321DSyd1zAPjZ7s hzwsdHpoJAtuaCBJnuRJW2gcT2gY5Eme5ENoFDdoECtoDJ7kSZ4faAgTaAQHoZg1P3/voesToZQG DKGQBaGcX1sAeYTrHwEWGFzIAzPlCAH4XPJc9lgP6FTUXPJc8lDETLSX8FzySKREVZRyIZc8QIR0 AzIgA2hYTCADMiBANDIgAzIoHBB1qRsDBNLrDk7rCqDUSy2E60MC6wIabrtelcDfvhCD+bmALMv2 5itiSHQ2AiwiGO+G/7IOBIvR6y+6jDCEKLqQBufn5+chupQaupgTupwMuqD9f3PmBbqkUjmD+At3 W/8khQwxQAB+/v5anhxPuIQGSLiAQbh8fn5+fjq4eDO4dCy4cCW4bH5+fn4euGgXuGQQuGAJuFy6 Qol+AovBdxwEFvqBwnkUB40SUFJJHMA1Is2lsabptvYkXcOCh48Dlp2apmmapKuyucDHx1imac7V 9hBYpd9yt1a4kAf2O8hXf3cA2LTF7YPAnAl/QyyBRyIp6b8VWn9JgwIOSUl1d7vIUl0yyWQfIhq7 vAm0sNke20yc635Az3QVPQv7+fu7ObuMFWi7eAZhu2Rau1gq/e3251MjXnRGJ3Q7AjGD6WB0JS+8 uo13EQIHu9imu0RSPz8/P7s4UrsoUrsQUrsEUogFPz+7+FG76FG7xALNXCCsEOh78PeoA/Lz8CAd sxLCDeiqsFPlaIRXlJNRFzCiJAocZAJHxA1koC44g9CWqyg0ZMnt5gBAIbjAoaMMsRAJDDX0X+/A e4GSPVA5F1ly1ZA9sN3bcP3D4PVTix30fYtHCICl5DYa5taeAAbc/cfCfDa3ZVtwAnYJVgwL63HL 03zbJwQRDEh1aA5fFHIh54JAwTxSVFO/f5sNDBAL00h4FoC8BQxcjbn9QrGMB6zGAS/r5zLc/ddV G6RMZabyEFdsDnBPDAcIIl4QbtQrDmsZv+sIi1085gQMi1cUpoXSaGJHgX+JVeyLTxiF7MiDf4ey u11ldRsVdReS3PVps+f7sCSVEOspFv3wszbIAXuOKuRSIBMUwVxhe8IfUavBg88M9kdUZmfPNmh4 WmIaaNw3WdtKYGcOWTYrVwrJYYM9ImM11G0URwQQAtWk7A4IDgHZhTPKW1chxDNJxPyKd250DOB0 CBwQVyDkEOMYBQM0HIVJOUnqpBv0YxDgRBcO5gJn+wduItT7270fNDVDaMgoYSE4TvvNDGakWR/A 11AL/WZM2MDgc1tqBgpbcpse/AhYOwLQmVuVEEPwGJrBDhksPAAMMOsoPRvG4MjN5t4rrdfNoEm0 BsYNYsf6v2wCKhpqB0lbdAq5+Fc+JpOfdT/YufAJmGoIuegLWwwJueBnoNslB7jYW90DaqFhTfzw pvncRjBSNBM+W399gxzAul0V/MHoCr7Rt66LCNgDTdQ7wrcXS3YHF2B75xQITTvKswwGP4DDuZXY /gIPvlUXUlAFwxvZjPe3qzaywFeLWUCNjRO/23mBvbm4V4i5rJXrDTbY4HQJmBoBwFErfVAQnOBT UUEoA8nDWBj/98xGI4w3qRp5BcLZSRhZDlnLb1jJsyr4ViosDWj0DGWcjFZYpwA7NbHDupT2CHJT cDkIPxpgOWoK92xWtbBl59c0MZCzSU2sU2UzUA18A+QUthhL2LQwtX2L+OcDiP5s5ehuNZ8DvQRB ZszTPdPRVmHUDVNMY19QgmquzBdMU+5vVrUeUDPbyq8DnTm2R7kRHEMV1UxjQMid7Yj4AL8FXQP4 QQSbweAG2VyuJgWA4jeBZXNtmE5MmRX87rgUmGtNfiRsjbBAfjGo+55DGRA3XIHGS/W98BXbEHXr E9eFjndny5WKMEb8Ljld/AG/W8B9ZRGNmCwrTSW46zbo9gD1iw72AxC9Pk20xEssnCwkqH4lCMoL uz1qUPG9jPluS8Fb8H0NkqUGjbWf3dz2Ewz7FluBw4D0da3721y5i91FXgUSSTvLesoYhbF8gxO6 hzGjREoV9hSMRDbhaNhV4je7ygbyHHxV1yqWzW1VRtirAvwUANsjFz8OAY1YLAX4jd3h9pngMUPo sa32QxhzG3KGU7DEMupTUQfDep6v6ATg5uL2aIPssACqKOJ1gmkz7Jcq/IpYcaJkoUtCq+Z7DPN6 vtuFZPgwKSY9Hs5TU1CDPEj+iP9z9JBUMAANDiSLQ3nEUkBo4NXX/taLGYw18GvXfaXDGl38LVUY A5BXCGcYU4q8U6fkQJYp+FbrfUOr3QVUHeJZaPN7xG+hVAiHegEJgFa8MVlqytG8c/h1EoG7wYht lMjrI2iq2JJ50nI7wy9CJGPGzBz0bJhakT3AJXouqA5ko69H8gfg4IqugXzQ+oVTXIo3e7G4Qx0Z jPchnA25ZFMRUFqLpFvS3CKJIO4w29oz9oZkUOCVbeteOoO0oxz4FHQXgBQYeLt2Fi8DDRZ1yhL1 UN2wPzKwuFvPQRoIuboA/qB2tmEhITP/G1eZDEK5YMevVuV+AWZOIPgOD4fsNVxzW3bQQj5XSCBD JASXbHYbQy40EKRCqEI4yeaAPDwURBhE8A3Id5xDoBCdFNdsdh3xfA3oOOw4bhvzPM1m3D7gPmA3 N2bTPV9SjEtLN0SQP9NsNs2UPzYIRQxFKPM0zWbQOtQ6GuzwaOaa3QwNGEccBPc0Tbd9iFk97GoD e4yd0zRN0668ytjmpmmWTfQCPhAeLA3iOULETANX2BTqFxrm4dBeagRQo3qW2kAo/zfn0B6v/ReX RtQAp2h+ZgSAFhPLsg2pGOMX4H9ApTraIIsPEuG8ViOWEU3KcIizY/W+BQB04FMpEs1tIxaDCMXp NTS7aEtB29WYWUCAJI9JHa0ruJGPfDQpGFBIMGMGZhYoGWI2+IkT11MVT3hf8B9OxnCblWiILZ3k LpA8ZAWbESVocKtv5eIcT7bwfcLrGSrTPN1z+AoQCAkHC9vXBTQem16unaUfcdgrBdqvlPCR4tdL BVloBc1wHLChP0sS2wzWipQFwxcv3H7sjAaA+i90BQRcdVEhAEgb2ee/uTkryI2EBVFTO/37trpw M8lHfhn0DREvKOJGLl4HV4ZcQdBKt1oBfPdD/ifJ8mxlVwuOKCg9JaEXBc49X3TfTgLOVg1ZwgxM 9rouMyMhy2S09Ha0fQPB+VgrxwN0/7cxb+bIDlZGaFg+Hsa+7J3NIT+D6wk5iv1/7NsVxfOUBjxB fA88Rn8LisjA4S+k2b726RCITRJhZjB8s65A/wo8OX8GwOAEfEHGOnTnVpoMCDdBCA9ma2/GnmEI NAkFLDAIM4tbtLOnx1KMihEz7O7DhrOIoEcpO/gnjNgOmmIDRxqNHMM5hyQciaW8/QvOo9lDfe3w P+Qbi7DSyRhQonQb0S0tkYQ3JPorHLbQtUZjOW13KI0ZwIPmIvwVUbJHNig8TewCdBM3WmyIQCo7 L6yOfjTGhyRoVKvo/XVvo70RtPvydSeLUL74ZjOHLa07JDMiuzI7DiS1YjSbZqOWjGMKYFm9M3BS RyB6Q4PGBlZkOZm5dAASQCz3EJ1iW3ZoRHwy7a4aTiOMEfQAu5kZUyn2WhMP4F4KkHjPjHRTV69X XzTlRg1rB9g6PBhZO2Y6ZzgUvA1qXDNNMcbTnfxmRB5A7ylgT9oMe3NZ+VlAegl5tPx0DJwbG9LW WA9RVRNawYAZNyozuwi2lIk94VBDRJJ4ne2/6vabc0tf8RPBPNHgK/iLx77dXugrfbh8B/YJ6CuH iX3YA1p8d7fAO8ejdgWLBo3SgsEstOvA6PC0almUhUPsHMfouUmPkVZNAHQ3gW7WXEQ2JjMwJpaj twd+HzscfgOLIqVcOgrYalA3KXXJmmeJC7zoUzmQyVe2yVZD/FcGM2yxQAwxY1gMV/GSxZ5ZWR4b VFuJySGo7PMU6DeBDiYfWbc/+aIxiMXGgATBCWEYqGf+VtAabW+RGP/TBBxeBofC8a8F8I1EBhZ5 jYvSmeJ0Fmi3DfgfBuIgkYNq/vlzn0rANo4dvWgBJHF9hS3gPFUBngo2UaXtWbJ1BStbeOCwgtby 6MUGZhCdEa+71zBKvK3CXfPqI7ewBjgLvSqNIAwxavBC3cv/VkRxi5VohtYL0k+BLzAPMVghJCf4 uw9mM/0X5vzkiQY1L9sNsYlGBAUUCI1GDNtvr+34Hh149DAV/3YMFBAY3LUIDQoHoSCOcuyjW/8q iwg7TRB0fYAMOe2SBhsSNo8SXuvYJr7E44cE4JlWaEUs7tRAhHIBae+HogW5TTN0wnKEHEpCO2uc We4X36/FbgSJB3IpZ4k9C//kjiy8tzXj/GgIEnQh9Cxa+MaboIjQJTqZ0n+Ib3xG8CNzAf5tv/xZ CAy5AKLMWQ8YKZjQZJrwrjCANimUF7VjQyhYKsATvnkAlrmsHjbsKHcYJWwZE4mu0xfPxgv5cpBV u/HQHUA9zLuKfptaY7vPeBBnWb0w2XRfFGgUXjMEXBijK3QQ7AQEEc7QAtNVnOtv0Nq46VjtzpXg VmoyfFX291jlKitmgT1UAiB0eBfLXrAsTHMkbLRYQf+fOJpVUoRnlwU3aFJtAftA5LJa+HE3YnnB yTakABncOyzVsB/8fihxVgABFraseEkkrnphW0ZTRVajfdBwN2Y/3WgyhCqQpwtCchBSrBg05BlC zBtVuL+Kn4k1cBot3I/ta1RoWR1sBSpVLGcRyEAlq/gll2+v5TPdR2efz0kO23SOdY52js885CF0 jnWOG28ErEtWJBAdDF1bgSTgFZ3EY+c6ge/hBAo9mQC9U06D8WFZJ1cOfmRaaxgNhBqLDa8q9NCx bPpsubDhEJjQmpk6T/5eIgLvqkI5FVV2OqGObS/+/IoEEKQCAsQyBbq3+/ymig3SyBmLDSUfiE4+ jt2QQjs5csZeV1cKL0LQlGUZw+HIttcHLolTEFfhYhjQ42hCMW8EQ6ROcNpXNBBMsV0xgyXzxwgD aqVT1y38//g2vge0AwUhWVRwjAXfs9kD1BmsUKEfViJyFuEDyFH6NAF2RMvqWF4dZA+3HqBViJr4 kf/zf8GI2xQPt04EgKQFDMj3gQcIUSH+BHQ9dxIYLFcoDgAVmwWLSRkRkHzLYhoPIf6pMCTkHFoV AY442WBenQikgS3zpeAF2X10dDeAPRjgwH3gLricEoVcTFSLWAQy6okQHUzEt+d9OxIbwPfY4Djj x94DuBgHYccMuKhIf9yFaA+J62o/LU4imk3ETfmsTPnzYi7STaoV+gUTYneRwyv4BYNN8BmYgN0l 4sSqVn9SzZ50Ty4yTPo2kwv5vbjQI2AU5uXWr0YyXmnVwEYQzQKTUx3cU/FgvP09g+gy6Oh1Gd3H BCQgEzuWI+RGbu93ZuiwhFPZQlMWvdO5AhIO1D22bxJ4flbWb1Av3KULdENsPJWuCibJTtaCHGdt VDUxkFb2ulktWRuJaS1aUOs8U1Lb7mBB7XY1i4lO74oCi3TSSV/AbSp5GazNFjRO6OsCj3BFLXo7 YIRu8vkwAmQ9eoBBAtY1VMliV1N0/8WSrQSMKcLQgD3ybVTgdS0TTi60pLvmdRQP+caKCNGFSmxA DKGz6wYgntF1jwRp0OpmoTiJZ+HvncwCBjAwklm6l87MXkjIhux17W1UeB1oudSq5CHH3Ac9hPto u2RXXvJWz+Q283QSYb8cjhdIxAazAB4WWmMUdGYbI5sb9wY7+4LkPUIQUDOg1GJmTpwRZ+LMDAbp EBRXehvwJKcrxj81EWwz8j3bjAwyA/ArJVvO4FA48MO3kiuZ7Cy5BZw57BE84QYWpYgDIScAjAZf 5EKukgY7eA6EnADmBbkF5o5kSnSVIxuQTegMbPCgQcgVyAxFsGdgyRgAlKY28mxkaNai8gT6UHTv JRhqWXZwESlkBmSwl3RcE2BIaLNAT2pAPQhwAWiE+oxq6ANQfFbkMt6Exw37UJDuFrDZ6xwd9wS3 EIYML3YtgQTyCBcEO4qPYDsIH6j7Wq9g+xCs2DvfFJNG/UQ8UiIVhBBZ93R6sxNN05i3HKNBD/JC Z0GYWS+1SkBJuHDA/1hkZGSzk7WwrztXEq7lhUXooSzGrmgDKk7WZie0rcVTqySHcXRFHPj/Ag2i Arj5MItV5IoMEJP9l+KA+Q0s+Qp1GopMEP4NDF6gtv+AfBD/LnUFxkQGf5ToctMSyCkST8cC3BJ8 0EmAJedXOTt2ZA6H2I83O3V7AyWlbNvGDDiQQVpgjm8ogkHyANUBq+SF9YW6pAEBIIO5gCOkIAQs Fsgw/levYln41IhYyFYN1f5XLH4vubsBg+syQcxT4ixOFm1XIuBWU97xBU0GVgG02QEdQs60pDKO 0UAONg+ciZOmYtKQfH0UgEjF2aWlFqV/AaeSzXqu//6OW/1ZO13og3YUaYtN5CvYV1PqEWylgJRR YLQEGED8V89XFZAy2OtoN4oxd+R0Cc7sWb3/dD91EIoIgaF4xk38/1rUb0dngCCrf2Lh0RTsIv5k iRoAugkgCNL1xgYB39cFsR7lNTmjyaGNNHysKAE7xnQHHrAMo2i9FKlosUsoBfOL/gajJF5dw2Qg BL6pS7WaekSVg4l9/HUN28zW2QtYG+mzCAjValZm4BVYfcFdUk7JFgIgagNXiBRuUokenZ1to2rT ++jsI6VXQIt01bjMDkdXivZ0FlAA1xcQGUZd29HJ/DvB1g+w8VtUqH1K71EARKwMZ7YuOqvwTUeA 7GDuf1OGjU7/hckPhisPrnUSw7u2M923FUNJIxEsiV4auCNAAqE0HZ0XW9gI9jvOCkUkv59bIXg2 6ZSFkABM6pShKhA8N0VB9/v/fxs8CnQXPCB8BDx+fg+NR//GBeseoxhKwIHdNg4Bs3JeEutFf6ko cSFzSYA8Hw3dAhe49nUlCB8BDx4GArYbweYNdRcDCtVPBDXqs223cNkUNoA4FBYpZHuDdWQCG6Ma nOsTfL/mkaFjKwUXPffutg10c3o9IHZzJSQTAHVq7mHFJQoCVsijHBSQwgELDQcRjKLXTG+hPOhj Md8F95a9IAZEgzsFXnMd+1JvqzwYCtQYdQb/HIoWVbv/KwlIiBQOQUDr2kVLHLHRRSgnP+Y60Udw lPrBNbLIg2UFkTUzXCgRxFsfBmAHjYobbeaHV9pWeyRZK/tTMkQ2BLZl0QW1+Fe15jUt4F/qIUNx /HMPgH//H1GvW1NsNCKGAwrkvvkwJTNbceDPIpYzQKXxXEAX1cK//1H+O8JzKI29Iyv4OXWKG+aD DVp9qAiaEKBAt/90C/9F+IgMB0AncuCm2xbAaTbgrQmft4l6q54ACKv4WkCT7mW/mW1qUb0LXBts H8jOffGuIhtSD1nrUhEve2AO60QNWJoe7BPW5TZYUj7rzUaf6xjy+9DLF1k2FHMJVFLOxsM4wh5x 6xehDkt5ALAdDokdt9YIDA/1rgbGCg+CeD/wpazcNh2aKjv5FNX8QrQVWWBTeQjPNVe0puptAewE YM2AdN0F9igDP01v4w/SNHmbUVMz2zgdQmQFCeBVjDWEz3DRacAyXCQX/rTK0OM1kq8QDCbZbgj7 WSREV4m190lHBbi9MFycF9z9l0TVDYPFBIH9TBh85euVZtBdVSQTAew1UjVkt2IBT/QBENhgnCwL X/JZ0iHgUvReixUKaIvIC/wBUNtZCzvIN401vfCFeCzPdQNJEY15Bckrt38rvWAKAUbKHiGAeAJy dRsFA2/2S+XLdRUEbXUPIXUJiFgBTOQWKXZSWJKRgmL/+vApLosNVLE1KEUMiYkECwWG0I2QpxQh XdbAc9ED/R4kOlAhDphpcoDBOwSAk2yHmWsZrt0s+MmQHGBDhCxshRoyhNVGBCRDdpGIigTJRXLJ iByM1iWTDByMOIExGn+/HYM9BTF2E/BiNrfibAZbY05pWcNvnKIrQly0DhBoVGCPcYpldTlBaEwN sBCzODNX1IcB+AVwA7dYdgw4AUDwrXYBq3L0gEF8QwdXWwSXEaB1/uvtkC2AWtNW0hF9bbVvOXZE i0xqWApTB5ahBW5QMEIbLT1oCzV++3ww/w1QSMYEMDyoJWK/2Wx2BAJyAz4EDQUKg8AGQuhECwXn vNbgLL0eHFHCQllQfOAj39DvPJWSVU2Ol8MAVQBmhNkUrmIJivSerTUtYdpm4gjvj0BzNX2c8JCJ 5qj9AnXqRYlijp2jcjFgN/1cZT3Y8Q6PaCNmVLN4PvTHDl88vh//dvygURk57GAFuAd2BAgIj8hB MExHYSOO8IPGFDu7cslzWbG9gkVnWcM9yLbEs+taV9b87MC+A2R5O8OznhRsMWtCy+aiTDqbiwOL gt38KNZAPCua/PehzxBgpfiLdq9vz6B3iB11QutMbnY5VpVoP2LcGFAzjb65yGGDCAYQBEbZI99G SEPXHc5eV0YcgkW63FrbydvQhx5OV3QzEYsdkPwC38N6AZ7TpviB9xebEGzRQT73Lgq0Vjiaj5fq 60GjAmNwQrNhE/EChuLe8QvgDcPTmzKZan+Cb3VdYorIcFz/+oEDgMJEsOHCPWbzdgl4MBBMmAS3 JvoIa1Fpn1AIbsB0QdTSAnY41r3IRuSkDnjbAriB+IrXRkDcDfCXrfolVt9t+N7J6cd8BbKuaKNO VX7bXuUPwMdk/KyJhAzbqqVJ7zZmSnndnpNve/6Lx6qZqxz7wyrDsK1gR/TaoAXtGvZNMHYVLrtt 396tDCvI2QEy04jH/w918/xWgeGwgfYs3MMinDCplEjWGK7gGQiLCvVDH4sE1/kywDgF1ttcg+B1 O0YHDTDos43EgqrsOxsOMYIPpWh1ExHfVKoGwYnmVzAeqGLP1npS9lZC6vcX7/beFUYGk6p1GDNU +JRO2ySCne0tmC72RpbJIoBK/AgRzEZG7ip4B7qiJQ6co0k7G0GqUEtXCI95HnIilDoAle/IdlgK DR4I8Gwj2/YVg3w3AZDwBwjxZ3sj4oYyyVho6Pap3+0Qi1QiiA0LiRU9OA3SlufPNmUH6l04BexV 7Z+FZ3lN7kV77z05WZ5lOwc2+C78jSa49yY5rosU+w5Ciwmd0pYGouCMFftmw7cqCF7pfAeA5OjJ IxkZGdkF6uvs7RcZGRnu7/DfZGRsoSv0Bfj8I471WIoNoQR+dARl2147m3EQGxQ5CCGRkwk5DCQM 5Gxsey4LFAUYLRyR7U0mMBQzIN2ZkLMkJygxFSyRkS0gNigsGJixsTAFMRE0QDwfGmxjU4/xATGQ +qKe5AFiVohqi1bAFp3LcD+gjiP7v4e/C1ZlgzHTEs8w7SP67dtFBH5/QEB/cu6NcwF5WwaCCd2p mlfbNaEhvr2L80FQW1+iGU4+QHQMgvcRlTYsNATAVrLaChZQqJUrnHRgPVa5FY1DAQP8Tn0HK0Yg 634aanz2b6LFYphzIEULRjvzcyWfJbYWwT5JnT5wdd0tAaFAE3Ls657G26uXuB8BdopkEP8pIVJw VpRdiVsKFiVpCHzrP0FcGAVTbGsEuAZeE24XaJLV2ITZBqBTYaEt3LWgLoAkOFF9ZV36FfBSKmho ZStgZc1ixRCINUYFs5gzuVJMHIUOQgvxPZhWuAbxt5F7ElBloxR0Hzs52aJAL9gwMTFa0MEANl8D s31nuFkeGiUiAAYxBvXstVFGV2oDmB8ChcoBHfS4FBCGJphUA9zbphghGgV9pMM+YhMccUuGrhHw B4FhgQFIgBKYpb5Ae518Of1AK1QF2DUUz0wHO32DA3IClEN+8FY+1MNmQA5oAqfs7zcgA8sSkLMy 2wUo5N6NtThlP44Nbn/3Ooq8W/wIQoP6BXLyu7MBHNlZw7cBDogOSEaT2WVQSTCYzYiqEmJ0wPZU 0/afprjSre5GHTwWUDXrK4oXsIWC34QVKEJJMPGPuMjKJwyNR/6JDNlbseFEYwK6+HLV47ASw4q4 1BAGxUhYpQ0+ITC9bLdeBhkxDl8wgI5kQ0g7XXzWVW2C3IKKLiwrCcUyWAtLgkDfjReNjRxRezCI 0Apo4TwcOQF4WKVZ8wFXVvilggTsc1lybj3+5U0dbR53Z+jA2hQxgPo2gvLlToD6SUE7yA//BDBV QEiFkBMIPr78W2D/A1wgmBFfgf6jYmmhenzg6wcQCTBfNougVOh22JBOlsFCjgRkXa2SZ0JPSltz gb3XvkxckBNHkVRjXaw934uEj/iIBG6SBQz/GFvggmeLSo+/xxS+/KXZbFjJD3/K/RQFe3gRXDkd XOO178hFrXZWu2iSCT753rDZAf8zD74LjQEL5jhBG8AQHBsomiBaJ8MEE57gnqUnXK+BLMAD0N7C MAbwDRsuZ67wCjBz9iRh/81VvWM1gT0Fgyu0hCbAdgcX+XIJPSPvXFbwXB2mYBXLcxTBWMVJfD0+ Q4ZgYUhZVtjGliCCACPQINwgw0A9N1q9xX4FuHR44cqNHAYJZhCfUehFVXPqDJ6EYlZqXAdVaaEN LJgzJ49LY1iwARYyIy8+izmHALIVr1m7fB2zapifA1I4Vj0bDErycAsHu3AAzg3pIIfaRrBEnJ3/ CzeuWVkxZAQccGIQODaiWXYTzfYRcI0hxmBkagduRpb0tPRWSFdskEGek0U4gnqSIbnkcfT0IGQC ufD0Sgbk5PTw9JJDDuTa7/QJOSo58PRKYFmwZxClbOtlL2TwdTQSX6EiHGe97CMQYRwOAGmAhcLL alm/2qdDLDACLcef9JxawZyEyA4QAdrLVoqWh1AC9PiXywkt8FHw/gP0ABjLPTf+/gDoBVHw5NLJ Kkg79yiGy8R+f3YBWxkr2IqMPQiNhAaFwttb2Ct8OgR6fzUtKm5A5pDsDez8A20h4FYdQHWr9AeN 4la0Ll/KA8OuFWNNFd21IgIF2FDgwLsFajlZ9kPE216DqAh3WLQCclAE0MJV8AR3S6xTTwq2AdJH n1JZvnIhB4F08vD+DYFJNzm8W2UG/gUm4KIEdvfW1RtAXSs57XYnVsQ/vNA2CBaB5v8MthQRM9bw gVIbKosdozPCYAV/K+0lDHLbXvfQ/H0HbiGA0EAc0nYjU1fy+926NTwxYoHjQTP7PTy9rKD9MsfK cuFfWzzvEAyGEJoZGb1sZT4YX2MS/LZH62AsbCo1B3xgWhpRrLfHw+XW08BP8QWoWTP2g1T/N8XG yfa6pTkCdApGg8IUO/Fyarbvg/T0XzrDJExWe/e31iswKVd2G4sVSA+LOjt86ggSzVgvBPAkiida oBVMrhG9EfiyeFmjSNBQGR3Z6N3TdSehJLtQBIVJtjdS9jUlMehzwGCzWXpwRAoxxr62wTGKCBiB ayu3PR8YsiBEw6ajFN6HvbE/oy2RdCahEwd0tgZTHXhM+GMx7L2GF412UdIRJtyhOAtVoLt1FYdW nZ5XnNRqWHhvHY7FkGZDy1xlOC/ixtPz/HSYi8OhFfi5BeF4X4hVC4cUJ1pN413cG0+IU5OcDGnM O4rVl7H6wzS1iAbIDjgyTQuLXWnLwVcGPSVDagAHyWKE+DOeXjmkSbTpg9UgtwYbyPZX/tYjAZOO egwOcfVWQPCoYcb41CNim7Ym59I0vPti+EvKDz2oHwYAv1aEWcL2QDWdX6E2VgBIKxARClYKDP3K FxWa3qQCFs9/7aClC/w2U4ocOfO1JcutC/+FAXNghNt0XIvBOJlfzw7/HAg1Dw9dgGX/hxuFqNwl dh7HK0D+7d866QPWilQaATIniBQ+Rkh15/fVQtFPF/HqoSFDvI6IIqMIXalMBcsIW0OiQCUm2wjw EmYEi0g8chSQhYUN/FZ6Vz9yK+RpDl1TUyGYcLb8JjY/DjvhwK3zER0BYUIRHQVBFtoANlMdVQBO ZU2JZJ/gLLizGjlXRimKYit1B3+A8bWH4sm0/1sNiixcCwGJVfhzIzveA+hQs28sA+viUOES374D OC/DS7kicgKL3iqzgWYfNbAQgAELnW09A8UmKxaAKYCnOG4MFkPaBFXrTjRSRCunrNSKkB0Ig1Qy mwiOVOkQdMvGK/NtsYxvNQPYVlPAn3VwEhR7wkn064JB8UxCnKAXTASfeGDaJI+jOPeo8gU2RAQV h74baBC5VKM8lTG/jdFr22wfWPOrB1lComZki/ELW1S4bbtB4WqmiRgECAL+LgSVDJMUPTp86FPg 0TKCVLvRkY9ao8MkWXUFsrHtO6+S7E04UzyT/Sb5XnmfWT3VM+2q4fdJdnYdvmSLBssGqiHijhiJ HkXnLaD3+UY66CZUNb6h2brt1pciiV4ENgYeDQh7VSXoCO8yCvdZulu3XhA+FFTQU92HRraw78v0 FmeBA1wAQN9rYGSHTyVXUBfCYSXbHEAMRcSgLgBkCKRhJHw4mAtPV1lYhMJkrVVM9D9cLc+1BNn8 2v5qyK3ke5z+WvxeUAIseXQXlMiCZ5xoOQyIOhgXC3IBLHqrfciCXik/fEgeULanhGVbFBskbGzy CX5/7Oe+mGXI86WzagykiEWUr32VgoSw0axpqowRYAMU+3J+V84ElwJaI2/I22Z0BCjlwt1dlBfA gQHaL9HcTblFcYDw0rIFyFib1GSUOw6YCpLwbskYTnWpQ4aO3Blyng++wL18Q5CR7mShZqWjvL2A vUuuXYU+plxI916EBSupvLxkqc6Fo/b0OBWN4AyFEM9U8AomPhAG5BmQnCZoFZABlnwAZuuISdSC otN3XMBEpk+bnFRggVggBq9NyQFQMyqxlcFMwBDLXmwZ6hMigm8XMJbuMsBHgGQw/xgD3n4XaaNZ DWjcBTS6tgtqxD2FxmYyOHCCGFsEWvfQD4gsyxxscFuACwMY016WQfnRHoxf586IlUD52rmHEypa kFv57JGkF5CkJAbZ7IDsQftA+3+ws8hmFfcF+jD5YjG3DrUTgroUM1w9agd4pW7Y6UpCN/w1DINE 0WgV0VbJizLbJbUutB44d8teFGgQag3z9eUG9ZVeaPkEvjhokg6KW+AwaMzIawQZewJoJBK0YYAd xJLfC2cN0zzpIt4LiwVzExPJaGigaCQ7XruMBdCdsR30ur9NOjMRKg5X4dIladZ2UBDxLv3IM9ls CSm0/XE2u2w1ZjILT37PJcK/R1DDh340gFVTRekf+aO23YE2c46jC9E699mV+SYRjMJNq2J2eAVn 5IPNTqAaH7Q0FCx2sg2bHvRSiPsTFEcAWDxtrVmSoHtKGv7ADb7J79RotxBh8Ob5S550w0AL+me1 gjVyD3okWbcy6bNgjXwcz2gQaNyWNRQkqg7m3YjP9pMYFOAuL7haekSzhbHRe9RlN6QsGGabsPK3 IRhYn/cWBbvhNFlUVqWja3ckQZFgvKLUoF8N9ux1GQ9O0ZwAKeI5kNDs4MFo6RM0ytwCBBkvYhsk y94c3GgCPQl6XdB1W/U1ReyIUWokCU2GBxLUw/aZaAgDz6A5hFNE9lN7BGhm6zczCwVp/Z8coQ9A sgtMa2pT9JIB+W3pR3LjaPhn+aulZHm+8GdW3F9AmC3ZSw7ZGDQAw7sAz8KCScNhy/wsWJID+zdo 5Iz+h1vBJAdgWb+BXnfAVqOqIIx0/3Qhz2HJRroMLRxYF3EemdRx9+kOIJNX7gIvyGUmkgP7vnPf dUa3tEhZcw9ovD0SMH7uMahBraRnjDZWidkQOMJdHgMyIM90lHRohjWIuYAYb+wJkkvOzkBQFVB0 7KwBYL7eViA0QLbBN5kEukBBZgwwbCkKwNQLZIf8Jlg1uGasCdklK9mcJjGAhGYhk2wrNWBYkw17 hxIHlyEkoAF7ZX4cZqps4QSTj2oM2HcUpZJpRiSzZOKXJdh5AF+p5PZGDBBZrgJwieqH4Lj6jqBR vAoQYj2m/5d4EhOL0FnB6hIj0YqSnIcu2doGafQQDwz1rBB1eQYjwY4UbW9x9oqAGvbR93RjFgF2 W4JqBIQ9A/c9YgRfi8h1GA2AtMZkK9fC9K6JIAtvQBIUfBJ3aFzcIthZrlZfVxNtLwj0kQVFuE+h IVA3rXGLVlkmK8kBQlsUZayPRlIChy5SYU1ZuyN8IgwomgMqcgrjqQGz2J1dDmMwdjxCvpgnX1Bh +2TkSJ5g+7GwW0I+L2H6YPoV9+LCziIF+TD5s9g2yl8i/zcFTCUHFmVhYOINyJFhhVJkQAbIaGBg QiaSAWBg5EKO5GBgYBmQI5lgYGAWD5ABYHRZZIRkCjlg+2AMiyRbN7A1W4yYONhyIDZfmZBBNnXk YGCfyZMjYGD7YPmzJ+QlYPlfO8cyIF+8FzYcNmAuOZFcYGD6sM0rOULQnwRXQHIBIGAByHPJYL5W k5yQzcd6o2D7vxcygDxXcWIWqYwlADYykZxMYGBgCjmAXFfpAoTkhJy2AqcC+QayeESody/IYSaS A/pHyGWxBEFWNw0WFYSg7ETYDWOJIWmIDWoOqoKcshAIaS9W0k0bEgAKNOSQZwnQaKzilOyWwzyk aHBoww6LS4dWLmwUIV2ScAvFF0ALiZDFVprBMsgTh4vrwkMIkTRTBAgIwpJTyQh5TlQ+oCRWv4Hs GPFW5ABhDE38UJmgr0IdomiTQ5xFtKcA9KfPILiE475EQR3opRQnBEU+a+ijGEBdu1CAOFhEnWml xD+k3vZsEbVi4GReKU4+BX1oQGnaJBIIEb1XiEQYdQjesWPEgL0PdCgx+zYSyd3ei6KJAY2NF0tE SeBRh6MLfK/oZD0ywOnWHDtycpSoUOSl1yIZkAvk5BmSI2Tk5OQoGUIO5OSl7ZP+VovxaNjHeqiE gziYyIe1cA2eDyhocCPWoHl7fxgfX2z9ehWvYKCZQ17DqfgT3UqDPgBZfFeLNnVwwxxxDFarIG0q VF2oIyAAHIwZ4QAfczC6qC/gBF/8UAHwsCBGDCTIzLc1qCOufRU+jRZ0z8KxW8cIKGqzxzScDFFn hoBfBtZhmDXZBnZvhKg1XREO2P4ArvAVdbQAfg++YTjhlg0o0W4UXjxKckhXemEICAJLYF9qAw90 KhoUAA8haF5tEAZRpB11mRC/gCDpApRjUoxAhX8bCh59HLC8BRiLhfgAzAh3BcHoEMNggk2gBXTY 4Dtdc+4fXdmNtAUEE3UEYsNVb6qOS3yMozv3D4P92dkzvTowVjED8DPJi6H0/wvExgqKKIpIAWaD +Q91brFseKCtHoomit9GF/AQrKK72kZQVthLQYGGfBSDKTi7Xahm+2Y5J3MXKVBUqxYMdxc7IcuF d3ADdfjpFn4bEGDDK8kQHau4JJAzBCkaH31ws2AwdCD85Ill8Mw2w9cc7LGiIcXsF1A7nhVofa/B N4sEBIxbIkYEQglyy3iN+g4nGo1PRvS4Q49Ac+1MFvWivrwIY0H9e/poxYNmBAA4uarcYZlRGgGG KmCvRZ1pEath7kgLfMtOTbSKRIc8NB4N7NuA1Z/4zYhNzAfhDuAWfbBWhRCIjcz9Cl/9sHrN/aIE v9Q3br7RkKW64AZX+8yQirpSEg7gKjo1i+IoDMdBEdkgP5CD6JuNm1AbBv30QC5DDXCPLs4oCNZL lg24CNcG7z+gFiMZNhtHGD24lsadONw3tBac0IGiU7tUQ8FuTec7AF3hWccSABmaB56Pg/iQA9Ah K7jfNhA5HXbOjbXgKUc3n63paOitiUgGgnQxZFHX6Eh1fP1VU6TWDuzRa5wUQAGvR+YC+jZoOGpT LT2ZzgwhLKL7CkJp9vQUC/EOgijNgHPVqa66UE8QRuzRQLF0LDXzf524IyDPO8XO0VATQ3n/gIOw lfBX51t0EiD5V8SMYIp3ksQOmwVaMsGOZVYF3FUweEf9UaFg25qk6s4PRI9QJoBUsMRLkbBtRQXe oycZy5YU5IoEiq72BWb1LNRnQRWsKUJJ7r650dJJjgCNSgi7sBBWO9H23vgFePNzGivKkOmNuhJ4 f6mq0cGfO81dg+ED879v3Bpfc0IHxuD4UaNBWlGagC3+X3YnMQ4xVnJ4hNa97ZOonIsOixKhIYha KEWaEAgHbYHaN9kVFw/4/XsTAPcejAEFeLCpXNHXCCUOAED/2pu7YUCCKz0YLwWgukQdBC1AmMGL X8KbGisqFfqKcnJWvlq3tpGBjUcxIQSxQ2vbCAASKfWxDwXdbS5eJ38InEC4HLu/jVagBAuIUpE0 G8m70Gqh93LKsrlAPRpDmHtpRY/juPiFIfjv7sLNsEMD/l7InCeldTahm/14l86LDVWECHwCgfOt A2IVHaII2LYYvX8eX8PHBTQ227m8ReWo6bMcu0TbrAvCBAG8JiDWfUA1IFkAwQgJe+59L3o7ifcF zGjvtxE1KKNgdFNtrBC4hU4MBiZXovzeHXtzFTkHdQ0sgqo5NSly665+vxTRyV4PtpFvJf/wzfz/ 9oHi/381weAFM8JBg/kCcuOjmKdGHdhrRTC5VZ30/xLl4JXAi+pYi/krxTvwD45beFlw6fXH0+Bm DXQeVnBHuGYLyNg9/lc9E/H9MT5zGYiIS9JAitWIkApA3odnjz7rTVMZQLtyO8MVL9js2bMXDW5W U8fM1mY/JEGvKlt17Dc9sAsruRASLvBmK86jD8+7z3bT74E96xOi52YJPQN4l4DY9YkuBsOhCLnZ y14/CH5rtXMgdG/Y2CObnbVmih5Wuz0yvDO+GX3g1sz2zI+uyUAodRYp7EJxsrJe6+R+IyF6Z7NZ R0ZbPUtYwVL3GkRmE3SmaI4NzOBfqBVUby8B4JIGPSC2DHzzuMw9D/YQxEYAEYjERgglI8G88BxU sWbGqLVEjc3tbG6kYgWoC7FEfEWOO56w/GWIDRRhESPoKqYzAf70RtBEsPq+iwS9v/sm6iRyBD87 BWyOf2t9L4s0tqre3YUgFos8hR1KsW/Vot4DHLlmCloPipaVqr/buKlOOpcFdwFAzX6a7tMuHFX4 KpGxI3UR/Rlr5RH5LZZ2EIk0XBXvjm+L+HvR4OuNuAqTFcyC2gyjAbydnhGhIKe++n5jmIIP6aFo 6d+N3hZ665kGgTY78Y2Ysg1XG/a1O73rTk16CiPzO2CwXBfFX6IQc4dyBMFt/ALFZ2uPnJw4/09A iHV1tn2h0rD012xCQUICQQ6QAdvaArENKQsd9tsBGREFO9Nyy4oCOgq3QvzuAUK+i8oryIHBkpaQ /9WVupv+z34XcIFyEqOnbnfpsFF9JZER/xYllNxMr1uLBEWT0hF2CekQtVDND85utjdYQgRpQQhT HuDyZbvQBg5ZFAj0GFaLMQxQS8vkBKkIC7dcPLps5OSJcKFwPqEJdgq5Pc8EtYNkhpi9P9YNFkA7 wQ+NN6Ia9/b/Zi0/6IsIi9HB4gKJVfCQRDICBKG6QTQviX4FGrS9K7zDO03kQRZ/Rmb/ruRboX2L NBP0fAkrBNaXFO3bDYCKsAPCNQwxD6//2tYHGojzfey0FuY+t2uFHwhOOAIfG6QfjcdmFei41W3o FghHwHyCZT2hQuytIZJT+sKNDGSUbRv+wjliSElJ6/aDuQPAfIh3c0CPFoOA5h8ODF0PKmL/uzt/ yzvfi9N0Y40cEYcNFDsitwNC/HSXby3OaBaTQ5btg+sEe6FstztefyXjTASGO8qm7bw5uPor+RW8 +QE97b/dGdpQApSMW3XIi05KS0s716oKEXZWdaeWbbgF1V5JBNFsA2ALwZfaUtu9/w6LfAMx5tHW ERCE6LWiM7Te3mDki7ADaOaL/lh8BeK9xFsNa4scfuaYfDFTbgUCGkIwelYCWquw3Q10HCtMTdsD OwJM3xD5QVJX3wpnWQDfCm4IBlk6S3XWW7gdSkKiZD5ZEFMN3NgJcQSLOfTSFNNW4WiF25INo74V Pw6tEvEHfkMVYIEo/X5me2O30wvBQICiglpV/CeJjs1whBQf6w0rIWAp7VK1fRWDDATxfMitbIVS 8QJ9UYuODAgIAzNwexE36wKnPFuNAAq1QIQEINZgjThaXf+CZocbFuAL/zACKfpZrLFU7FB8soyJ xw9gAYB/mSvCi/DR/qN8Fn7pCsfPhi9O6++dn3sViLmNIvuEUjYYLV4LXNZaKmd7xN6jFi/dJg2w fs/6SI0Uj4mHSKMWiQy8K9F2YRqHHLdWt6fr6sf6/YkYioariomYwXMCisHZ3u1tsv7A+2aIgRYo 8NdYaXtKAloESCBfQU6PRkQwpRWLb9ZMS1JWtJ6DBRWhEL2hKAMbimOGY6yH0Dc2iYbCy8ISvMf4 VjPbJBZKV/FxAmqpBDVYTYDcpYC4iglDTe6bDcWM7YPBBkJXfqlD3BbeGk4zMTvYkjsIhL23pSAD 1zMaExS9qwdNrgpqjb0l7UEbcbmEQEvrdLoytwXWKKzuIg0VSkvRsGMUDUgTKhqf5KT7g/sKfxsb TkwDWo1L25CT7v3rGRpSUBf1CkeLbclaCtd4rcTANvUOzKixGSZ7Q+kGWOvu8Vh3ZgG3tNwEc/Dd Ax9hhGVEFCNXIiHY1tpQMk9fNSQP7Qdkv2aBTJEGNyuAgp+FICTG330EX+uHDWFoIApmAQ7166gE GaIvh8C1WsxVxNYSB2/PPd33GRX0CQ1MBwjbz4WMdMtFv8ZfqXc3IF/ISnWEv4S2JzSwqGuMqBuM 0g/Iwx07cdEPudAOE+HXC/3lahJYtIh8a+E8jZ8sUBvVVUgWfUn8kQqeSgPIjUxBEdncaj2i3zy4 agXFEx4sho5seV//t4IJW4vLe2EUau3GCbcEHk/8iu0Afhxi2WsonIW9/IVkKwIPc/xFO+985MSo i61PhIt4s6QLS4pWvGLeeJBKvGiYnvpQljQgOorc2RIsXYBH1eogFzPHFFp4oN32Lwe8olCCTF/9 M9aCmivBEAAW3cvl7f8Bh7gMlnURVLsCjLt6uwBLlrtGj0wZhxQWlCF2YHaKjIPy6pl5K/wKlB4G 15ZER98y4Dkwr88rjiS8i65tMxZzgwIqOBG/df9RznMIioekHOuAx8HoB4o1FWjqgKQo+7a6+uwy WNfRUwMZUC4IVLhLfMgDpLpE+NBtyAXzjRh/6g+CLJXxkwIEAD3UMGyLAJLooWqKHAoZDl4G7QUb 9hAunbmQ3bmwCQSDeG2wjZJnZCoDP0Ya2pCjBKEcRlbXIuDxjVABoTYYLdoewuHquomajl4bKVY3 cLGX3C0BAyD3t/uEAoXChZ10DAoWgwUVCDVs7wehBf0DvaH/jsL7w5B1QIXJow19+QvHSryVV3IG 62R9kkWs+T1JGKy1FAZ5kOWhw1J9kdHB+p5772SS0iyiLAbglR4143A0BXxUeFw1DFUKGXII0Da+ Ix/QJQuoGiYpRufXljUvC4Alp5/Rv+SKIGap/w91UgqL0CvdwmWADR4OsAMz+BYOC+++t4ueeIPg JUw08SfG+wPXS+8X3kx4fONZX9HuOTWHi3P6SzT9EMHqAoHiKj+1/jvRchY9tqfeH4F0D4E9IJN0 UMDq7S4I1MNRM9M5FYJbh3Z4NhWoBUeWpii4GRUldzD1YwP3hSxplYPT4N+2igI7oX7UyIrCineJ Mf7Yi+mK+42+ycMaEGYFqxJEAmNinOb+UnTzqiQcfLmIlhMhTvZI0rVvULh/UJeB5AWkJxDB/rZs s7cHBx59TE4qxgdTCPtYg4hSg+kHWFag0SlkKOuvYlsrRiUSX04ZuAaUKMD6q5Pqu2+/aOADwxr0 YzauE37ruORz0rk6BhkJ9vav5HMycvqvB/JWsOo5ZG5aBk12sLoVCbcp6bn4bTPettxCT4AX31ct RgIFheqGxhRnGgPzWUsgiPRTRFl84gaAgxtEYDVkJARtbeB44y7LW6QgkfoLThM0VVe/f6apVaO2 BAVMmPypTfAjx4HhL4stq8HhBTPABF1bDdaaRccFHGudM6MLI9d7lApNATAqR997+AT/6qOTW3RH O+BzP6Pgr154K8E9r3c0UU6z2F9zhssdi3YGiweHFXzdjYOrdRIsBXI9BmLlNul2A6ri+yb4E1tz utjYD4eyhEJQ963OGf0rzUlQkPege6WzQVkQLDQBz3N7v6opHQ7YjgMVRmUr/Rr21yPPMtPKet+F s4nu1+wsTc//QdydLeYDDNEsBzF1uYWYYzNDkkYxakAW6OSokvR/6gi+dRQBQQrJUmoAK9AGX5vt lo97lC8k68maAbbdfD90So2WcigdYE3EuXcwRBXjswvsOUgQDesIx7qcxXaBq0b/7Je9IMRvQxU5 LRBzHL54CSPEExQta3LkYyYyzQ3IGJtfApst7F10FJ0r5AHhGOQBXl93DDryjAhqIOUJ3wkS0KDI FN9JKLpksAoU+AmIFGB/9vpWilERLmQgjAjacoszEOcB21ANkmX5IzgVYIq/h5OTCugCxNeVRYkt 3LsUEBTT/7pE3T+eQ0OB+0QRfB74+9c95C1QahBWB8CmUBiLTvGK9KyFlEzxu6MElgcUo8b1SBP0 F65mo3Tb4PWCze6RSASDhpMMwRZzwQcQaN2bkSNcVtQsJwEeaCJKVsREczsjAeBOwi8aR2jd7xPR NHN4aCAHi/gJCNCgmTqkCtIdH9oa5y36z33wgfDoQaIyv77QB/URBQNJzPRqICBS1k9WmMB8BdYm uPgHatletUD8juIbFGiLXZIzUVcf6CQCdpcgEf5yVYgQOCwBKtqI6ihhp2Dq/tJ0z41vBAHsFuRJ kkkKYPHcAZCse7/sa+w3E5sG6mFOCWq+HMcEVrThFqOUbZvXVpvQA0Bh3Fr4NcAUdFKM5XURLnoF nlGRuYRZ2lcsDRLUIJ2EeaPlvob6+o3U8oUFKCRCtt1I1n6yf1az+NgbuWT4vjYTsxLC21jNtcYq yDJI50zKUMb+UtDC2sA9eyZm7lYNeLWDXgzqbgZ0g/8wdStR/927zzgQfQcpl+Pr5AaWi+vdUaEE xUYGcoFEBagZQs74J1ltIOzlZABkN/ToIIM0zwIB9PjwIEOyDPjgwIIQvYDiPpaNJQLvOXlZomY5 QEb4c+QBWZqT8PRh4JcwabrwFuhKxeC9fbAlcLQ9kF80WXMfgc2ChhyDlMdgGIipekd4kGWkYzt9 dWTs+IzxooOdW3ZWcH5LaG39cn6+WDaGsIRWClPbY2ZDFsiIwhsckBGwycJWvm6R8ZJxnW28HOMR GG2PGHQyFCnDVPV0LIYMJBBexnQcCHUVRGw0on4ZM9vZCo+UXMnyfTdjWyQXyFE6Dx6EEdaA+kOD x65kpllddLLmcEa4AIibkzYobB0okvQjaYwhBxn5hdjYUFNDMiHbapf8/PwskVxZZOBrlmH2C3jr klPHW0gPlitgZUycTVmQL4Cbw5sWWfoEBmAJd7r/QCXKUeUsCMX979gO9w0iFO6ApfwU2ju6U8CB CFEHF/d+s+prUc7v10+cX4omRwDYrCg/Q7f/bleIhVTwJbnndWhV8C4QgCBbM+BtnEie8rm/VzKF nARcVNfC2G0IWLa1cCyNHLY3Vd1eRuw0JUh0GwIRv11QXwe5ZHQbuVwGE7l31Z+fVAy5TAW5RHT/ 8AK4iEvUuzgIdQKLx552+BbRHIUNjtzWKGYx5Bx0/QTMjnQIuXMRI+g5IJj8REpDFoBWag9N5AkB KNWddrxOAgTgkVed4F5PELljRCKheIwRgWsulCwScAxn7ibi9aYPaGwOCwMBFAgMMeMLxP8PeAaI DkZA6/SAfv9caQZnVfD2XEZqBwV+Rl9bGrey/TeAwmGIFkZPdesZLgR0RiSq3WwDbXCAZpsSMsjz GUx8dLQAJgFNwNzO3ck0+8KioGoUXmmHRLUj/rTbBQ/4HPIvJ/Tw323w3E34tHElE7Lc3FaCDyAG 4A9gCioMK7k+UAAa4cg7fRiqZkU1CoKWZlTX3FMg3MKQr0roF+3CqFjDVcc0G6wPqms+VyBWVTEs gLbURFvp3ExWkOH4psV/Ocmy+Qn7CPt/wf0CESygwNUGk6reORAAK+QX8GIBrRKsi5qdzcAsdg2n aSDPLhREAAL6dIAcWT4YxsjZi1RnRCUMBJyR29OMnP0spV0BH1Et/3QtTAmCf0s/IQQVLVYNkfzc /fQAdk9o9HUGE2jsDGjki52I/gVo3HVmjHcQuCE71oBZpTVCMNbsxwaUszCRg41QjhOU2HXpZLZN IaKLjBjSzycnZwdozHjArJRm71uydf84D7eFFHMQxmbfBXgQ/QUMEmF8k+1AdOH5HGewBrGkg/gh eFiE7Hy9HM1lbGsPsNtFwNgDINXZWv3hNEtF1MHohAbQOQhvO8grxAmkQHWBCtAAxGVejgBAcewY uwBY4J09AF4nU7mphmwAcsD9Oo9gW1i4auBqkTGCkcu7ca3C0bJsAiQXCqVkJeip1qROCQcbMskY DFu4V6olxyKJCPs4cRIt3dD01HICAMuVkzPbAwDtD68ci+QDTSYmW4PoYkP063BsCQvwdI466xzQ LDToYqTtdA5Wxt1rmX8IaLR0WwQjYRK8EZDiUqVqxg8bhb9ebpj7W6Q7GgcDAaEYBJ8Us9eBB6p4 4buZQ+aJA1XUMdLQh0WgcqVEDtbZy0IAVs9cdQ0SWAXMPovL6yAMj4WoZa5XMWLBIs+TBND+DF6b nc0AxMaQIT7CHUamzIspPKGC1iu9MS4G2WBygHadFBCDYfZODRYUB5YXaXINGSvi9GDz70/FqH7w RKggB/FBqAI+f/798kj2xAgY80OoAfRSqAT1U5Hd9lkB9lRO2J2U/U02Vb0o3ItF2DmqJkVg/g+6 Y1T7amQG4G3Twfh2B+ZSFOIqwP6cALmyz7BoSM0wAEFowEki5r4YAnATF0kQMGEEM8S/U0LBRsLJ L2WyEB8ATMJ1EZNRUushmRuwDxBEkzmmMB0kLKLkZagmEE0CM5CXbJM2GalAdg9irJmP9lMQGM94 S366iPwLbYf8JAfkIIj8iPwdegt5iPx12jDD2ZsXygnXV2sIZsfjEI1HpFxilWAgByXKnNVlQf4J e7yWcK4jwwjHC8WZXK0uFUR2O/NC2ZrrajmRAo8gCMKzkeWSX/ARVpCOLPbuWmVBiJw1DmpBXGw1 06RBSitD6DDXAkYYnte2Xm9raEYvBQ2BIlrLPj8IQxQS6xErjOhhURsA91j3MIoOU9o7w1zawkVA dVwEUGBEbSMV5KMTAI8o2OahY9FTlKsp8SYIKaoNRpAIQ4/TnYa3qpZt4bAL+Ap6y2KMdswRAH5V Q9wuO/spaPYtSsdTK8Yu0kH8maQImjv3fNxFh509IlMjVyQSOZjZTo4mc22UWSvA5xlcjSvBvVzq YfIxs5B6i7I3gqMBcAUVG8tOiF47NBpYWRfBkgwYWS6bUJyiA3oRoSVEMIfQQTWEdwW8/K6CFxv2 pECEIgsHEwkhaAGJiE1Egvh6N/wr3FaBgbjgjIZkirEobVHTLeHMFO2bUxBXRHPxOvy6FUaZbBZB +InaALZzzJwWNhxH67YniJsoSH6QXlYbH8UsfyrUt5C02dtcrQNTAEcfMvjKApdYJlo+Gz1E/FOK XQtiMwc78WBAHYUItQWKGGgLiFb7aXR4oeguSQyIGB5H69tEGd4gHwW4wCA+Q/Kz813olQETOfx3 IFFHOPyqLcTyOSE3FCz/3f7c/jlhnxON/Yz9Psn3IZ8T8sj3GfkY+X4X8jlJ+0j7+CnI+C5kZELp 6FnBBfmig1heyrUhz9lu+LgSeyHPrRZZufl4efgUQp4T8vj6+fqofC9k5KkICfrXaLqQ74Vp+a2Y mdLwRp7IP16PUv2CU0AsBXVnSQaLe33pSTzkJJ/ySPJI80nz0tUJ+cj1yfU0H2pBxl7J9iT2GkM1 sr1gVff3XCh9ckjU1bmnYSjzQD5Humr+av6J/No22YHjOJFFkByNbEmAkl/09HPI54WLSfVI9Qeg UB2qxu+FSsmivRypVB+gSfKTFL96yfoiVTdXGQ2sN4Fn+GKKCywDLDslZCDsXLchgEfsVgBQAyhE DCBEvFbRVg1NgXYYkgmBE7jw1FZAcAZR9fAaMLFs4Ay6a9qkeaCBQVbbptRmkQeaZaikU3wqWfc7 34IMx8iSnvWe8wxAkltvGblUNbVeR/DPGKxJODoywYP7J59wCAY0uYx1VM1mbQpnJPVry4wa1/CA UFvRhl0zUJ8brv0NaPi/qExC4wYC6wuCw70VpkC4OwAa2DSBIHFq9I6ts9RJWBI6iI7inVsQ04j8 BgTAraNPBQR+fusdC7gRIEdNctxA2xdhstRh3FgLUT5Rih8+qpvkyoJ0QzguGFPJATkBLP8Cm0oO 2F9XMNz+Ay5mU8gBjP1TDCp52KOaXcj3TCUHbAUuGPkGsKnkgEj7B4wGZCo7+F0I6MkBu0oJ6lj6 q2wgUwqMTCUHhAumuPkMsKnkgHj4DbsG7CoZ+A4uqJIBuUoPCKtkwK4Q6mhOQwaEEaaYKYrKhgpX 8HaRipoTURgSMjgBatIK1B6rx5eZ2oqM+BcUC7LdQKpEhyF2DRF7yx7bHVn+Px0QyCF52R3I98j3 yV5IDhj5EFnkQA7JSPtI+/iOZMCO+Dvo6HLIHkuYlVj6DuTIBlkYuMgO5MizuHg75MgO5Hj4d/gO 5MgOqB2oCMgO5EgIaJU5Eg7kaJgNmJAPTiwsZPZJ4i059xk4wNTXSlEBNo8jShPQ12wJBf+qoFkE ANcukyIKcBscv6R7pmogmFYaVDxGHZn4ngVZaFBzUSEcABElFpka2fuVbLQY5W5IQBsNRy57KggR JDrXWnruYDB1oAmcEd/JXpJvlAzrH0kAs8MgYFatDFM6A3JJNuwMW3ISr411bOUSVhIHdVqQAFyS MFFbkL4dIibxC5K42WKmlVSoOzp9J4zsxPdZP15yCQmSBDnzJA/IRt/YA0cncFOdOiXXIsKS7moV NjCKPofwubEcUIwcRwNdyMOwqavodSSXPWCmp5JZJ+TwyAE/fGighgEgtJxyswh2CxJEXbBsSOBO nhyM2TJmI0YPSWaotpYYa2hzEHMTFhtlNKJ/lmB7SC7gOmpEFBivqWEleSoOjYG5JyLexwUVOQgI SUSMjSNQAFEiZBfyslQgURXMXEIkKoIb3IBbyZBoGF8VLFhRFguaQijh5VnrBZj5WRgH9hXCUdjG nPpZJzYphFzU4ycwzpBc0FeJFsbBtEgW2I4qVZg+JTqQNC3BdCQxIGH4giNGpD+my3Tl1pBcEDVV ABIrCQ+KuPF5/z53H1gKaMh2WX4+QDTCD4dswk/EwVO/QlfgngYYscJ+uYiUMJSDV3+TKrQsW5Ht K+h9VhmF7/OFQ2EED9U6XDSY5EAO4LpcCHVyQop4+P352hoxGZcIkGVWSRPAjFjQAQLgIWKCNxAH IHbwPZUrONkmaSMMBnvAuxREoo21IWGAGhJdSw6BHAkZLtB39M4TTZkAQ0LQgg5YUTF/SVQtUSgT gDw3LtAkBfB1AUNWOe0hgBNGxEP+fTaseC+7tQwdKchlZxNLDVMn/nCm2QsLOgynfsQZcA6NQA64 TChiEgDh7FoWAEdzTeir7pYBpgGw/Aq+/8aFDdUMcr2cYZhqrAkQmI8GQkqgEmOzFxVO/LhFxbfs 6YtHDLl0fya6QVC+2zQGUzjjPR9SqNyUSnJUvAELiw40bBHwWyg8BgB1yRUCquOLEIknbN4RBsfZ g+6pYnn4Vz580Y2YqjAH9lkOkeLn3FmUJTZ+yAUDoDCw9jm/aB6xhAHJwdeH0xE/ij9ZvwFnkW0Z BZsV/SL2oHAFFBpIBmSDGf395JIIuGM8/SZbZjjgFUksNhpCVcITeYNidinHdhsaMu9dxivrHki8 nwsZLNJlHwy3+kjNJlGT97jUxIHcIMIOpCx4s2h2qDwaWcpxBgXFXyoCHjshUvYlEHRUCMzWldMI LhwkAr1gyXpeG2tLCHTJ/PyfHNkOEy++s1VjwEBGs9SaDVlHxbRUDvQOME8kwY2YnJ2HpIwYHEAG +yJMeBMUkAEZZGQMUMlBBmQEPPx3yIAMcij0FOHLXjLsdA2wRt9ZX+cmiwZX1LAcDsCAAEXE5kTI IcuAMkC8vUDJuHu/lJ2+UHhz3jLcCEW2+nY2DUjzEOm8/UgYmDAsRvwm6V1z4XDd79bs/nT37LBn Qj5AeOw4EwM7MBkUFxNLECx7YOp8p6E1SAWKBi0VWsN8VNvsyXk237L2GDoaCw0Yd4HDGSCBbBeK wRhS4tpqjhCEjJTwmffeVNGiKZkD0GnS9jCDD9pS21xWM6hyDqBmBSFwUcidyL9Q5QPx6xXGuBBW NQHI7T/nsEKQsjymPbCsITgEpFc9dkc0rEk8OA+VwEGJgHJUlCG0SQQMGDIkAh4E6hz5AcUg+UgG ekDxC+2IVeyxsye6DHe5yrgFE8SERPq5aegyc8i4uR37A/klG/S4+9mIVdiUkB3Buf21uP0uJIlO eo/zIBIBiK5lF9HM9KmIJNB2/8SXKCwojzv7dF+kq4hZagZXI0e691ej/gzU4Im8sIo4YxmwAAA6 OTkdFQ3ws4rYXgkC6weAJWTIgoh0G+yCwgTFlEG4QkGPEgeyYHJkMtg3MygSf8Bhix2MELi40tmB z7j+074oDla3IFsVbmlpuMlmky4u/QkpBgBDntj9lPGyU8AUDz7BvsuCjQEKJCcZEwwBw2TAa5Xw tUYpaWVCaijq2/6oiFCvwoKESOxii4DDWmZk+/5JNBIFHvyLIc9lbw2nuPzGgBiwnv4flptgziAv BDYx/OqDDWaD+gJ1hXLoBE72jmqIckfCQBvVzEVAE+jIRr+YJOjFCtFgHpmQR8rSYP8lmDIysjmN BeTg3DI2MjLY1NAjzDIyMjLIxMC8MjIyMriEsKwyMjIyqKSgnM/n8zkkEaAQPBAwETgZmzyfETQR LAWwGRkZGbzE2GRd8xwZeAQSDMwAUS8APEUdjWlyFIHQsd8NHdbuLRCFARdz7APgtgU+xAyL4csz sl1oQLDDzD8QGLB9JALFyJj2RD0BiSAGsUxWts91mc1VNSEoc2rocuEWHRNBWcTYZKEAdBZ6mFCg Jdqo7ip0hIll6AJd/bNRorBkcIMNSMpGqbqdrT8GTBSEEf2RkW3DiYkIDXxszzWI3qGADLgoiG6r g6W/vbgzdSLAbFCJ72xO7Biq7L+/0kSYCA6koWg/RZSwuR9A9TVkDAmcXju2A28DoBNMEk27UAz5 MgCDoUgWirr7v4swiXWMgD4idTpGCIoGOh6Qb1uaPA3yEgQgdvIbBIXa1NDc8yCuIhY2RdAiEeir pc/b6w4rIHbY6/VQWNXP2gBF2CQQNxPMDaXXbZeYM0Rr+HYJdCPo+4lNiFBRhJ48i2XYCNsWwIgf PIU4BVcC3shAHLS3BMdH0NgBtMaJw78YAbhnbBFoBTYGgDaKMRguHelhRLnJnHd+CASwRLWbLpom ednrZhcm/ywozC5EEAOoXe5XP5HJHjpwzzVZNI4gs0FZywu7o2CD2CvGB9vJ9o3qgR2LwQ4PtiQJ YHv/tkADweEIC8oEHWb9BbaKnjkg1d0uVMO2iCTDERfqGNkg29YSBkAHEAgikzqEovpXC3hgHxGC ULHLM5nb0QvxznQazyYXkU+51XDJ7gJLhYMgAI1fq2BIASI7mwL49ot9CPeNFAddVfxaFwJusAhA 2YXJWHR7AdByigz2wfc/FTTO6v50DDvyD4PeC5ntOwrXjRwxO9oOzwJAH9gwhqjkXgMob65UuTa3 SQWITRPowRFsU8FdQYkjWwv6ORE0RJlcAA89+0ZHQ+tYxc+xX0ZcgV1DEH+NamQYIB1vjQUbRkEk ioC894gwt9u6BhiZElk2i8IIFtuf7hYSmUMQgusIO3VFOb6CcO2KRRMaKg5pYCXiGRLsMud3uZkt FxrZdQhzCNVI0BK3B3IXAyekx4Pp4vbqsUw8CDQZAJcoccdAYAB4ICj3GAsRHOBmfU678BqC2Arz 4ghegkXL5opF7gyv4FIAXx4fR4XbqAAQoVcnzbf9hvUj0XRKO9GGjilFhdxvhjCjQYvIK89Bpdve +NY3EOM/weNC2ANdFcMmKrTdVsliK3Nde9pv/V+ACCtNCDlN/H1O6zDlMwE7Lt/u/k0Uc0ONPAN3 czuLF4geRlMZAdMFtZWFS/w0qHMdb7upA/NaGEDpQGvadCNoRBsF3jjAXgKhUS0E+pEWxjKRkDxg tNOMdG4lKIxznARiCM3mrBwFqA1DPfgUPwHQohqGLV8q6KklcRhzylcPvoVoo2qzayRnHZqFt0wi jXoBMve928ei4ER9tFNV0P6XBfFbK8VrwGSL2DsC9hqo8n/vlCAAaJGoziQlh22UebhDJcnm5j4y twPYgfvWaI+nW7d7Uc2pIIuOO4AkbXg3C6aQiB9HqdGFZjtY1N/j61aD+1x1Cmnr4w4V/sJWadFp K8FIqMB1sdSqWr87JHNciAF/OwW/W0OdiUgUR1Hruf1+4c+mV3M8gHRHK/qB/3x/LtrIYU+2QkEg GivGgQzWQy0OfrZUj6IQsh2lJW3YWfcBtgjgov5J/TP2A8c71iqg7iCgoK4niwJoriAawsYhJraV Nqg4MmkLEHGZ3LeCKzkwdfkL1xvhqirioeHb5A1dHZ2oIM42jVwDAW3b+Di+z8Z3AasFIoWtEVsS 22EHHitYik3UdENOdD22UvYDfq1mrs/G431YULV264I1Imn8OWXp7gMBzfiE/X0OtWy7E0HhfoMg 4MPmGgssDl+YO+y3hTGaoepzU0jO3W57R2zTCLTbjXQeeynq0o/f9OuHjU8V+HMti9C+tsH6yq3A 1sLKRRdA/rNixW4E/AxAiBHrLeF2I5rvAsF1TfRjTQWU+IFopAwGVouLBzsB3CJt8HMmzeEQQH6N xm8LFYvyI/EJyxpy6hDCd9s0Ow0HQAx2pCMUHbbXB6Z46K1VFKAimEwIgOXl7Qp0EgQNdA0FdAgc 3VU1DGjQIH4LDALu/QZ/fQQRGNdNrw2T6wXup5dqNOLygTHddfQ+Rt8GQawbhs+6esHL8lbjO8qY Xw6D5+f5tz/wgwMN69ceO/l1PSx2K9i9GV4idAYGUEa10IUjthBQRLr4ClPdUNpBHzvB3J1PddV1 rd4QHnWaOA5sB5Lb1Qhwes9dz9Lz0AbDA+sKXkLrC9tjA+sPVvv4QXzo+MsoaOFafwPrIK0E0RdB 14AiGg29gvYFaAsBq65de52RaZdj0WGLIGJQmfzw2cQk4VUhUyLnQI61C/0kO/t/OvsqIovrOP2q U7OgthfdeBSx+fIlEH0HaPrr2BRRiNiedRWrgcpAhzdmuXMLvUB7NYsGE/rgDysMHL7mk6BIR/sq APkGDAwbts1Cr/xv6BasFSKnpKbMfNmhqqMdiS3XmnD2HtM8TD5TLotdW1mzCICKvHQQSf+LUlQd bZTCA/JA61Bs/e3sO8dE9HYNgHj/egcuVf0JXDvzdSVXEdQbJwRiUSGO0Jeqtf0zakSh9MuNgxgb ELklzRTYuCwYVEFwLEidOnsk4NNJao8OAZXwWwnOZn5n8Im/Drba3WfTgHUbUtL6OYIbmNxtzWYW aQK0iww5BdQQ9GvCIb4HdHtMyMt2xHV1a/82os3x8lH0zIE4TUlEWPgw2IMAfS0ddCZ7CVulKFeC 16g1A4MtuqcliT0EAvX/yhW1bIMIFAGDQWEgyFQRDmHL1k+FevAZ5n8rvHZ01B4DBUTrGBsJOvE0 4vwLLOoJACth+trciAAQhNop0CfhZuCZdQ3aA1DraJMR9VEiPjPwbEd/91mB/gE4fUlOeCKAPKQc Vj29R7bgVxnwgKQ1EQsWdbuATomN60n1t1sUxJo/CeUB+1rG31k9R1l8D+liMiWCE7mZUDZcMWB0 w3H4HBb8CA+BhhVnBAQ96IJaeBBWz3fqyJEwS5iLNyw2WFFHvWMTllA4swXVCnTdSKi6e4j8UBmA ZfsHYNLFl978GvC+jwQWe4sdQCS9Gm8J4G1RtQb1SKdWCzbxOAF+DLhqCBV65Vwr6usRDhYRv0Qb b0GKBEGxCGgFRjgGdTMX7onQYzHm1mTMDbJEqpAt4XqoUkeNgotWOxaapGNf6VvB1as1KMpkeg7J dmEnh3wSRn3SfNoWbOp0uQGKBzcvImRKRsa2OcDADN/EBwNH68vMgCV0yUZIJCzAER6+dLZW+wIq BbyNUK6lGLAjUw1W7ThUbNRoGWBTXFGu9qgzyFAMjIqDZ3VgKJsBOlHn0y9EGJACMts3KaDZqcEg xmsVjiaoDckPVEKg3hU3tCQILkHrDy4rNSoHCqiOV5yMZtSrMpgGi1Au92xf+6SniYgglKeHX0OO P9hWOR1gaEgFBwXhBdlMuBFkBxt13xuSXhIIwPVm/e/dsyXQC1DZg2ajDFZqNYkddMwizNYIZidw nm+29iqB6bskcliD4fG393rHaOTOC8ijbJcdBR3wrw3MMOE3vvCp90uY0X9X7JUz/zgdGt2/X7fm iTXMutgnN4H67Adz1lBAiS8SNCgEoUvx8iB0GQl0FMwViWHoDCjaOLTrPL/9F5yIGF9AOBh1yS5f Ost0FRBbwMD3Cz0G39rnIxYpeHaJGmt1NAiLijU8as69HxTtA5OtB1DtCkCr915rCZYApNulSaIL 74M97cB1McvZgU7V1a5YZRQPOaMi7QpZaMzWl6TY/WUNTniI0IL2G2femykSOKrLRY0Ap+iWBZUA +t7YgjfxigY8IEAJ9Ubr8w5R3CjtAHlZq9P0k4UsjUYGlgD6sQtPeFl/E6wzyKUPMQp24WNbyYMH D+spav34eDwSAeledBgQ8AN0Te3rgA21IHKQC3YHh4Jfs3Tvk4Vzl7lvjsPDoQeSbwZWf3GxxDDU vTn2dGk9ClgSt3j8Fjcciw5XukoiOQrARWFruRlbxPS60d4KCV91ORtoweCGiz0WxIifTg1zvIwN 5IBgFuGJgWKYoF5D9wUPhUCwAnD32GqiTVOrAOlF9ZSireCKF3QC+ESDxQs1ORyhogMsJVOlbgMB s3CKGFNAIRzI1kYhBGrXwwDHV4ME88V1BJgu7q6A+zAhCr0110qjS05ME3h0Dmg2UbEEWBj0CA/3 ZROoPiGAczdteGT7ulbzcAltVg2hTNSIbI+taXDCHbiiMOkylNDv1mATAOu880p1cEH2qDiQawxn RLLuXXIPJRVGP9vbDyBbagIC99gbwAYgPBXwRjFBK/CQCp+oWjR9C5kg2iNoAViAgIYljjl7jsot +4PItCYOVLvYbgTUiQHWKdnCCGZzW1w0nSWiUUQ3hFwICKB3foECRysvwcH4AkBYOmqoVmYPOiDb pxK3kkaBp6V3UyPkNmOXapViRegF7OsmFQak+Rz/NhACqzqyjBb/HxgJewfoxIeSCppUGCWJogbI TlJBJ2DCJ1WrzfilpYsVWQljhf4IvIx+MbkAi3H8Zjt1oFuAaLoVCf7yYDFUEKW2rQ8K9FlHqsQj 6kZ0fNkTW8PRhPZTDGY0Q32DJ/UEjXMMAg+3ushIhcnwJKANwH5pWAIEJAEdOhZHVCmiVOp8U6/N Ns+2/3oYd0mFyTlGRlY8+ApZRlojtwWhWUsqIVcSDjYWFkCrFgi2uxBh/01Lf5ftkgP7vsr2/vGi CDsX2hbUDFnuh5Nd1GwFeI1IDBAOhGaK6MMM5sc7+HXINhRaDk9Nx35ky+RBDmQMTAx3QhtyDaU4 Rkw8RlDILRoWWYncEmtaaKc4xO+c7Qi6nWnC6AMubIIhUz2XXlYNRciYuCAOaCtgGDOKCR23eojt DJtqFq3m9KmKs9kvAtd1CQANby6e8ct0J6FUPFPx3quhPkfIGQ8O2aF6WC/qD50/Tbk22ggVbwyl j9giI7WpfirYAaFk4F2qmrfMMEwnHreR75dq1A+OfggebNwOTAaYDlZPUNwDi8F6aurqSGrTZRrg GYWjIHejqIUPJdLVouSigN7Qn+hmNEbWDHEJCJl6E6qdH3pcqgxAXFrZBdv9y608wgdGg/4qD40z e+vD+AIqVQd0LJB7ixAU84sL3Is172wwrMHx8Vg1fHZIVR4GHDl92KBQrlC27KAET4ZuJWgIcG2D ar1mK3zuHq1uW6H+Dig587B89shE4IBRxB9XA6MICGBu4LfYRgeae5uhiLKRNRdNeC3c5kiMB8N8 RhglOnEfQiKlThAU4slmhMitFF+IJFiJTbDOCWTbKaCskg20R6LYQO7pbxjfwQI6ES1UhIIEbw1E V4kYc2rLUUhRxBysLA0dBM11JjkGk459tdGWbSkjvWbAdhZ4rlVYNIOPyDCYrVWsIUuFAOBUxsmL kkbGIXyYfiNoElMaDZiiSF5fybHZped+WG2CfpdmS6ZsyXQxnBW77AOIdUApi2QQgjdtgaJbs4BI AgLY3uj9KhRmLVNGZj2LdjlX2DmYqeKz0adEyD63mmjYmP3oUGxjV6FAsCSpTejadNsdVPHB67IG yKaLa2pBLN0GH1eVcqJOOpjodQ1FIHIjc9Eg+/WNRgO9FVSOWX4D9w1lp4JkOMEgfVOiMGInwd+w FewHizHcr+BA7+cSJEgt4IBLcuxGyYACPTbTPdXMCezbzCXxOX7cR+RcoTODz4PQdCsg1j1QKAMF PwaDMQiVXseIxHZkc3fIgyV4NQY9dGsnbCYgAmckn8KrPj6lPUSsAg8tjlzXMNek1+VIF9sBwiCY mBJZ/DjNcLNlPfZaWM7R+vyLnf8VaNkMnIy/9wI1364evHCooRCR1NPgPcDF6AVxCpn3hAtti9Nl 4nzAnMQpQBXeeDzgwFGJ2YKxhcrKdJQHQMbDey4sCilj/EvMCEc4fRJvPRRVJU7wbi1u7W0CpQJg O1TNrF1mvAkaFSMuh+/j+SZbqxBN9vSIN7d9aOMk+Awq0AhRjEbB5/kwOU0BdT4ziAIjEQSkP+CB 98HbvbInFldmcAWY/ngMOFG9uMUYtIjLFLWEvDJ+7HVIcwj/FKoxxtZvx261XsYpYG2qb+KSQsmC 5mWS8r47pJ+/BgR0BwV1SsMtWbHFlggg8Hb47fvciGpL8MtUoEiop1baYIKF6wj2QaC0DBJY3VYM qCJKG7IpFkQZ3llcB5uBAf+1AjtOLJurhmS0vxHU1Poc8bNkjRECVz0wCoI9SlfrqOrnMnjFMHoJ jGmU7GaYTOWGgYYaZ+l09RjSXoU1ExBDAC54lp/jaAw0MubnHG7jMJBDbQ4KRkZ2yBcidBSdzDTh oBhrOEurD6UOdRKA9sS8GAOEbRcEAWlKI7AOcgl0M7o3gggI8mV12NtasGi4FQgN3FDEZ53gaWd1 OTWEBQRg8r84N05NljD3vIQBojULtElCG0gaQthtf7l9fevNCniF63a/hMWekR/rUgYlEjMWaHk0 lslXvCmC2H3QAL4TFjUYdHQBTmALyyUMcrEKB2GhoCCMIfAtXXQYg2AL6EREnM0eSJJew38NwxCB bUnSSg0wdFLnIWclfIJQKFWiIMB9BgZWPKTrDlAg8LemNk0kdPG3KAx862oMrYglVGzEx4DvqdCo oQVQMw673d5BE5r/6CPLg20xC8hf2LZ3R4vQgeETh4LitWW0AMG9Urf64hMLyo2kiQ73frHh7bcW QB/+8BgKC9GLiRaASAEsqbCtRwdRrZ2qeF5y6V9q52I0HI1DCzlFKHdf/2Nh6KhKV9KYR+Br53wK EKQJeYUodqn0V1MTT9XUhWoWyg9T8FeetThYUwP7FLZOBKLbc+Wyyoh1C8Hi5naFMXLpPMMZiPG6 jgc6SUV+sEMoaQweejqKC/ckM89WvpXtIQP4jXkQZlYLFxIZM9sXOQHtsLfbiQ50cwcYdG5ci9sh 3UK1K1BFUGMYSN6T7TvDYG5qCu3JZANsU+zZCNTDRh0IEMZQZY4snSJ+GXN0CFmIdy6gsDJN+GnJ JCgRm7GJSAnGRHsEEYy8bG7Jsd+IQ+VXADhA0EbPFJQQqRC9pqAu435ooxUQpdvt3+6LBolV9I1V 5BjwUgb4Ur9I8URsCezq6MFa353EDATlanU1aMDUdMUq6DW6O9lYBXUQCh/eT/AC6BgDwC0IJQG+ AH58m4vDXlbJWALz0YmrAa8CLG2Wu9YN0TBeDL8vUwqFs+Kr6Md1Bs8VEUO53qwQfCilOMi2azUi vxdqOxlY6RZoTQXaEhs9ECbf3QojC3QNPgoEKATVFZXMZq1rNWmb04gxVOMI+22oTE+Fv4nBDNwj DaEDzjvZD4dANcrYJgEULJdFbI5lMUkgxuDxgFiiD6SiHO+GEgPY687BuSAcnxns/J8efTcesIfM eA0MBlfOOYD3kJUCQ0MWaxSQA5YRKe0I2MmfjeRb6umbaaKIgM6E879RDxMR4LWFJSiwl2rkAQyk 1TYGfIE3clB4HuiM57gsd1mwJa5qMCcTZjslKjOIRlBDJpmF0BZ2jSkXRgCCAYVBvoSbYuFEIKwj fRiK1ICNEAKZ9AkfVHzQ1BO9DvkcsLipYUaJS3hOYtAGBO0nJcCGkeCfImJ8E410BghuF925THdj DwLrEa5C8MGxF+4CE/CWgX1HpWxlfyRLebJzwctwzxsWLzLrByREXy2GBQLGBQMgF4/s0oNU5EfC +MhXUVBRQ3RS7n24KGdb4Wah9iYuXOviy8OCDcE0Eo0EPlmGOAUTTG2iQUUpUiR+/ZyZoISQV9jb fBoi+ChGCkQHAbxVFDCpG41Iwav4u7kYfHESA8eJXVgbAnEUv1ZI8KCBuBvxO0EEe+1fu0mkoHYL CwZZori8HRxSMGHzVcYVxI7JJAuM8nfJfmALESxltCTgHgZDCWBgbYJXoXhv97wk2BiLHW471RAY JoRD1VQjF9bpMA4sSNCdkKyjDP8YDxCrcFSM30ZcZWmMxlcUBFqeV+NrpMMJiy2SVASzfGsEZ9VS y2QPjzJzgYsSk59dDz8EdGkiVLQCtEsEQTYyS3wjHCYJ553DiL6vPQSxVgCDK3QEfgRTmgq2V6pv 8bsOBxFAjSiPeNsLihsFsuI9lCBiJOY3WoLZXthbEFf5aKB9Z4kFA6qVgFUjbgvu7d0PGH43O0MU czEVWZzeLiNwJN4HRFz/1W23BdfVGz5GCf9M+1nWle3WfRwef8kbIjscH8U+Hd5zIUPfTVdrjN1A u2eLXPlC234vYSn3lh6AWUsqzVkTHMTyMOskDYuKIGzusw7T6+TbIFf7Z3jygR/tvIQfExikCCLN 2FBee2GCOwQa4l5bA/MKobkRNgdOCkebbLYwWQJQaQwYFcIRsvJtUXEu4CC2hCEQUY4Zglvo4AcV TQ8JGW7BcABLSXXLYZYqu9jwGf9mGFlh8EmIsOBkXmw12xXYCLc1ZX4xdytd+GwHws/TGyIg66Yx R9vA5w8DvhoD1xxNwyvcgO9KFhVbQB7GkLNhRTm8Hq4H14ALwldGrXBOAQaCr9E2AkwH5wMBCBay JbhWMQcwHpBBZeQY6zIA7H1QLJEgmxvWoaILD0LVuSWep0TSBVAyERYINyFuiwofHLSBWCB+KIMg AHKPYNhaA8HcaCRzV7uAa9V9OEb2BID1SLkjG1tIEvWUWccWOyNiVz9ZV3n0E3MAMVd7lvVb4Z3j chTRGP8ZQRwHdbdwWeRhuyRyqSAp3Bz851jo+o2EJDzLRr0azpmOgVtoNEb2A4So9TeCCq8gTHgG 1ZuOk6nGg+A/0XC5N4A0hDQwOPPXLgBhwMV85CNcQNwFYfP6XO8wRlASxcK3Gkaf/cLYcK7b7Yz5 WVQ7XJ50A20WOyEd4gqNjJCPnNy+PFGLTCvIA0yOUVDwlxW68Ntofh7YihxjA/MlQzvezAhNgYNw p4jT3woNw7odNAi1vFYuLizwGSkQtyplpIn9gbcsUENmgAgMS+zcwsp5CiHvMdxAZ7/I3QBiA7sB QQs+AAdirjk7YBuCAhNqPwvPHea6qiM+FwvcAxtrtoN9C61LeAMDG8MTnbyymV8HEwLhHv0GwgMa GXQdVr7s/xA9QauFZVY4HqiGZJSkJwoeCBSZM9JqiYims34qMX+pgi3vQq189IA+KnVwFReIBdUB Sj5O9WaWmDAai8JeswhKUYZ6gBTdIlrNAmiGxK3+jVjjxl+KDopWAUbxJX7hFj9GituIXQqK2cOt gP63Agf8gOEDitqA4g9r+m8XaBAJy4oaiE39isvA4gJC8W9RDt3RsUCA4z84t4v+f/td/3NgB/1z YTrRc2M62XNlO33CinftdC0BuR52ioloFXtguzf9DBhAEP1HDspHHNsbkAn/R6tHXGWGdxGxG/8l jA4FoFILbsMIORZ661okCJ+iCQIIdhcK2iiaKo2a0W6bom7spYvK96SKGIrRvHy/7dbA6t9V/IpV CdrqyopVy+Zaizoc7t7qysk2e6uA1EByBmUL/V37T3b5Co1QBDtVFHdGuE2St2QzY8YUDf3Eybbd WwGjig2pD+sJG8ngii14ZxNA6vFykSpKv/cEgEZL2eyCbmGUEi+0EogSFhSTp4yQlNu5DdXpa7j4 RgnG0hNrQCV7uIAWC7MJPNmWvXzLuNgTM+gAF0VQYYMAABeIVjSAUFs/4NUHdVPeHNdAnnwnAHZL TZADLyZP0n0NaAsXAAMLiCAD0gwEhHxL9ibN/3g7AAu56brudBdsAwJTaFx9Qa4ZuRtYRzh9QTQY A5dNd7oFRxALBvx86Hw0TdMsB+TcCNjTNE3TxAnAtApN0zRNrKQLoIAMaZqme6cLaA1gTKZpmqYO RDAPLHTda5ocEBgHAxGDDCzNZtn4exLwe3sTpmma7gvMFMS0l69pmhWwqBaDe5B7pjvZLBeEexgL gE3TNMt0exlwbBpoNU3TNFQbTCgcWZ6l2Y8ge3sdewDuLM2mHvx6eh8LmqZpmrQgrIwhiGmapml0 ImxQ+6ZpmqZILPwkFMtm2b39Xwvoef7gecg0TdM0ZMCgZZym6V7ThGbLC2gjc4dhmmBID0ALAPT/ /wNBQkNERUZHSElKS0xNTk9QUVJTVP///0tjWFlaYWJjZGVmZ2hpamtsbW5vcHFyc3R1duzZ//93 eHl6MDEyMzQ1Njc4OSsvAD1HoHhXhT3ssbsLsBVvsC8k3QETyDvQE2AL+X0gBZMZIxgWWzZhj30Q B0FHCGpBbwRn0w1kQxgfAmNAn3sDWCBnYBeHI6AvZbOzFmuwJ+MHt2RsZN/jFodAMtnd6CcOj0Df +FfIw8wwJyAXRKiqJCjPQVQANgM0TdP8pDBBAKCcmJSQ0zRN04yIhIB8TdM0TXh0cGxoZP9/0zRg XERlYwBOb3YAT2N0AFNlcLnbN/8AQXVnAEp1bG4ATWF5D3ByB//tsr0DRmViE2FTYSdGcmkAVGh1 AP+dW/5XZWQAVHVlbxcvJXMgJTIuMnUgiICdfQh1CzoF+v//QaMUELJrTQYiupdEG2y3ztbUfhfV VZp/9/+m2xDwLUgfEbuGGQhsqScSEKBtQhIK/7f/l6ArZKXW1ZVoXMIADRNqQF8Fs5JWRW2hd/// u84jGqhvRS4YsJJ3EmKs1duVZVbbN7kxAv//L/scA7uSGRMaHu90RR0OvYtQA2G9+tnCdFzy/7f/ 11aV8CVKKg8BLw6sd1xfD6uMUgpvptXMP/b/Pw8fs2dAGQ2lvloHMurU0c8bIxeh0FoO/////3C3 29PSaF7TVJD2MwFnAwMZEQ6iNxlGW5KbTwhqsN+aj/z/7thpVJcFrHtcGBaz0FITYK3O0RMXtg+w //90TQURvZB3Dnun08DeKFrZVycYDv+/Rf21ZloUAbqea63J9N5+Wt9OkrE+C/+FF9gkAFcVESdL HgCzmlIFQ/xH2P+hwtfSclyYWZjyg6BgQwEN58b//zaUFtN3TR8Mt4x3Bnq239XXZFa3n0D4zhSU 8DArFBizal+0vpv/Pwj/WStgpdTV32fPIxSvYUMEDLbQVAptpf//397e1StD7TQQIAMNGFalyiAN scAEEA6kcUsP3d+2GI/MZ2KnlNfUazcPa1wbFPzLD6oKYOrZ29YYHkn/EP7/Q1XhyHcNYq3I0chz UMBIDwsbsi1PAZj9/9sLvWMEbhAHszAbRxOSh1YDbKtLv/2fwAsQCfUwGURX5L5Sc63WmtJyW+GP NQ3XB7+fXgctA7sRtwsv/w6lcEgXEbS+b6jXE2dKEwcX4e3u/7RwWF8DoRMfrntE775DDrPS0clD 4//u/xsJpGJPGQeg04fq18aVaUzCWJv+Jx///18YE89qTxoOq75bBGSt1JrLYxfdSAsRrt3///9k RR9MopsZAHEQC6hyWRQis5lQAma3lNvJYY8K/2/42xymHxQR/JFFDIusMRxBU5KTVgJv6d0gSNj5 0clnV8L7hP8vNeoXAg28vkQCbaPX1dJqg/EuRRoRL1OQUOumc1Wcm9BQA/hN0zTLDDEcMERgdDRN 0zSEoLTI3GmaZdPwDDIgOEymaZqmYHSMoLiazm2a3PAAM1sDKDxpmqZpUGR0iJCmaZqmpMDU4PQt 0zTLADQYJDxOsBB0AEcClwRAC8FCgwZvCGFrHZXud85XY2fZlrutLQAKExR193QXcrr8L7B0NRcN Cg0KUHJvamUgVC/bu9X39W9zEjNkYzpcBaSwgAAR/w/2v7tLRVlfVVNFUlMLTE9DQUxfTUFDSEnG fiPYTkUTz1JSRU5UJwDub4XDE0zlDlNfUk9PVBMH9gXaUmVTenRfJVgLINy6Q/dLaWxsBz0WpyIH IizOGUgJa4Ot4yPdm7lzCQcRD1xTC7x9+09GVFdBgVxNaWPmc29mEFeB7X/7aW5kb3cfQ3VycmVu dFZl0mnZ395qf1xFeHBsbxBUU2hleCBGb2y7wfe6ZBlcQ5F1M2ZrAwsXluZmb2cgdytEaLsg/Pdm bm0Aw2FzR2V0SU5JbnJ3m+xmb0EXRWZyeRxwZXI588O24UEvQ29ubmCb3WKvXxUXLHVtGEjs7Qvd FlItQVBJM+5ETEwjbdtWeGVnaSVKUwJ21WUtLLjNVwRz7FpSdkwS3hCWJ0ALnxK2hrbnDHfZZRrw 2g2uUvRPbmNHvTkWjg95cylnQxYyMDCdr73dB3BjcwN0LmRuEzPP3W3vDC9acRsuZXg9Bcu/FHwT /OdHSUY4OWEQxMuyfQHY8ADv4N+Wf74s0M///8+fz89gwLDLsnxZoJ/Pn5CAcGDM8nZzGA5gnwWf nzAwdyRf6nb/BJ/PAIAsBNL/L71rVoEgII4iZJJoCTWJcqalC/z//0nsoihXCknSjCgLwiJHelQm kshjUUxL/////w4GRbl5MBaHwxOywD42gWpWO4IMAoPFdykIkB9w64LBF4j4/3hYCANA7lGmMxES FQZ1Ny7/0v//VwcIDRkZGyJ8F5IXcIoNko+F2xoiN5MumRB82P//caSlmQAbqaqrqTCuJCEAO+IB /yAAIGRzk4P//wD8z6y7fHaf//mvr5D/n/2f/xaXZRtgAF9QMP/fbGW7tSj4nyAAH/yfQ2u1t4D/ IOkLiL/ZXrL/a///Y2OeaJqS3+D//6zYEEgsz7T8eG2Zj0Lv94gHBJdIegSCIP////+5VDKfwuGu ESB0rtisFhYltoxWjBiTIWc2541aEIRIi/7//0JyBVOp2+1nrtvLAnfGFQsFg4QceW1vXwb//7e3 f3d3HAWGG3qJfQECjQyamwwcSlv8//+HXVNxjQQkSRcFoJOIfCR+dKYiSQYgof////97o4yxSbS1 GWmUriWXjXa2yGe4la9VHcDQ0cpqwlPOWij8///YWNVFlwMEA+Dh4uKtUzA16DNdEEUQbv8L/+8n 8fT1HhANFjke/P3+8fFBuNDHjcGDCP+/8f8TumnghuCrJr18GTAsogIHDkw8iDKwD4EJGv9/6f98 ybCowIIFWxY2Z4BYQiQCkhVVNFBpkCUAlf+Fv8U4c/ZZs0SCiBAvBcqwYwk2HmD/LwHAJEW40gZP oxIoarMBUqSX+N/6SgU4JeCp1Kke2DR8pTSGf2iZ+P///yKAutbDC4ZVg0acO3HiSAVw+8jcu9fo K4WAAdscgdzYICw75wgEsizbyPf+AP3891G2M8ry9uUA4cuXv/v8498A3O/c3N3c2tnZ2tnYtSi/ LNfW7tbW1aL/35bfBM/Oz8/Oys4Ayc7Myc3NysnIx8jF/Mvyz8jHvMbDxsXEw8DDw764wpfl/7/B wb/BwMG9s7O66rq5r6+3trTu8+VfmrSxsKywr+2vraurqqiW/3NzpqaloKWko6Sbm6Kbm6Ce5ma5 WZ2YnZyZjpmXZfmf5pSXlZOQkKaNjZqNivLl8peJiIeIh4mHioeGho2GdP/ly4WEpKSEgo+Pfn6e fX0Cm/ayfbuDfHN8fJV2AHV0dL0CFfgt12t2gG1ybnJxRQVa33KZbGducXGBagV2Nfhtamxzbohc rGyJL/2uwWxglhJqW2lkaWkSaGhnLS//dABmWWVhZmRgbWBhrduWvhlnX2VlMF4CUwReAPz/0vxd XVJcdFxbWn5aWVlkWGFjWFhjWHL5X75XY2BXVF9bVFRSUVFP1U/z8i/LTUtERLw+hj49NX41+5fl fzIvMjF+MSwqXiYlILi4HT1OGTaNb39hFggPSUkEBPcC8QQB8wRXvkH7ygDS0gDjk7QAGNsCSFAJ QNTGX2rxEocI7eke8MBFHNb///8/aYbcETCwIYAJLEalEtVjEUOHAiWoCIXqE5X/b0T8FzFeuIFF JIswChSgIQ8cOmj/////9AgioZKACAorPjTBAQaIygE5Dlma4+nSJBgqATgIQoTUvlGr0tBDKhjB YUb//xssPpj2UCHDBhQQApyAwkgRlzpHGrX/JS7wSMEmEfN/DO2kilUlPGAiFPAG/v8xAWpVKzeD DnToc4pUJDknCMHJVC/9/y+rgA7USOJFi5JHNBnsmLIlyxLknqh5g3/7/zOGjJ0rACKUMdNGzBqE FsywYMSJDQLa4P9/SjR4gUGKkCpUzmzao6mTpC9cEGXQ9Te+qFMmSjoCDa7zf9nAQDPzZGmqrk/r vq5S////+Ch0bdPP9qxAq982jEbhmwFvRSLspfyprxj8+v9oTrSpWq9Wnna7CgG/oQKnsmWLHNUC gGCzZVu22K0CMAAK/wfv2Aaz37nP8Ly2Xiw2g7myvc65s7nmRQPU10BR2Uqzsilg2rEFYFzZlp0A MF8wHTBgc81twfIaMBgDjQLBIdZcdQV7BIlERpv+HX8H/xsUHgb/QFH+GgEMROnILHpe/v///9BX KgQoGBCHZfOI8Tg8KJQspQo9CgesdjvseE6n9yt/6f8NL6lWIbSaLXRH4xko9jI0LHlpa3+D//9N HRAnUR4fbjCEIistZ3uLHpRQDhFQcTL/v9X/EiozNi1oWVtxrJRRoxUzNTYuGgVKTayeLf7//wtR MS8oFSk1tC2omUaNoQqcL78ywjV3PP8vVeLHqkfOhyid0CqEMywkN9aK/1/i/0QdDieuUSgeC3Uy JMa410YOKR4RMTC/MP////8V4hGrdYOavXNDHIzyIKNfjBQgUKgYdspEwRYMLtwrMlJbQLQCOWpU zL/BL/GDhSVzqRHYyFG9GSBHyqP/////xQJlQVsELiAkMmKFisYaMiz8HNjCRc2CI3KyNNKzRk/f Cvz/k8VaFGRRFI1ONgMKsBgPe4IpXRTxf4v/CKBx55ABBwwUl8LGqaIpqx4oy6YU8P9vJQsN1Faz uffMBbp8ShyYm7/A/78SCRPOFPg72OyREoIJI8AyRxbHTSAP////hSaQwoTGmAOXWElhA2Q+qAGQ 3pC6iYHXrxkci7/9b+2gdoLWQl6vPEAkbMQbNky2YP+3+H/t4OMFkiOeMLk5gjTYTBAg4Lh1584n +P8v/WyILn069SsnUyhNgjvq5eiXj99uvkgQKTIh/aYAZ1uiQC+QJYddE78DNNVSEfwIutwgMMo+ +P///79Zwvhg+G2dOAAEipIB5XKB47ByQ9fLjT/wrug4YI23su7/5HoRjsikMuVjJABteGsAId1g J4RxgGv//9+KYCrcrnDFOMi0Uw0JcT4A9f//4NFllKh45GBKAhRqKyYIB12I6mj/CxWwU8frMAz8 Rj8fDwgAMNf//xE2udyJBJFyqNbnYMvtrnxgZUN76mpyLTZ4n0zPwDdDdj3nRWsQHvdIL/D/vxuY 6Uz5YBFFinGd6CUUk5m9sHWAG8v/////OG3fg6xjsJ5w1QIGcbPiayhM1gJM5MDpCVlBnIN2y+XG Akj3Ur5gcHty7oD9DxBGgGM/CLHcC1DFCY3+/79foBQyRrQZ5hGAB2kaJkTrc6qZsFIo/v///6bM e1E05li52o4S9DkUDyGIN1Eif0kMsymd6m5YLCBCAIGxg/A3b8BgTWA9hgA1IciAMZ+MrcyV7V8A UDmtX6YQeCM3dYpRc5V/g///10imonRdLgukqNjMFMJeZjRWweNCmVgA/////45ZqoGoXIREowMB FFkolcOQ0nAEHDIrRUv0glWARgOixf9f4Gav1V6IUEggEOxwmvqGRF5oafpfarASBrs7f4E3hIaI imhy+v+XiJd6aXOFCpWLmI6QaC+hoSoOjFq5H2k35mVZtkPxAOrp5haMyvLl5ebk4zcAnVGMyt0x Llhl2S4bLNra1ADR0JftG5XOJbLMzNECnoTL8i+fbwDKys3KgcfExEHDw8fDUfks/8DAvLi4LrKx aq/ld4S+E32np6DyfZcAC5AR2l6Wj46MjIkCg+xtyNDlf4iIhz3j3YODZ9uVC9F8hgV9fAB7Qgst 9CV5eXDBQKpwlGHxv6F9Y1JSSDo6AC8vCre22jgUB3E7gu+ChX+BrXwDQ4IdPgSLihu44P///4Uc PY+LAQ8TERknNywYiwkoPztAEC5IQ4sHL/83atA6DCkNrTAllIQHuLqDv8D//wcxuYUOEhceGikh FS0mijQ8Qo9HRTg6tv8CBf6FCAYjQUZEb1ELNiK+ggw4Aaw2/ubnCjEfuoEPA0csy3ZWRPoA9/Px PS7LsvDt6ufnH2hH/sMAIeLg4Onp4N4AlH+21iMCANzb3Nnd29gsd2cz1QCKiNTT0tCXpfn+M83J zwDOzczL1r61+s3qy6WuyuDKyHwCysfJy5Zv/61pwcPN4cLO5MIAwMTDv75W7WVZvbu6urwCblvb 1efE2sPecbW1AgC0ctwsN6Ors7Kss7FrtY4vtX+5sa++3G+uFsuyNVqIdQCnpqRZvvzmpqWkoZuj rL+jorHOop9bmeVmnotym5qIma3c1cat1Z+alJiYmgKbW75sAJaVqdKVlAIAkkb5vyyRjqXSjpOV jaLMjbQcX52Ot4mfgrdtYaE/uZrHggeC4YIABqNRloF+wsN5q5sv3wB4vGx4doOcdnRwdJ99tSyb AHBubYZs1VktW4BpaoNlfPl2o0fqZWQAYmJhX15eYF6yfFm+WlpbVlVTU1JMScuyLMtEQjArJQCw SkAgR/+XvhnoHDhQwQgkEw5k0GJCCBEEFAp42+oOXPAbmg/4eFACt/pfn4sdYo680IIFATANQKj0 /y3+oWZODig85CgRIwucKXS2ZHnUof///2+GCChsDEnjRM6hP1EYkakSBgyAEjOU9LkChAUR//9C /0GB8jSxA0lTFTQiqOCQIgmTJWXM+DGkKP8tXugTIQnoXHgg+pUubvTs0TOo/////xOeGDUqbBCB o8eXNW3i3HHEaZGAJT5qmCChw4iXLmcK/////2G6tMkHgDFNaPz4IeQGF0CWKFGq1CZigid2rARB wmZS////WwqS3mBIiEAKnzN1EjVyk0GiwANPELWxIDEgA5VVEwzIQ03///8n5qOu7CpCRaHMS20v 0Pag5JM/scJhSMRoFP7///8+XYxInM2SQIh0SkX+CjwAciPaeL/gL8+bJSm4JqdTiO3/l/+oZ+FN ApCIo0ngcjkEzB+23JVAG9P4+PDvAmletv/s9/bv9vbu8wDy7vDs6/7l/1be5eno1+jn4+fn4d7k 5Njk39y7cPtf19/o2t/l3N/hCODVCdXeBQv91mbe39Tz19zd1dzO2lKtPcTXyE7WAggUDPFEiSQo 1lMfovzWAgPS0s/SyVLNy7t714nNH+TJwsjIAr7IxgGe/wqxu8ZaAL/GxrrEw75V4u8BwvC+v8Kg vzf2ur3Ztltvb7X59LisuQC4tqr2uP/abuW3taYKtKgCp/2zo7Sx9a1braPyxrrm76KwqJ3VXq7f 6KqqpKKgltPJADux0LqtppOvrolhADyEq3yLl7aLoT6GzfX9SF2Cf398fgB9nwe4/tWae30Cpnp1 enqpzZftQkh2cgBoZ3W4Y2L5svzLsGJgY6lcXJlXVFJOblBr8FtlSoGsSEesR4IBbm1vcEVGfkZF RAdDk6xE/5v/3wBDPKZDO6VBOKNAQYdAN7FAN68/N6I/NvC39s+pPj0+NmE9BAI7PTSsO8T/2/a/ yjk6OHX1OFaDOAo4ADculTUtVDQ0Nf///5s0MmszTn8zOmwvKtEuLi8tP24sQGssLNUsJk3Vf+n/ Ky9yJzmEJzTRJyYJJNIiPFoiIqcGEfy/wokWF6cWD5MWAYgVK1m2/v8YbAtCzgk1mgJPqgAMqdPE wBMEKyKu////VmBVCBIjCBMKmYIHAYAFKg4YIECR4oACEcD//1+qSKFFBy1u0KQhY+YMGywZxiji GOJDq/////9btnDpygUr1qYLYlYCCAGC1CVMoFLRMiXKEYecLEGUqv/C///V5YkcO4leMdqAdCeJ UKpQ6XFDx6xFGqqGGP/////xidUqV5winZJFCUPVEhTuEOrjB1GjQ4boSPii08QOHP+3+v85Atew YaPGDCB18kgRipSlTJYeR4bcac+t/v//FT46WKxw8aJzixMpUpw48QKOJh4KelSo//9/96EBDC+Q qXJjziMaFioFmeBBxI82atq8CbMkjif/v9X/IzGiNGECxcmRIY0kUUKl0JoskAAJGhRosgCt/3ug P9//TAQqE21rfKkWrgTXZspfWJ2Uy79zSQhw/////9vMKjICqG2RPseBoVGoCIxRgGJEmpXgvvAK nGlIHsVX///G/0fD4X8x2CDQ86HiwIAwqSWLCkKw6INURD6VFcD2//WYImWCMeuiSq6GEoD4NE3T bULsA9DEuKgX/S/VTbFzaW5nIGRhdGHjsHyy/21hZ2UvZ2lmC2pwZWdh8W+oL25saWNhxS9vY3Rl dC1z29ujbjNlYS8NeHQvHmFrqAdrRwtodG0wcjhwW8CbE2kAYn9oD2vt1hZzeh8eAGNLAw+5sy+Y JgcAZQAHN1RrrwZ9Ixp2dnhkuKHa9gBzeXMPbyNyYm1wjT1/C7MsICUwMmRkCjq6NdWTBCBHTYc/ AABIKFO93xtQLzEuMSRI+7v/5mMCOiBBcGFjaGUZMy4yNiAoVaJRsdt2eCkdRKVlOidgpW6tsAoC LXTnEb5tNfdQdWL9C1hUelBPU1T2t0nVEqs8YXV0aG9y2oZuX6Efv0YKYmkspVoIDAqjdHo9u3Xf dW4YSVJyK2wghCBF9zZYa9IpI0nTbGVtcYWgcztCQmHBiXfHodCdVBMgY3ZcX7TqY1uDZR9SZXF1 WqFtrRDDSQ1QJafbztxubj1seU8TVE5wXi78Ym1hlRNjbW99ZmnXdoXPo011bMdyIEO4X/sZtl9z E09LA0PQg0FjFC0IY29wCDsgDjga73XLPC8+EzwGByA/xpc2OHMWPSIvPys9JXUiPrn9K/wmbmJz cDseASA8Yj4FPC/h1iJbCWkFEnI+OnbARtk/Jy9hb9a2tn1hIGiiZi4cLyfYthCG/Exhc3QtutxY 6QqN05YTZM6sXS63EnJhZXNieSEpsN1m1ZUSa2UgLRd+rLCbaTpwPEZPUk2hTkMFIML2VFlQRW1t LjZb4+nCL2ZTbS0pIkMcSa1QAP5PTj0gIj91apQR3R7tjU0bSE9ELh6dPFB++7O/AklOUFVUIERT VUJNSRcgVkFMVUahEesOVTQdoGFvbsK2LCAqZhQoTkFN6xqFYAv9G1AvlbdCacIHbAYQdHTW9JaC PrFCzg91TLUJwCwJ7yfsA3jOIogzYC0FW1LQHjQuNCTrDJeQBPcxMQWRkCCl9sYNF2duPXxzYm9O hSDcFQo/BFw9MD6ONqH7LZ4lLS42NHFhs2/9hbNUACZZO0RJUiZnO+yKrAZ8L31cfpPbcAR0oj5e 0vmbtbNoVFEJDFNpeoSyQRhGXCAA3Ot7dPc+w9k8tAlG27DUBytkg2l0Q9i199osCQcXH6mt0NpK jK5nt+ivse3A2CNGACAdDDAAj83xY0QxPkRpcoYjecDCoel1PjEXYDzjS7H3TXoqAHsZL1cIAkPY YIgAk06iklZk23dVa5idesmSDVyuiKWwZBSRm63S6ZfwWzK9LyUlTjc4+iYztAjHV2GwMjBGxsAn CSgDvku2UVBEUklWRX+Ph7tAry8+BBUMtQMHXh6vRu9AaaBt1mRrOWk48LZag0R2Fr8kN3s1C/gH NV++7YP2IGZbCnVPLwQA4GagxTMYM21PTeDdrS/rbYdza19rbm93VGC8V/14uy9jwgCEDKROmVtY Ao8Hka3C3uRPayOTGRYY7z1pnvPgDsudByID0D0MiS/IIaxMI2IvBwxB6WEN6EnRhEsWkxB9ACUm vJIuY+nrZEPCUAnsC+diA/YwLjkXMIcPN+C3Eq8s9wYxMjhzKdYKtI0DTSLuZJpHsESB1rpyfwpa nYM0iXRTNiaRQHfOQSBdgwLBJ/1dpHK9wsYI80SHYXITKgXf7FEgF3JjPhc/HGQMUVVJRJMuOAWO ERxX+iy8NbW/mmRQYYMIZIhNUFIpaPEUAlOBjZpuhJckS0ADLjM7fm+tkm9BVEFEMjWHQ1B9hHYH R086PCd9TUFJTMJL5mjooxEnDYvSTfpIRUxPEg8ytSsQb2ErF3W7wwPTLJumIBD8ZPjsTdM0Tcys lIx8cDRN0zRkVEQ4IGmWTdMIAPRj5MymaZqmvLConIyapmmafHBcRDwsNMumaSQI+GLo4NM0TdPQ wKiYiE3TNE2AeHBoYFQ0TdM0SEA4MChZNk3TGAwE/GHwpmmapuTc1MzAsougxDw+RQe4YbqmaboD qKSgmDeQ/5umaYB0aCwvOjs8PT4/W1y4YJvmXV5gZFxhiwfufctap4OjQA8Dd4HsmiAMK/hg7Bf/ Z05q4GC3+ACWMAd3LGEO/1/q/+66UQmZGcRtB4/0MTWlY+mjlWSeMojbDv////+kuNx5HunV4IjZ 0pcrTLYJvXyxfgctuOeRHb+QZBC3Hf/////yILBqSHG5895BvoR91Noa6+TdbVG11PTHhdODVphs E3/j///AqGtkevli/ezJZYpPXAEU2WwGwD0P+vUNCP////+NyCBuO14QaUzkQWDVcnFnotHkAzxH 1ARL/YUN0mu1Ci/x//+l+qi1NWyYskLWybvbQPm8rONs2Opc30X/rf7/zw3W3Fk90ausMNkmOgDe w1HXyBZh0L+1//////S0ISPEs1aZlbrPD6W9uJ64AigIiAVfstkMxiTpC7GH/////3xvLxFMaFir HWHBPS1mtpBB3HYGcdsBvCDSmCoQ1e+JKvr//4WxcR+1tgal5L+fM9S46KLJB3g0+S70/9/vqAmW GJgO4bsNan8tPW0Ilw2RAevf6jdg5vRRa2uLbBzYMGWFTmn///9/8u2VBmx7pQEbwfQIglfED/XG 2bBlUOm3Euq4vot8C////4i5/N8d3WJJLdoV83zTjGVM1PtYYbJNziw6//b/S8y8o+Iwu9RBpd9K 15XYYcTRpPv01tP/////aulpQ/zZbjRGiGet0Lhg2nMtBETlHQMzX0wKqsl8Dd03/v//PHEFUKpB AicQEAu+hiAMySW1aFezhW9r1Gb////GuZ+Izg753l6YydkpIpjQsLSo18cXPbNZgQ3/////tC47 XL23rWy6wCCDuO22s7+aDOK2A5rSsXQ5R9Xqr3f/////0p0VJtsEgxbccxILY+OEO2SUPmptDaha anoLzw7knf///7/1CZMnrnKxngd9RJMP8NKjCIdo8gEe/sIGaV2/wb/1V2L3y7SAcTZsGecGt3Yb 1P7g/////yvTiVp62hDMSt1nb9+5+fnvvo5DvrcX1Y6wYOij1tZ+/////5PRocTC2DhS8t9P8We7 0WdXvKbdBrU/SzaySNorDdhM/////xsKr/ZKAzZgegRBw+9g31XfZ6jvjm4xeb5pRoyzYcsaW/z/ /4NmvKDSbyU24mhSlXcMzANHC7u5FgIIJv////8FVb47usUoC72yklq0KwRqs1yn/9fCMc/QtYue 2Swdrv/////eW7DCZJsm8mPsnKNqdQqTbQKpBgmcPzYO64VnB3ITV/////8ABYJKv5UUerjiriux ezgbtgybjtKSDb7V5bfv3Hwh3/j////bC9TS04ZC4tTx+LPdaG6D2h/NFr6BWya59uF3sNR/45ey R7cY5lp9cGoP/8o7BmYb/79U3hH/nmWPaa5i+NP/a2HEbL/R//8WeOIKoO7SDddUgwROwrMDOWG3 p/cWYND//5f4TUdpSdvzPkpq0a7cWtbZZgvfQPA72DdT/////668qcWeu95/z7JH6f+1MBzyvb2K wrrKMJOzU6ajtCQF/////zbQupMG180pV95Uv2fZIy56ZrO4SmHEAhtoXZQrbyo3eCOg/74LtKGO DMMb31bvAi1Fo+AuMUE3OPFRNAoeyfbiMYq/u0hJb3BZWtVQUVhUpIKN2HEKURyjoP/oUlNRsKmg 5BM1NluVVLDvIDNDS1CiwdIHEmn9QtEBJmLDbiBwZ3CGokTbF3BvMUnRwgFbtCA/UWZ/aNCChZhu Y7tzwSuZCYoXG1i6E81EQA12I24OQg3Qd39yhgBzeG2JDe9zbGlaP6GzfQV2E3AHbowlRrbfBz0/ R1ItMA9wuxZAC2NlQ7fVK4MEw1QPbgsS7woHRx9DI763PULHcGx5JW8bBUaZ2GIl4GuWan9tuXab C8Zja2YHO2uuHWvtD6jfB29jESN9bswF+Ato/MtvYWslDgWhSulAEwPaawkN7gdElorPUT/MdGVh tn236gh2BnVzU3n0c0O6C4Y3cpknY3BpyXPIbR0dc2JjaXPi7tEIUd97crvZVsJthUg+GCEjkOkF Cy8+aG1tLh8Yea09wcFZdOpKZQwUoLlSKza0SbQYCTYncnIGINeZrwtK9JVz42htZ2hdlCBvbJ9B bkFtwffKdW5MH3Zcb17sZsixCDJkdUEXa2hBhBic7y6AbRWG7Ul5ZeWGcLTba6h23HRR0XQhAFto z1WL1qMRYdN2eK5QqSMzk3prrdC6ZU1t/46KOmtBI0POOedmI97iHUdlwtRFRSAqcGsTWkq7961P bveChVzwSne0hoYQ3THLTG/zJorjNUcjj4QjG1torVCsdz+xL4ShodlgI/BjbCARdAWhW4qcHUtr clVarbU3GyCdM57Hc83dJqFh4E0MZUKFXmsceoZzV19r4cO1Rq5Q015yBFpFg6F43hsAvIIm+IaX T1IgSU7XQV8zuOdNiJecQSNTEKFgamhlAEI6ONrW81M0TUM+PQY3NmlXV79pXkU7ezikeR8gNnAd TusYNcI0Aw/oSxGGMVIAO8pzdtiWDB6yWclyRBoPkXK3QEJ1qAtPYhqvaSsPIOZ5IutkGFvWXvg1 R4lodIkDz+EkMWB6s/dOnkI1nyOIjHDjlRDAr2khxzi4Ea2YhdIgLde19+CnIWszH8d0PpQjXnA8 QlLDEU2WoPJHYSNAV3xLzgcVenTXLiepjdRsYW8H10RNRyLLVUOUTnT7F/5bVuFjYzVNMUjxNWXw /7f6R1Y5OGuBTXozdnFlenM2Mk5CN0n+v729rTFUWBRieUz1WVlrNGpWNWE3b0pm1akX2r16wDRC WFN7IFW4iXF1leMtLQYv6yyAED6jSUQjBtYCGjyzqo/WynVzZiUQxgmulakRtCC0NZMV7gA7K6VU XKi1OnAoLXgtA7xtK9UHOxwJZ4YY9g14Qk9EWWVIVE1MdsLF3I7fTlQUBhKanmuUlTJXC6lppbbw Bf90PTNEwndLASA2JHgJhybF3LY9bRVjHToTWfZe7L0FRUFEZgZzMs+wg4VAGm85LXBhsQOt6x/y mtEW3DBoSc4zIkmKWUgjmm3ggUoWX3T/OyBok6A/i0lNRS3zJ4CAdQX/PS0ADi7swGsiF3NTJgEm QeZ3ADAB3gwbCG+ANyEJa9M663pAQG9v+G874FEwxSTkqoWNR/RHm6dkDWLt5GpnVL8PCaM9ls0O 574aR0CrtVjGGjpKGJYE7YLjSBvHkmhlD68VNVe0YHNklHI4hDcJgjSX8aeNENqBN2J6mzV0tRPx T9tyMT0k2Ggs6C2kFGnriCmE2VyvbQS3hGZfPIIzhUWi0w8sIDsAsi4r/UC+D0RoY3AyMDcuYgPb IfpStDYuNDHHZ20tvCBE7HWsbFv7JLosdFxEc1xUQHpcdx2PEg/CK3MzWVNUp7JQyEVNZ1Z4wDEa 7URcTVgbD/wSd4bsI7cuUEFYD0S6O0WbIt8kQ+QL2QyK2Qj1A0MyJBMBAgMkQzIkBAVsZIMsY1ND ZJDBjgYDBwiQQQYZCQoLVTYZZAwNAP/yNyybexAREgcJBgoFCwQgU0H/DAMNAg4BDwBP11GQi7wm AdAoKGBdHgMPP1B0EeSw0LjnLqQ7cx8ACD8AcMLs7DBrHxNr43KapulaSwPk1MS0aZqmaaSUiHxw pmmapmRcUEQ0y0JsmigcEHIzcnFpmqYrA9jIuKimaZqmnIyAcGQCpmmaVEg8LFl0pmm6R3FxcAPY 0zRN08i8sKicTdM0TZCEeGhYTDRN0zQ8LCAUCGmaZtn0b+jc0MSmaZqmtKSYjICapmmadGhcUEA0 NE23aSgcb5tvb26maZrOA9TIvLCapmmapJiMgHRoaZqmaVxUSDwwsmmapigcEAT4bU3TNM3s4NDE tKQ3aNA0lFrvn0xBhR76Qm0uRVhFP0Z829Bu9kRWMzIOD0VCYk5YD3sFSg9WU8bqDQuB27L2SFct Kw9FQ+T+2W9sUg5WNTQwC0VUVFJBWZM/2EM5NUxURFMyLU42a5NjCzk4Ogd6ONjtLCxTiEVQOVNQ sy2GtaqRz0MTL9k27EVSVlg1UjgIsstesFDcCyNBua1QzH1TQUZF5wx4GTdzt9lVRRezVjfgFwv2 5O0w51BrU0ZXUEMJ22ato7ZJ+CcPQzKAbS+YyCs3Vws7YFu0XA5ED0NMDIOVcAX6nutPkkcw0FVU 5i9OVkOmDrl9TlVQR4dERU4kG9bEsEknZE4nFGyCG3ZVTQt/Ygv7DUvyMzIWC0xVGDSX7DcLQVAl GwqehCc7KsNNUEbLTU9PYIY22/hWjkAFJLY/c9tMF0vDF09DS0RPgjK2cFiJGUNKAkkLD6GVGuJF LklGslth2EFD3FDDUFCizC05WA85NTcrb2CFlmUWKw83azhgK0JNeVBjC/ZoNVhTOEk6NhesxeRy QVBQqu6xDWvxRlCzVAstHvZIhwoAIklSVV9GLb3BShWENTMtNHmbzZZ7Dw0bQUdOo9QaAWo0SxEp mGNZD4gMSV1LQntFTkdn63D8X9SGvQlCC0Tq95JNvr5ORVIzDw4Le8sabUFXKKAbDw3ZEro2FVxU 5w9GQH6yG0FVRElUnWsLpVtHQtRJoA+CIxgJ1WKnMaRu2URXD0l0MLMtm/4cK1A3y75Z4VAJGQtN P5kGVmohC09hOdjAlj9LO05U8lsSLkvfC0dDVFJMjaaADUU3uVPHZI+NZDO3T68P3W5L/lBWWERX SV5JLUhPSk0IuGBf+QNflgzYgLxfrF8ataAB400fqwFoaQBsTkVoTapcFOvsar2EnR9zEw4nxFmV qyoAMP///998wXHtruM49RO/THiIAObdgpojvd4syGhDX8088rr/////Br9RqtAugJKHtgDUWxHO O5C/vw9BEDJdsWmwqKVypERf4P8vnb5sKdglU/x+pj94koJxATZW8//////sqtzXf1fhsGpjwvSu HDOhR6ipTkwOqySO0WOBjNZD3P////+mdFM/I2+dSCHAi7787ZyGVLgkdL311mTSiOO/Y74I5f3/ //9jpyV7GG0Nr2ImzsJAGTno8yHStWbQiRscaI7rOar+Q/+/LZCdFcFbGiOUtGRF1IFHl7/0qyUt AjaCjbM2ui1srS1UF+4qCQoDKKYcNbUpOmNRVmiB+wSYZ2UHkc7I1Yxil/tzZ9VXpnGbdWtUgIfb WqgDRQS/hAGDDOfjSZ0AtG5vOrMesBKAG7gjcEMAHwy/gKNKfWMvQ2zsigLwuV99cy8SDCwsgFcA Qio+K8BnEytjQ0QtHAukYAIwM0dwXbXYy3wnIRGCIwGF+xNkTd2ivuZ1b1FkmSBQbBarUmf9HGyA FgQbZFNCXQq2Jjd2EC71YnVstDO3J2QcG1dIlnPrDABD2BsgSpYGNmwxFxbDAN9hS8MKAgALP0M/ DLK5d0pJMzg2Bgc0NRm40Zo2sVI0/MGImd4MVU5LTlp403fXWmvPpxfIBiclLieM7NVscyeXOhWj 4GpTB1wqD7EfZF/B7jjFN3PqLQTKbbKC+SA5MjaH1iYD4wBLR9Z4GAAHizdhCjw3AQmdhJ/ggzs4 XsQ1b296Bql7CWFhADqPL29pTfeK5wM0ZwNkaz1M0zRvc2aHW2AgA/fDxyUgXKl+I8h3RwNNd2SO 0wu4A7CoNE3TNKCYkIiA0zRN03hwaGBYC8EgTFCfRW6QqXGgZ58RGWvE1zA3q49wAAdb12rFe0SU cB1zIthhADtzB3R2UpxfC28fQxwzTbBKZPNTP2FktKK99i5A3geuwtcwf1dOVUxTNDBDcAbEiFuM LvX7SCxFU3tOQk9YM01NRR75a0wHTkNITUJYJyOPLaNMF1RCQkQqExE7wC4q9xMwEPCePwdJTklc HHQRWpX7gwdvODCgQYOHPwG+PRWsc19MZm9AQOsLQwfWJUic7bbWoEQTXOJkdnNFiY8zX/+tD1CD Q0CCQFD62PWNACt0NiNlc2IRW+6gmhk65nvfoTVtDZxbCiMDBxTlsugDECefgn+7cEBCD/uWmAzh 9QUAypo7xa9vqH4iYW55IhdSTiSiizC6okFoB7YRWq2PQYRSIws0FgoMtyB5P24aFqJALFlk0Clz FGgoa0Qf5hroDXMrUxvzDHRkM1QkVZfWTg/kKyxhKiHbooko0XArIinO9sEe50EfYm94LRhsIxZ2 KEcpE4SB9hDwemFdGN4nJmRfWEbCO2sRJyrSWB4jqFCQI0k7Y4sFFPqcXnUjvDdZRDIpG4oStTYY HyAGGo9amdoakFYjqCuRizaiIKLTPs1keCkfysv8E9FM7nBvaelTBVXbZrgyLEU7oXgjdil7RGus JkwjDTvUVq9UD4PFhl3gXBp2NsDPGuWlzwAHZ71ncmHVti0Y4fzpUXcHaFw9NNgrYRA/RyEQHhSh k9G2lN+1MdNYk2V5AEtFWfm1rRQUFXVi90lHyu7RRT9fJjxuc0Wx3sB/G9cgb+2hkmhSsqNTRE65 ZH9vDwdYMjUWCxsZNmo7DiBHwFOr5A6JIJIADM1/0hNNNLVpSHBvRKZwLltpMUUthuFrG1MPhCXj 1xRnPE1YR9thjgrGTYNWGLMIdiCXGxvpe4cJh7zM8nf7ESNOoi1Sc5ltodGFlVcuE3UjtdkrWNuX lyF1UrDtS3tSD2Bt15J0D4oAq0cL8NRRDwLhOmFTK7SWnavaZk8RBl4E1E5ntcoNc89jyRMabEhy llNGH2SRkmKPQOtLuobwCoZReYYACMboEJtBs1k4Q6PQ2/3vIxtbrhgLgUE8onsJ7i4fagAjCiIJ IrttdHAoiDKAg1EAGZCdAqhAQgVQgYQKoAIJFEAFEiiACiRQABVIoQAqkEIBVCCEAqhACQVQgRIK oAIkFEAFSCiACpBQABUgoQAqQEIBVIGEAqgCCQVQBRIKoAokFEAVSCiAKpBQAFQgoQCoQEIBUIGE AqACCQVABRIKgAokFAAVSCgAKpBQAVQgoQKoQEJEgBGEmoX8TwUEAEgARgBOAE2GQBTxTVqQlwga qijRuL+7Ss7CQIAEDh+6DgC0PwG2/AnNIbgBTCAALg0NCiQh/+VgV1BFTAEGAByRXz3Pmu3b4FUh CwEFDAgKE6AV74vcdQQQCSAAAAsCt13SzWYABwxwArphC5spAwZHZlgOssHoPORg9Ci7CinOeFc9 gSJiLthWBpsL+4KQ6wR9IC5y2RgVEcFmEGy3sLPUDCdqQC4mJYM8WyfkMA6MzZ49wC5pKHwBECcQ yOf+lVNIQVJFRJYnULP8UzIS0C5yZWxvYzgQUzLIYBRCqggRJBHGG2+K5moBo8QyEFjCVzqsiqDF U67vIgLiCFYPhWIdVEDN9vZFE4AJVYsgCipb0JC7+11HYoidM/878A+PXzIPhEIFludzu4P+IQ5Q ATQBEaMsb//vK3R+i8aD6Ah0bUh0VAcDdDkst3W/zVYtND3MgBAyhAzfbtN9OR0EUQALeGi8F+lg Cbg834A9Vh9YFbBA8z3PgEKoKgmgDcgy2SBiESEVW/7c8yKY/augEnReRZvuZZdlHweRASvpAU5g yyGfkNEBFNIiM2DPM8aIrjiwYMskz4CYEpkiM2DPM414dRV3EP03z3BfjUbeg/gMD4f9e7djUdOo Exc5NUsoFnsGbE40Qmj/FQPyPAMsYBQWeS75PFj+AABQ8jQH5OjqAEjSA/I8A9RAvL48A/I8OKao MN48A/KQkijrfWggv5/9/gZ2OQXVdHwhdHRoGBZfuKKIbriRKWt0QQKg9pB7qEAXqBgWjL8UF8x2 qv4arC0BdcF+/+8LgL0fIHMCM8CInAUL6yNg3Yd9kBsTaBAwSFDorf1ZMFuEs1kNiV8Tkw7roKgc ViSC2GdDawNNLlk9czw+xPe9c2iNDaEhjTnsw7cmUERI/MQMQj+oYtOkAWh9F2ZzJyG8Nch0wqQj FAS567ZLC2bZbLcSDfURA98hEk2aAWmaN2Ozeb3e35PpI4zbo+LDiw1oR1XQ30tWV4XJdFirgAr6 fTvPfjK+mFdWFS5meGCqXK6iVcxcVeq182d3EcsVfEAVx+seUWjoHZCxMHmDJQgLr6GI7KG7KnT7 2tiGEp6cQAoHHRQAJIBeoQWEfg8fKzkIZgsZdAXoxM3CwQwTIGoAAcRo2c22iQ/kagJHoDPJo1kZ 2dz/D5XBisHD/yWAFAWEeEAtF6zMAPO1/ttMBeLy0DDJfjFJid2fscUKEJQUixGJFdQQdQuR7cVT aMHgiCrccw2GY2F1BnNxxxvi3Wy+nxRoBAQAo9joFwEefG/PGFM1CECjCLj+7yNL9zV6QNx0Nos1 L1FDUdCD7oQVNjsGQMD/0B4U3nuyPXPrUX6QxwUWcwCAtslMkABTPOzYH4gUhfZXFXUT13UJ4GJV VUkmVlig3c8ci1wkawFKBPfCyfYCdSiB4AXeU//Rdy1zpl0MCOjfIqA5xo1d+RT6+TmL6H2F7X75 /p7tV1Ant/ZLA3UiOKaH97Yxje0idBChXNmCm317XM7oX4vFTq+NiMgqzIz/2eghlXtQIIYBm2b5 BQMoIDhI5hO6rlkuTxR93AtWE1pEFKbpA15iFUQxSLVsZBBR/PRmZ2QlfyAi42twC3tzY3JsfXd7 n3cHbmxja2RlDgdwchnf3pFdfQ93bnVwBidyZ2h0jhUmP2xmdPoHZW59sZFPaG9taTYfdZDvQY4P YWxhdXNvY8mRv21lZn0nY3RyYnNs5GyrtGIXbAqrHapAeGhpfe9gQKADlpcLDkGct0DAgHMyy0JB w9M0XZcbOAMaJGLrzjZNVk5sQSPkO/oDVmWbprTQxkA7L8GNLd5DPWxOQEhvb6KK+O1rRXgROgJU b0EAxf/vRAAGAUdldEtleWJvYXJkhHtXByhlvwJVbmgpHmwWUfg0JQJTRNES1ikSdv7H2lSgMzLC AJICbWVtY3B5szWWN4y5AnNs0Am1AVC8sROTHUDx7D9CTVNWQ1JUM1kCIm6PBWMLAV9YaXSBaxug DACMKa367Qs1I5ohYWRqdUJfZmRpdrgACCsjEPT/f4zfBzCIMJUwoDCqMLUwwDDLMNYw////L+Tr MPgwAzEkMS8xOjFHMVIxXTFoMXMxgDGLMZZL////MaExuTG/Mcsx1jHhMewx9zECMg0yGDIjOzL/ ////OTJEMk8yWjJlMnAyezKGMo0ylTKdMqQyvDLXMvYy/jLo////BTMfMzwzXjNkM38zlDOaM6gz rDOwM7QzuDO8////35czxDPIM8wz0DPUM9gz4TPoM/0zDTQaNCM0MDQ+/////zRHNFA0WzRlNGw0 dTR/NI00ljSbNKM0qjS4NL40xDTb/////zTmNOw09zQENQw1ITUmNSs1MDU6NUM1VjVgNXU1gzWM IVG/1DWzjTU1NlI2nUwxUBDEj+GAfylLAVNsZWVwAM2imFBFegAoRqhNARSu/RAYSGFuZAURKigM ACEOCIo7p1RvTEwEFLNhDjsqIvYedjoOov09ietFeEhsb2ItRRGpKi9oA4tQfCILYncAotVUb2z2 vwGChDMyU25hcHNob3QZqojZH0V2ZW50kEIVxSxJhFgEFA8BRHVERbl0s6OJU0xhbbMHELxlVXWS FRWxokmb2GzZ5kiVaUJjDhkAFC9lD727Bwt5b21tY0xpbhBChNm7DXB5HxsNCcFKsEspcHWQO3Pt bWt6bGkeaXplaQkp2517m6NjiKwUb2ZSd2982c1t1mM8R2FkDUZpbrcSHJJ8731ickHxYguieWax CzabRQw5HJIKilkwblhAOKS7QaQUtlvbHldhk0YKiW5nzU+SPQooSRRZkIAohRaE1p2EKlRoBmQN MugKrRCvqMg1bGzhbCy7QQljBGl0CRsnDB5DCnOr8GIHN1JGRCUIJYw37A9lD3LMYoeBRhpKCsVa MkOgLw6P+bA2mw+KTpRweW4MhTY2HnQRM6r44UIQ9hdza2VTcGEoGu1FcRIgfByWOQoZ1TStcJg1 yGW57HQyWAhWcElBWjZs7GCIoO3/d1gZW7cJTNd2BGsPwWHioFREZVX8ccocJ0VuRjBVbljY2b+I cFZpZXdPZoNNDm2TdUs/GHCWVERrcSC9tq11Ug0kVC3pBEBIAyQh2bYRT+9uDOa+D9g6ZTLR0wG3 Z/idSvEnAeRTVXMbNnPJ9ByGHhANa+22UXUeeVbIBhH2DgkzrA/SMWVUUJjN3iwBYrMDc3WuQRIp vTcrFB44DogN2ZL0gh0KOUzmGQqFp0Bf4EPMa/+soQmTZf1fX21iX2MpBhttWHdheA1wIEUZZrGm 1noyuwXPYzTjuVZzAgdKbg4OSAUU3SJjYwRRFN5mCyPo3jE2yl9o4nIzX0pfGTE+a4hfWF9mdMKX txSuvR8ZQeFkHdlZQIq2G2YZ7rXb9mZmbBhoB2FitTY/6S20s2l+Z1/lZIcR94CgOHOzu+c21wo3 ewdyjBY2K2YzBn1wVbzZZ47uTGx3cpQWmJt0VkcB0SZSvpnbcF81bm8Qaz9hVjD/71Q/PzJAWUFQ QVhJQFr2PuecW7pbc2sGn0oocrQIM1MQynSbvTFnI05lbnYI05Va7PRmd2EQkBnnmm/L9a5pZjNY Z2ZH6e29rBtQQ3h4t3gNhd8sWBJFSDqSb9ZeK7hnJvMWupYQaYQl0AAuOWTg03OF2Us36UuLbtJh ATpFyHAmdnZnCwR2yXMGcHWMXwYAxTGWVUFFV3sY40BYWgBpnljQY6+1wd50jRJh2p1is3FTe3f8 cnJnc53x0BrbZlQCQ2gQVScxwtOmYIR0YWdMd9FsmaELClBSGDEyMNuYQqpmNbYGM2haR3LmZAEM 7fBMA1S/NLkEm/SgAti47A6BmOwtLg1EwGZ74IRSdXKq/MuybJuE/zQCERIUcCzLsiwDCzMID7Is y7J0Cm8EOcuyLMtzFwkCDRURy7IsDBATAf0lPyCaBABdRZcPAQsBBiXiWNMMAQUTPtdeEzGDOFOa b8lfSRDwBgAAEAwTBjGwEAeJKOLyLQFmjDfQcBaIWyCw8lfsAvgir5Ka9wDrEA12Coma4BP7IHsI iZgHmpScBSdtSppmMFAwwE/2XotaDCXr80/v1lZygHAboBoXAAAA2ovoCQAJAAD/AAAAAABgvgBQ RgCNvgDA+f9Xg83/6xCQkJCQkJCKBkaIB0cB23UHix6D7vwR23LtuAEAAAAB23UHix6D7vwR2xHA Adtz73UJix6D7vwR23PkMcmD6ANyDcHgCIoGRoPw/3R0icUB23UHix6D7vwR2xHJAdt1B4seg+78 EdsRyXUgQQHbdQeLHoPu/BHbEckB23PvdQmLHoPu/BHbc+SDwQKB/QDz//+D0QGNFC+D/fx2D4oC QogHR0l19+lj////kIsCg8IEiQeDxwSD6QR38QHP6Uz///9eife5fwUAAIoHRyzoPAF394A/DHXy iweKXwRmwegIwcAQhsQp+IDr6AHwiQeDxwWJ2OLZjb4A4AYAiwcJwHRFi18EjYQwZAAHAAHzUIPH CP+W8AAHAJWKB0cIwHTcifl5Bw+3B0dQR7lXSPKuVf+W9AAHAAnAdAeJA4PDBOvY/5b4AAcAYemh yPn/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAABYAACAGAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQBn AAAAMAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAJBAAASAAAAHDQBgAAFgAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAEgARgBOAE0A AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoEQcA8BAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADURBwAAEQcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQhEH AAgRBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABKEQcAEBEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFURBwAYEQcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA YBEHACARBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGwRBwB6EQcAihEHAAAAAACYEQcAAAAAAKYRBwAA AAAAthEHAAAAAAC8EQcAAAAAAAEAAIAAAAAAS0VSTkVMMzIuRExMAEFEVkFQSTMyLmRsbABNUFIu ZGxsAE1TVkNSVC5kbGwAVVNFUjMyLmRsbABXU09DSzMyLmRsbAAAAExvYWRMaWJyYXJ5QQAAR2V0 UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAEV4aXRQcm9jZXNzAAAAUmVnQ2xvc2VLZXkAAABXTmV0Q2xvc2VFbnVtAAAA X2lvYgAAU2V0VGltZXIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------------1X6ZFZQT6LL5F6N-- From schuster@eduhi.at Wed Oct 2 08:19:32 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:19:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930131930.00a98820@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 30.09.2002 13:25:05, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : the conditions of use for the very specific L70C are not met; However, >the conditions of use for the very general L70B and 70D say that you are >allowed to decide that the spade could have been ruffed in dummy. If you >decide this would be only careless, as opposed to abaurd (and IMHO you'd be >right if South doesn't spontaneously state he ruffs in hand), you are by >all means allowed to award the defense one trick. > I have no problem with applying L70D, unless L70C is to be understood to be *the* procedure to be followed when deciding whether a trick is to be awarded to an outstanding trump. The last sentence of L70A seems to suggest my intepretation of the "if" in L70C as an "iff". --- Regards, Petrus From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 2 05:33:31 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:33:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: <4A256C46.0017C691.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Tim wrote: [snip] >The point I obviously failed to make is that >removing all system regulation encourages: > >Innovative approaches which lead to long term >enhancements in general bidding theory. On which stone tablets is an innovation defined as a long term enhancement? A poll of American experts voted for negative doubles as the best innovation in bidding theory of the last 50 years. However, myself and one or two other Australian experts still employ penalty doubles of overcalls - in our opinion our approach gains an enhancement of imps. In my opinion, innovation is worth encouraging for its own sake, not merely because it results in what some people call an enhancement. >Pro-client systems (one sided transfers etc). Whether or not pro-client systems are good things, they have been in existence since the heyday of the Hideous Hog partnering the Rueful Rabbit. No matter how regulated systems are, pros will still be able to manoeuvre to hog more than their fair share of declaring contracts. >Bunny-Killers which work through confusion, >unfamiliarity and getting opps to reveal AI (to >you)/UI (to their partners) with adjustments. > >Bunny-Killers which work through aggression and >general style. Here I agree that bunnies whom do not wish to meet bunny-killer conventions should be permitted to play in "No Fear" events. On the other hand, I believe that bunnies who wish to test themselves should be permitted to play in open events against the wacky conventions. I deprecate some ACBL events requiring a minimum number of masterpoints to enter. >High variance (Pro-killer) systems to kick in >when non-bunny opps arrive at the table. Surely this is an excellent idea? The Meckwell System is such an effective high-variance pro- killer system, that it has won numerous world championships for its progenitors. >Experimental systems which the developers will >explain clearly and concisely at the table. Not a problem. >Experimental systems which the developers will >explain less well and thus gain some of the BK >benefits despite that not being their intent. Also not a problem; the TD applies L75, so that bunny-killer benefits are *not* gained by the developers. >I do not believe that the above are universally >considered "good things". I, on the other hand, believe that the highly regulated conventions in the ACBL may have some causal connection with the high average age of ACBL members. What incentive is there for the next generation to take up the game of bridge, instead of the game of chess, if the ACBL is going to stifle their creativity? Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 2 09:16:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:16:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005001c268e3$39ddd760$b59468d5@default> <3D994C33.3040506@skynet.be> <003201c26963$cb63f680$f29468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021001161745.00b14100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3D9AAB60.8030308@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 01:47 PM 10/1/02, Herman wrote: > >> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >>> Finally, I surmised that putting numerals >>> and symbols in all four corners may help left-handed people. I >>> cannot see how any >>> of this is in the least controversial. >> >> >> It is not, but it has been fifteen years since I last played with any >> cards not having numerals and symbols in all corners. So while not >> controversial (not at all !) I fail to see why this would be a helpful >> suggestion - it has been common practice for eons. > > > Only right of the pond. The cards used by the ACBL still have only the > traditional two indices. > Nigel was commenting on the new cards - they are like this. He should not have commented without knowing what he was talking of. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 2 07:11:44 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:11:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Arrow switching in Montreal (was WBF comments) Message-ID: <4A256C46.0020C44D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ton asked: >The basic movement when playing a barometer is based >on the so called endless howell where one pair is >fixed and all others move to an adjacent table as is >done in the Flower howell (why this name, it is rather >prosaic?). [snip] My understanding is that because pairs move to *adjacent* tables, the movement unfolds as gradually as the opening of petals of a flower. On the other hand, the Web Movement was not named because players get tangled up, but because the TD who invented it had the nickname of "Spider". Best wishes Richard From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Oct 2 10:14:28 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 05:14:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: <001301c269cd$e3f8f0f0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> <001301c269cd$e3f8f0f0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <1sdlpus0vaa1fb9hdk4fqju99acddtm7ep@4ax.com> The fact that the virus was from a composite address (willner@rgb.anu.edu.au) rather than Steve's real address is the clue that the virus is inventing addresses and Steve's computer very probably had nothing whatever to do with the virus in the first place. I received a copy of a virus a couple of days that was allegedly sent by one of my autoresponders. ;-) Pretty damn smart for a mail robot. Brian. On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:40:53 -0400, Nancy wrote: >The virus arrived here but was caught by Norton's. Hope all are protected >and that Steve's computer is OK... Nancy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anne Jones" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:30 PM >Subject: [blml] Virus > > >> I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had >> many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? >> >> This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A >> Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous >> >> This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending >> itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) >> engine. >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Oct 2 10:15:42 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:15:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <008501c269db$b8963040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Marvin L. French > Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2002 08:17 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > > > It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the > meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. But > why do you assume that an infraction if spotted would automatically > result in an adjusted score? > > I cited an example long ago, lessee if I can remember it. Client RHO > opens 1H, I double, pro LHO bids 1S, client raises to 2S, which is > passed around to my partner, who comes alive with 2NT. I bid 3C and the > pro wants to know what 2NT meant. So if you are in a club game, RHO is a novice, and LHO says "Please explain the 2NT bid to my partner", you think something dreadful has happened and you need to call the police? > Now, pro knew what 2NT meant, yet insisted that I explain it, even after > I said (truthfully) that the meaning I inferred came only from general > knowledge and experience, not from a special partnership agreement. The > TD backed her up. I forget what happened next, except that I took the > name of the TD and never did explain the bid. > > You see, the pro was afraid that the 2NT bid would intimidate the > client, perhaps causing her to pass with competing values. There was no > damage in this case, no cause for a score adjustment, but a good TD > would have had some words of reproach for the pro. And a reprimand for you too, I would think, for disputing the TD ruling at the table. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 2 10:20:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C46.0017C691.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard wrote: > >The point I obviously failed to make is that > >removing all system regulation encourages: > > > >Innovative approaches which lead to long term > >enhancements in general bidding theory. > > On which stone tablets is an innovation defined > as a long term enhancement? The one where innovation carries an implication of improvement (or at least perceived improvement) - in my job (writing job evaluation and competency frameworks) that is implicit in how the term is used. Attempted innovation (ie that which doesn't lead to improvement) was, in my mind, covered by "Experimental". > A poll of > American experts voted for negative doubles as > the best innovation in bidding theory of the > last 50 years. However, myself and one or > two other Australian experts still employ > penalty doubles of overcalls - in our opinion > our approach gains an enhancement of imps. I prefer penalty doubles myself - saves pard from making those minimal reopening doubles that are so embarrassing when I don't have trumps (Of course wjos are the greatest invention since the adoption of -ve doubles). I don't like transfers with a weak NT or RKCB either. > In my opinion, innovation is worth encouraging > for its own sake, not merely because it results > in what some people call an enhancement. How about: Experimentation should be encouraged because some of it leads to innovation. > >Pro-client systems (one sided transfers etc). > > Whether or not pro-client systems are good > things, they have been in existence since the > heyday of the Hideous Hog partnering the > Rueful Rabbit. No matter how regulated > systems are, pros will still be able to > manoeuvre to hog more than their fair share of > declaring contracts. Of course. Using standard with a weaker partner I reckon to declare 35-40% of the hands. With a special system I think 45-50 is more likely. This is still less than my fair share (60%). > >Bunny-Killers which work through confusion, > >unfamiliarity and getting opps to reveal AI (to > >you)/UI (to their partners) with adjustments. > > > >Bunny-Killers which work through aggression and > >general style. > > Here I agree that bunnies whom do not wish to > meet bunny-killer conventions should be permitted > to play in "No Fear" events. In the UK, at least, no fear events are for novices. There is, I believe, a population between novice and brave bunny that should also be catered for. > On the other hand, I believe that bunnies who > wish to test themselves should be permitted to > play in open events against the wacky conventions. > I deprecate some ACBL events requiring a minimum > number of masterpoints to enter. Well yes. Masterpoints are meaningless as indicators of playing strength. I can, however, see the point of events where all players will be of expert standard (if this can be measured). > >High variance (Pro-killer) systems to kick in > >when non-bunny opps arrive at the table. > > Surely this is an excellent idea? The Meckwell > System is such an effective high-variance pro- > killer system, that it has won numerous world > championships for its progenitors. I think so. although restrictions on using a single system during an event may render them inappropriate for a mixed standard field. > >Experimental systems which the developers will > >explain clearly and concisely at the table. > > Not a problem. > > >Experimental systems which the developers will > >explain less well and thus gain some of the BK > >benefits despite that not being their intent. > > Also not a problem; the TD applies L75, so that > bunny-killer benefits are *not* gained by the > developers. Bunnies often don't realise that MI has occurred and damaged them. I reckon the TD would not be called often enough to matter. > >I do not believe that the above are universally > >considered "good things". > > I, on the other hand, believe that the highly > regulated conventions in the ACBL may have some > causal connection with the high average age of > ACBL members. I feel there is enough of a gap that I can warn against total freedom without being for the ACBL approach. Actually the Superchart/Midchart/GCC framework seems OKish (Like the EBU 2-5). The issue is, I believe, that events that should be Super at played as Mid-, or GCC. The EBU also seems to have too few 4/5 events. The *direction* of the causal relationship between age and regulation is open to debate. > What incentive is there for the > next generation to take up the game of bridge, > instead of the game of chess, if the ACBL is > going to stifle their creativity? Because chess is a game for nerds without the personality to enjoy bridge? Best wishes, Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 2 10:20:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00e501c269a6$0cba0380$f29468d5@default> Nigel wrote: > I approve of symmetrical playing cards. > Yes I know there is variety -- even among > symmetrical playing cards. My suggestion > was for large indices with pips at the corners > (for the short sighted) and, for spot cards, > the rest of the face blank -- no other pips -- > to avoid problems with odd numbered cards. Such cards already exist. Like the symmetrical ones I find them ugly. Unlike the symmetrical ones I can see a *good* reason for them - helping the short-sighted. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 2 10:25:29 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:25:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus References: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> <001301c269cd$e3f8f0f0$6401a8c0@hare> <1sdlpus0vaa1fb9hdk4fqju99acddtm7ep@4ax.com> Message-ID: <001701c269f5$a61715f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> If anybody on the blml recognises the following address(es) then they should be alert that they might be affected by this virus: Received: from cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07633 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 01:56:29 +0200 (MEST) Received: from modem-213.binger.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.236.213] helo=rrrrr28) by cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17wWpU-0005qN-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:53:29 +0100 This is an extract from the header in the message allegedly sent from Steve, one such message through blml (carrying additional headers) and another sent directly to me (with this being the complete header set). regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > > The fact that the virus was from a composite address > (willner@rgb.anu.edu.au) rather than Steve's real address is the > clue that the virus is inventing addresses and Steve's computer > very probably had nothing whatever to do with the virus in the > first place. > > I received a copy of a virus a couple of days that was allegedly > sent by one of my autoresponders. ;-) Pretty damn smart for a > mail robot. > > Brian. > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:40:53 -0400, Nancy wrote: > > >The virus arrived here but was caught by Norton's. Hope all are protected > >and that Steve's computer is OK... Nancy > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Anne Jones" > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:30 PM > >Subject: [blml] Virus > > > > > >> I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had > >> many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? > >> > >> This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A > >> Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous > >> > >> This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending > >> itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) > >> engine. > >> > >> Anne > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blml mailing list > >> blml@rtflb.org > >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- > Software development and computer consulting > Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 > Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 > RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 > http://www.wellsborocomputing.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 2 12:09:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <004501c269cd$1dfe1c40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > 1. The question gave no UI. Result stands. > > > Nice to have a seven step process to achieve the same result. > > > Not quite the same. When a pro deliberately commits an infraction by > asking a question solely for client's benefit, there should be some sort > of repercussion, UI or no UI, damage or no damage. Well yes. Personally I would prefer the (Kaplan, pre-Lille) reading that asking a non-leading question in the face of known inadequate disclosure should not be an infraction at all. So this point would be moot. Besides, pros less ethical than Kaplan need do no more than express a small degree of uncertainty on their own part to make it impossible to secure a conviction for a Kaplan question. I applaud the fact that Kaplan did what he did openly (and avoided any need for an adjusted score). As I recall his Italian opponents were also completely happy with his actions. Elsewhere in the thread you wrote: > You have observed an irregularity, and are supposed to call the TD at > once. If the deficiency is minor, I wouldn't bother, but would just say > something non-specific like, "I think you owe my partner more of an > explanation than that." Sounds reasonable. But if a "Kaplan Question" is illegal communication between partners then so is a "Kaplan Remark" (such as the above) - and so is calling the TD (attention has not been drawn to an irregularity so you need not call him) for a ruling. In all cases you are trying to make sure partner is properly informed. Tim From David Stevenson Wed Oct 2 13:03:01 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <008501c269db$b8963040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003401c268df$8126e200$b59468d5@default> <002901c268ea$a7cf1e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <006c01c26953$1c348040$24182850@pacific> <008501c269db$b8963040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L. French writes >> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+=+ Well, now, perhaps we had better look more >> closely at the law. Law 16A: ".... makes available to >> his partner extraneous information that may suggest a >> call or play, as by means of a remark, question ....". >> The key words are "by means of". The question itself >> does not have to contain the information; "by means >> of" only requires that the question is instrumental in >> making the information available - in using the question >> to bounce the information from opponent to partner >> the player has conveyed the information 'by means of'. >> As for the purposeful question designed to >> do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. >> Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but >> the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award >> an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing >> light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. > >It is difficult to prove damage, as the partner will invariably say, "I >knew that." You have a very low opinion of people! Personally, I believe that people often speak the unvarnished truth, and I would expect some truthful [and sometimes helpful] answer like: "He had to ask because he was afraid I did not know." "What difference does it make?" "What question?" and so forth. Furthermore, damage does not have to be proved, merely judged. -------- Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >> Marvin L. French >> It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the >> meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. But >> why do you assume that an infraction if spotted would automatically >> result in an adjusted score? >> >> I cited an example long ago, lessee if I can remember it. Client RHO >> opens 1H, I double, pro LHO bids 1S, client raises to 2S, which is >> passed around to my partner, who comes alive with 2NT. I bid 3C and the >> pro wants to know what 2NT meant. >So if you are in a club game, RHO is a novice, >and LHO says "Please explain the 2NT bid to my partner", you think >something dreadful has happened and you need to call the police? No-one except you is suggesting calling the police. The TD should be called, yes, because LHO is breaking the rules of the game, and it is not up to you to lecture him. if you do not get this explained to LHO then RHO will get the wrong idea of the game and will believe that acting this way is ethical. When I was a novice I would *far* rather have people explain to me a fair way of playing the game than a method of taking unfair advantage by having partner communicate with me unfairly. I do not see why you think it so terrible that we stop unfair tactics in a friendly way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 2 13:10:28 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:10:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> References: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> Message-ID: Anne Jones writes >I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had >many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? > >This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A >Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous > >This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending >itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) >engine. Ian Muir has received this virus from BLML last night. He does not subscribe, but has done so in the past! --------------------- I have now received three emails from Steve that do not look real. time for a full system scan, methinks. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 2 13:03:52 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <006c01c26953$1c348040$24182850@pacific> >Grattan wrote: > >> As for the purposeful question designed to >> do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. >> Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but > >Terribly difficult. Who would have thought to ask Edgar why he asked the >question. > >> the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award >> an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing >> light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. > >Ah yes. Edgar Kaplan that well known bridge criminal. The whole thinking behind so much of this thread amazes me. Has it anything to do with bridge? We have had references to "calling the police", references to "criminals". Look: it is illegal to communicate with partners by asking questions. It also is illegal to lead out of turn. Neither is the end of the world, both should be dealt with, and no-one is a criminal for doing so, nor does it take any necessity for all this hoo-hah. Furthermore, many players will not realise it is illegal. Sure, it should be stopped, but it is no big deal. It is not unethical when they do not realise, is it? No. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 2 13:49:07 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 14:49:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] sixth blml - ss finland simultaneous tournament Message-ID: <3D9AEB43.1030802@skynet.be> In order to celebrate the official birthday of bridge, 31 october 1925, I will conduct at the end of this month what will be already the sixth edition of this yearly world simultaneous tournament. The tournament also concludes the fifth season of fifth friday tournaments. Heats should be played between monday 28 october and sunday 3 november (numerous holidays fall in that week) If you want to join in the fun, do contact me. The entry is free (but there are no prizes) and the amount of work (for you - not for me !) is minimal. Of course I will expect the fifth friday regulars to compete. More info can be found at the Fifth Friday homepage at: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 2 13:51:45 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:51:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus - how to handle it. References: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> Message-ID: <00b701c26a12$76c6c990$70d8fea9@WINXP> There should be no danger unless you open the attachment or your E-mailer client does so automatically (dangerous option!). This particular virus creates messages with contents found in documents on the infected machine, inserts a fictious sender address created from items found in the address book and sends the messages with the virus attached (size appx. 51K) to all(?) addresses found in the address book. You should be able to tell right away if your machine is infected by for instance using REGEDIT.EXE (found in the windows folder) and locate the entry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce This entry should not have any data assigned (unless you have installed or removed some software since the last time you started your machine - in which case you also should have had the well known message that you must restart your machine for the changes to become effective)! If there is anything assigned to this entry then you most likely are in trouble. Careful: Unless you know exactly what you are doing never ever make any change to the registry with regedit, use it only for reading from the registry! Useful Internet addresses for handling this virus include: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.bugbear@mm.remov al.tool.html and http://www.norman.no/virus_info/w32_bugbear_a_mm.shtml I finally decided to post this information here as this virus apparently is about to affect all of us. best of luck to everybody Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > Anne Jones writes > >I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had > >many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? > > > >This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A > >Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous > > > >This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending > >itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) > >engine. > > Ian Muir has received this virus from BLML last night. > > He does not subscribe, but has done so in the past! > > --------------------- > > I have now received three emails from Steve that do not look real. > time for a full system scan, methinks. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From jimfox00@cox.net Wed Oct 2 14:22:53 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 9:22:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Virus Message-ID: <20021002132301.BSWZ5053.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> I (a recently new subscriber) have not received anything of the type described. That and the information below makes me wonder if some member of the list is infected and the virus is getting somewhat "old" addresses out of their address book. I. e., the virus is not using BLML but a BLML member who has other BLML members in his address book. Mmbridge > > From: David Stevenson > Date: 2002/10/02 Wed AM 08:10:28 EDT > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > Anne Jones writes > >I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had > >many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? > > > >This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A > >Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous > > > >This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending > >itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) > >engine. > > Ian Muir has received this virus from BLML last night. > > He does not subscribe, but has done so in the past! > > --------------------- > > I have now received three emails from Steve that do not look real. > time for a full system scan, methinks. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 2 14:27:07 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:27:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] how to subscribe nowadas? Message-ID: how do we subsribe nowadays? A message to blml@rtflb.org with just the word subscribe or something more difficult? ton From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 2 14:31:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > >> light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. > > > >Ah yes. Edgar Kaplan that well known bridge criminal. > > The whole thinking behind so much of this thread amazes me. Has it > anything to do with bridge? We have had references to "calling the > police", references to "criminals". I too was amazed to here Grattan referring to Edgar as a criminal. > Look: it is illegal to communicate with partners by asking questions. Which about 99.999% of the bridge world agrees with. Where Edgar (it is reported) I, unashamedly, and several others seemingly feel differently is that it is not communicating with partner to request full disclosure from an opponent. Before I became aware of Lille 98 I could, quite happily say to an opponent who replied e.g. "Michaels" - "Please could you give a full explanation because my partner doesn't know Michaels". Lille made that request illegal (and once I became of aware of it's illegality unethical). I think that was a bad move. Now in the EBU the explanation *will* be deemed inadequate and, in the event of possible damage we will receive an adjustment - probably to a better score than we would have got had a full explanation been given at the table (and opps are even more likely to get a worse one). So why am I complaining? 1. I don't like getting good scores that way. 2. Opps, thinking I was double shotting because only 2 people in the club have heard of Lille 98, will be upset. Equally I could, if I felt that I needed more info communicate to partner that I held values by asking "Is it usually weak?" Here the question communicates regardless of the answer and yet the content of the answer is information I legitimately require. Kaplan (or any competent director) would haul me over the coals for phrasing my question like that. It is my belief that L73b was designed to prevent this latter action and not to address the former. Tim From henk@ripe.net Wed Oct 2 14:32:06 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:32:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] how to subscribe nowadas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: > how do we subsribe nowadays? A message to blml@rtflb.org with just the word > subscribe or something more difficult? Point your browser to: http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Henk > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 2 14:43:14 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:43:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Virus - how to handle it. In-Reply-To: <00b701c26a12$76c6c990$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021002091804.00b20640@pop.starpower.net> At 08:51 AM 10/2/02, Sven wrote: >There should be no danger unless you open the attachment or >your E-mailer client does so automatically (dangerous option!). Every e-mail client I've encountered that opens attachments automatically does not do so until you open the message to which it was attached. And every e-mail client I've encountered provides a display that tells you which of your incoming messages have attachments. We should agree now that nobody will post an attachment to a BLML message without first letting the list know, in a separate message, that they are about to do so. If you receive an post that appears to be from BLML (or anyone else!) but contains an unexpected attachment, go to your e-mail client's attachment directory and immediately double-delete(*) whatever you find there (unless it's not new and you know what it is, but you should make it a habit of moving anything you want to keep elsewhere) *before* you start reading through your messages, and you will have totally expunged any infection it might have carried. The worst that could possibly happen is that you discover that you really wanted the attachment and must ask the sender to resend it. (*) "Double-delete" (for Windows systems): Delete the attachment from the attachments directory, which will move it to the Recycle Bin, then open the Recycle Bin and delete it from there. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From henk@ripe.net Wed Oct 2 14:44:10 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:44:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: <20021002132301.BSWZ5053.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 jimfox00@cox.net wrote: > I (a recently new subscriber) have not received anything of the type > described. That and the information below makes me wonder if some member > of the list is infected and the virus is getting somewhat "old" > addresses out of their address book. I. e., the virus is not using BLML > but a BLML member who has other BLML members in his address book. This is certainly possible, since I cannot find anything related to this virus. To make life for virusses even harder, I have changed the config such that all binary attachments have to be approved by the moderator before they make it to the list. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 2 14:51:10 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:51:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: <20021002132301.BSWZ5053.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.co x.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021002094500.00b2c110@pop.starpower.net> At 09:22 AM 10/2/02, jimfox wrote: >I (a recently new subscriber) have not received anything of the type >described. That and the information below makes me wonder if some >member of the list is infected and the virus is getting somewhat "old" >addresses out of their address book. I. e., the virus is not using >BLML but a BLML member who has other BLML members in his address book. Nor have I, which does indeed mean that it is a subscriber's machine (presumably Steve's; sorry Steve), not the BLML server, that is propagating the virus. Depending on the virus, it may either resend itself to everyone in Steve's address book (probably so if Steve reads his mail with Outlook Express), or to anyone who sends an e-mail directly to Steve while his machine is infected. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Oct 2 15:10:00 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:10:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2002 14:03 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > > > Marvin L. French writes > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > >> +=+=+ Well, now, perhaps we had better look more > >> closely at the law. Law 16A: ".... makes available to > >> his partner extraneous information that may suggest a > >> call or play, as by means of a remark, question ....". > >> The key words are "by means of". The question itself > >> does not have to contain the information; "by means > >> of" only requires that the question is instrumental in > >> making the information available - in using the question > >> to bounce the information from opponent to partner > >> the player has conveyed the information 'by means of'. > >> As for the purposeful question designed to > >> do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. > >> Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but > >> the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award > >> an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing > >> light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. > > > >It is difficult to prove damage, as the partner will invariably say, "I > >knew that." > > You have a very low opinion of people! > > Personally, I believe that people often speak the unvarnished truth, > and I would expect some truthful [and sometimes helpful] answer like: > > "He had to ask because he was afraid I did not know." > "What difference does it make?" > "What question?" > > and so forth. > > Furthermore, damage does not have to be proved, merely judged. > > -------- > > Jürgen Rennenkampff writes > >> Marvin L. French > > >> It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the > >> meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. But > >> why do you assume that an infraction if spotted would automatically > >> result in an adjusted score? > >> > >> I cited an example long ago, lessee if I can remember it. Client RHO > >> opens 1H, I double, pro LHO bids 1S, client raises to 2S, which is > >> passed around to my partner, who comes alive with 2NT. I bid 3C and the > >> pro wants to know what 2NT meant. > > >So if you are in a club game, RHO is a novice, > >and LHO says "Please explain the 2NT bid to my partner", you think > >something dreadful has happened and you need to call the police? > > No-one except you is suggesting calling the police. Sorry - I meant the bridge 'police', not the real police, and thought that was obvious. > > The TD should be called, yes, because LHO is breaking the rules of the > game, and it is not up to you to lecture him. if you do not get this > explained to LHO then RHO will get the wrong idea of the game and will > believe that acting this way is ethical. > > When I was a novice I would *far* rather have people explain to me a > fair way of playing the game than a method of taking unfair advantage by > having partner communicate with me unfairly. > > I do not see why you think it so terrible that we stop unfair tactics > in a friendly way. I don't - quite the opposite. But the situation described, 'taking the name' of the director etc., didn't sound particularly friendly. The deeper point is this: Once you have a profusion of regulations that are not based on easily understood principles, that define fair play in a way often at odds with common perceptions, and when there is an enforcer present at all times, then you will find people ignoring the common proprieties and begin lawyering. If you are interested in the survival of this dying game make the rules as simple as possible - they will still be complicated - and keep the TD out of the game as much as possible. Jürgen > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 2 15:31:31 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:31:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021002160936.00abd6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:31 2/10/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > > > >> light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. > > > > > >Ah yes. Edgar Kaplan that well known bridge criminal. > > > > The whole thinking behind so much of this thread amazes me. Has it > > anything to do with bridge? We have had references to "calling the > > police", references to "criminals". > >I too was amazed to here Grattan referring to Edgar as a criminal. > > > Look: it is illegal to communicate with partners by asking questions. > >Which about 99.999% of the bridge world agrees with. Where Edgar (it is >reported) I, unashamedly, and several others seemingly feel differently is >that it is not communicating with partner to request full disclosure from >an opponent. > >Before I became aware of Lille 98 I could, quite happily say to an >opponent who replied e.g. "Michaels" - "Please could you give a full >explanation because my partner doesn't know Michaels". AG :I have had no hesitation at all about asking for complete disclosure when given a single convention name. Even post-Lille. People tend to give convention names without realizing that what they play is not the original version. In a case that happened a short time after Lille, a well-fitted pair was given a single word as explanation on one side of the screen, a complete explanation on the other side. They messed the ensuing sequence. The Director in charge of the Championships (no TD available at the table in Belgium) decided that the player who was given the one-word answer failed to protect himself by asking for a full explanation. I take this as meaning one should ask. The ensuing story : the case went to the highest level, where the Committee delivered the worst decision I've ever heard of. Did you ever hear about keeping *part* of the deposit ? Did you ever hear of losing one's right to an adjustment because you made an error in your system ? But the Belgian Federation didn't dare say explicitly that the "explaining" side was wrong : there was a suit hanging. Well, the last paragraph is off-topic, but I'm feeling better now that I've said it. What remains from the case is that, if you can be deemed not to have protected yourself because you didn't ask for an explanation of a named convention, you should have the right to ask for it when you're not 100% sure that the opponents' idea of the bid is the same as yours - and you can never be. Best regards, Alain. From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001b01c26a1e$fcfe90e0$a4046bd5@annescomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > > David Stevenson > > Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2002 14:03 > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > > > > > > Marvin L. French writes > > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > >> +=+=+ Well, now, perhaps we had better look more > > >> closely at the law. Law 16A: ".... makes available to > > >> his partner extraneous information that may suggest a > > >> call or play, as by means of a remark, question ....". > > >> The key words are "by means of". The question itself > > >> does not have to contain the information; "by means > > >> of" only requires that the question is instrumental in > > >> making the information available - in using the question > > >> to bounce the information from opponent to partner > > >> the player has conveyed the information 'by means of'. > > >> As for the purposeful question designed to > > >> do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. > > >> Admittedly such an offence is difficult to prove, but > > >> the Director is entitled to judge that it happened, award > > >> an adjusted score, and let it go to appeal thus throwing > > >> light into the dark recesses where criminals lurk. > > > > > >It is difficult to prove damage, as the partner will invariably say, "I > > >knew that." > > > > You have a very low opinion of people! > > > > Personally, I believe that people often speak the unvarnished truth, > > and I would expect some truthful [and sometimes helpful] answer like: > > > > "He had to ask because he was afraid I did not know." > > "What difference does it make?" > > "What question?" > > > > and so forth. > > > > Furthermore, damage does not have to be proved, merely judged. > > > > -------- > > > > Jürgen Rennenkampff writes > > >> Marvin L. French > > > > >> It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the > > >> meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. But > > >> why do you assume that an infraction if spotted would automatically > > >> result in an adjusted score? > > >> > > >> I cited an example long ago, lessee if I can remember it. Client RHO > > >> opens 1H, I double, pro LHO bids 1S, client raises to 2S, which is > > >> passed around to my partner, who comes alive with 2NT. I bid 3C and the > > >> pro wants to know what 2NT meant. > > > > >So if you are in a club game, RHO is a novice, > > >and LHO says "Please explain the 2NT bid to my partner", you think > > >something dreadful has happened and you need to call the police? > > > > No-one except you is suggesting calling the police. > > Sorry - I meant the bridge 'police', not the real police, and thought that > was obvious. > > > > The TD should be called, yes, because LHO is breaking the rules of the > > game, and it is not up to you to lecture him. if you do not get this > > explained to LHO then RHO will get the wrong idea of the game and will > > believe that acting this way is ethical. > > > > When I was a novice I would *far* rather have people explain to me a > > fair way of playing the game than a method of taking unfair advantage by > > having partner communicate with me unfairly. > > > > I do not see why you think it so terrible that we stop unfair tactics > > in a friendly way. > > I don't - quite the opposite. But the situation described, 'taking the name' > of the director etc., didn't sound particularly friendly. > > The deeper point is this: Once you have a profusion of regulations that are > not based on easily understood principles, that define fair play in a way > often at odds with common perceptions, and when there is an enforcer present > at all > times, then you will find people ignoring the common proprieties and begin > lawyering. > > If you are interested in the survival of this dying game make the > rules as simple as possible - they will still be complicated - and keep the > TD out of the game as much as possible. > There are those of us who believe that it is because of the TD that the game has survived and indeed flourished. In the absence of a TD the players would have all killed each other by now:-) Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 30/09/02 From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Oct 2 15:24:29 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:24:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD Message-ID: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Dear BLMLers, The following story appeared on the pl.rec.gry.brydz news list. The poster (let's refer to him as Michal) played in a MP tournament. His RHO opened 1C (Polish Club) he passed and his LHO responded 1D (multi-meaning, both 1C and 1D are not alertable here). His partner overcalled 2D (natural) and opener doubled. Michal passed and his lefty bid 1NT. "That's an insufficient bid" said Michal's partner. LHO apologized and corrected 1NT to 2S. Michal's partner rebid his diamonds and righty doubled. No one called the TD. Michal didn't either because he mistakenly believed that he was allowed to do it only at his turn to call. So he duly summoned the director at this point. How would you rule and why? Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 2 16:00:54 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:00:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Let me be quite sure I got this correct: RHO Michal LHO pd 1C - pass - 1D - 2D X - pass - 1NT corrected to 2S - 3D X and only at this time was the director summoned? Assuming an event of some quality where there is little excuse for ignoring Law 9B I would simply apply Law 27B2 and instruct RHO to replace his double with a pass. Subsequent to this I would instruct LHO that he cannot use whatever information he may have from this withdrawn double when selecting his later call(s) on this board, and finally I would instruct the players that if pd (or Michal) becomes declarer then the lead penalty in Law 26B applies. Specifically in that case, the first time LHO is on the lead declarer may name any specific denomitnation at his choice and prohibit a lead in this suit for as long as LHO retains the lead. There is an alternative line of action that I would take in an event of less quality where you would expect participants that cannot be expected to be familiar with the laws: Draw the players attention to Law 9B and tell them that because of their ignorance to this law I would not take any action whatsoever on the insufficient bid but let the auction continue (with Michal being the next player to call). I would, however, inform them of what redress they have forfeited by ignoring Law 9B (assuming that this lesson will stick forever afterwards). Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD > > Dear BLMLers, > > The following story appeared on the pl.rec.gry.brydz > news list. The poster (let's refer to him as Michal) > played in a MP tournament. > > His RHO opened 1C (Polish Club) he passed > and his LHO responded 1D (multi-meaning, both > 1C and 1D are not alertable here). His partner overcalled > 2D (natural) and opener doubled. Michal passed > and his lefty bid 1NT. "That's an insufficient bid" > said Michal's partner. LHO apologized and > corrected 1NT to 2S. Michal's partner rebid his > diamonds and righty doubled. > > No one called the TD. Michal didn't either > because he mistakenly believed that > he was allowed to do it only at his turn > to call. > > So he duly summoned the director at this > point. How would you rule and why? > > > Best regards, > Konrad Ciborowski > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Oct 2 16:49:55 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <005201c269ce$08540a20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Oct 01, 2002 09:37:20 PM Message-ID: <200210021549.LAA17064@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Marvin L. French writes: > > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > > > Marvin French reminds us that it was the > > Paragon of Bridge Lawyers, Edgar Kaplan, who > > knew Italian methods but asked questions > > of the Blue Team for his partner's benefit > > in World Championships (: so he must have > > judged it to be ethical, at the time :) > > David Stevenson, Grattan Endicott, et al > > say that is now illegal. OK. Suppose partner > > asks about the auction but from your own > > knowledge of opponent's methods, you believe > > their explanation omits salient information. > > > You have observed an irregularity, and must call the TD at once. Let the > TD straighten it out. That is a solution. Mind you, if asking a (non-leading) question to clarify the inadequate explanation is communication with partner then so is calling the director. Partner gets the same information at the end of the day. Everybody's time is wasted -- especially if there's only one director and he's busy. And there's the side bonus of a potentially poisoned game. (Yes, a director call should not and need not cause a problem. It's a fact of the game that a good portion of director calls do cause problems of some nature.) I'm probably as an ethusiastic advocate of calling the director as there is among the ranks of players. I simply believe that Kaplan was right and the people who came up with the Lille ruling did not think things though. Anybody who thinks that calling the director instead of asking the clarifying question is ... Well to be fair it seems plausable that some people see Kaplan's logic as license to ask the "pro question". And the pro question is a very Bad THing. It may be that the Lille declaration is something of a lesser of two evils -- though I confess I don't see it. From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 2 17:25:59 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:25:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus - UK dialup users please pay special attention! References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021002094500.00b2c110@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> If anybody recognises the information I have posted below as possibly (or probably) being relevant to their own machine then be aware that there is a high risk their machine is infected and being the very machine attempting to infect all us others. My primary "candidates" are users in the UK using dialup connection to the Internet. If you do and the ID: "svr.pol.co.uk" rings a bell then your alarms should be flashing red after reading this post. From: "Eric Landau" > At 09:22 AM 10/2/02, jimfox wrote: > > >I (a recently new subscriber) have not received anything of the type > >described. That and the information below makes me wonder if some > >member of the list is infected and the virus is getting somewhat "old" > >addresses out of their address book. I. e., the virus is not using > >BLML but a BLML member who has other BLML members in his address book. > > Nor have I, which does indeed mean that it is a subscriber's machine > (presumably Steve's; sorry Steve), not the BLML server, that is > propagating the virus. Depending on the virus, it may either resend > itself to everyone in Steve's address book (probably so if Steve reads > his mail with Outlook Express), or to anyone who sends an e-mail > directly to Steve while his machine is infected. > > > Eric Landau There is no reason to be critical about Outlook Express, that is the very client I am using myself (version 6, fully updated). I have even peeked at the infected e-mails including the attachment and can guarantee from my verifications that the virus has not been able to infect my machine. But from my peeking I believe I am able to narrow the domain from where todays viruys attacks have come: I have received three infected messages today, two of these are identical, one came direectly to me and the other was sent through the old BLML node in Australia which made it arrive in my mail server some 7 hours and 20 minutes later. (The timestamps are respectively 01:56 and 09:15 - I guess with +2 hours offset from GMT) These two messages both came from a machine connected to cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk, the sender was quite likely (at that time) known on Internet as: modem-213.binger.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.236.213]helo=rrrrr28) The generated subject line was Re: [BLML] Guessing (was insufficient bid) - notice the capitalized letters in BLML, that is significant and according to what Henk has told me shows that the original message was processed through the BLML node in Australia. The infected machine also contained a document with the following text in it (being used to build the infected message): *********begin quote********* > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical > but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, > by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in > an otherwise undetected fashion? This is an assessment that the TD has to make on a case by case basis. No doubt any good TD will consult widely on such a decision, and it will be no surprise if the decision gets appealed. However, there is no doubt that in principle the evidence could be sufficient. *********end quote********* The third e-mail came directly to me from a node in Sweden, the contents indicates that this was also from a machine used by somebody involved in Bridge competitions (in Sweden). regards Sven From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Oct 2 18:00:29 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021002094500.00b2c110@pop.starpower.net> from "Eric Landau" at Oct 02, 2002 09:51:10 AM Message-ID: <200210021700.NAA18012@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Eric Landau writes: > > At 09:22 AM 10/2/02, jimfox wrote: > > >I (a recently new subscriber) have not received anything of the type > >described. That and the information below makes me wonder if some > >member of the list is infected and the virus is getting somewhat "old" > >addresses out of their address book. I. e., the virus is not using > >BLML but a BLML member who has other BLML members in his address book. > > Nor have I, which does indeed mean that it is a subscriber's machine > (presumably Steve's; sorry Steve), not the BLML server, that is > propagating the virus. Depending on the virus, it may either resend > itself to everyone in Steve's address book (probably so if Steve reads > his mail with Outlook Express), or to anyone who sends an e-mail > directly to Steve while his machine is infected. > Might not even be Steve's computer. Several of the newer viruses pick the To: from the infected machine's address book. Subject: as well. For the record, here are the headers for the message that my filters objected to: (and it doesn't seem as though it actually came from Steve) The sender was ''. The relay machine was cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk (195.92.193.18). Recipient: Recipient: ---------- Here are the message headers: Received: from modem-213.binger.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.236.213] helo=rrrrr28) by cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17wWpU-0005qN-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:53:29 +0100 From: Steve Willner Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------1X6ZFZQT6LL5F6N" Message-Id: Bcc: Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:53:29 +0100 ---------- Here are the headers for quarantined part 1: Content-Type: audio/x-midi; name=9T Session 1.doc.scr Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Oct 2 18:12:30 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:12:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus - how to handle it. In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021002091804.00b20640@pop.starpower.net> References: <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> <00b701c26a12$76c6c990$70d8fea9@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20021002091804.00b20640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:43:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Every e-mail client I've encountered that opens attachments=20 >automatically does not do so until you open the message to which it was=20 >attached. And every e-mail client I've encountered provides a display=20 >that tells you which of your incoming messages have attachments. Outlook (and probably also Outlook Express) has an option that provides a "preview" window showing the contents of the message that is selected in the list window, even though it has not been explicitly opened. Outlook also shows HTML messages in this preview window, and HTML messages can take advantage of security bugs in the HTML interpreter used (Internet Explorer, in this case) to refer to attachments. So unless your Outlook and IE are up-to-date with security patches, you can actually get a virus even before explicitly opening a message - if you have the preview window turned on. Turning off the preview window will ensure that your machine will at least not be infected before you even open the message. Keeping up-to-date with security fixes and running a virus scanner with up-to-date virus definitions is of course also a very good idea. More details about the HTML vulnerability can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;en-us;Q290108 . >We should agree now that nobody will post an attachment to a BLML=20 >message without first letting the list know, in a separate message,=20 >that they are about to do so. Do we ever need attachments on BLML? I expect that it would be easy for anybody who wants to distribute anything other than pure text to BLML to find a web site to put it on instead of attaching it to the message. Many of us have web sites, and those that do not can undoubtedly borrow room somewhere - www.dybdal.dk will for instance be very willing to provide a home for BLML-related files. So perhaps we should go so far as to ask Henk to block all attachments (if it is easy to do - I don't know). Such a blocking strategy may also block HTML versions of messages: I don't think that will be a problem, since BLML subscribers generally seem to be aware that HTML posts are not a good idea on a mailing list. >If you receive an post that appears to be from BLML (or anyone else!)=20 >but contains an unexpected attachment, go to your e-mail client's=20 (snipped the rest of Eric's excellent advice.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Oct 2 18:18:03 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Virus - UK dialup users please pay special attention! In-Reply-To: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> from "Sven Pran" at Oct 02, 2002 06:25:59 PM Message-ID: <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Sven Pran writes: > > If anybody recognises the information I have posted below as possibly > (or probably) being relevant to their own machine then be aware that > there is a high risk their machine is infected and being the very machine > attempting to infect all us others. > > My primary "candidates" are users in the UK using dialup connection > to the Internet. If you do and the ID: "svr.pol.co.uk" rings a bell then > your alarms should be flashing red after reading this post. >From an old post in my mailbox: Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76KKoH01489 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 06:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-457.binger.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.237.201] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17cAaa-0003ED-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:05:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c23d84$cf2ff800$c9ed193e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" (As it happens, I've just purged my mailbox. Yesterday I could have provided a full list of BLML subscribers using pol.co.uk dialups) The server logs should provide a full list. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Oct 2 18:32:09 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:32:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus - UK dialup users please pay special attention! In-Reply-To: <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> References: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Message-ID: <0tampu0f0d124l4lvq61vkopnm2l9k15bo@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:18:03 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: >(As it happens, I've just purged my mailbox. Yesterday I could have >provided a full list of BLML subscribers using pol.co.uk dialups) In the last approximately 5000 BLML messages, there are occurrences of the following three posters posting through the mail server that the virus message used (cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk): * "grandeval" * "David Barton" * Jeremy Rickard But this does not mean that the infected machine has to belong to one of those three: it is probably also possible for it to belong to somebody who reads BLML and never posts. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 2 18:51:19 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:51:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: Message-ID: <009401c26a3c$6365e780$779468d5@default> Nigel > ...large indices with pips at the corners > (for the short sighted) and, for spot cards, > the rest of the face blank -- no other pips -- > to avoid problems with odd numbered cards. Tim West-Meads: Such cards already exist. Like the symmetrical ones I find them ugly. Unlike the symmetrical ones I can see a *good* reason for them - helping the short-sighted. Nigel: I'have played with such cards too but they did not distinguish suits with 4 different colours shades and patterns (why not use pattern as well). I still think it is obvious to standardise on such cards. I didn't claim the idea was original and I certainly didn't meant to offend anybody. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 2 18:48:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 2 Oct 2002 10:48:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Virus Message-ID: <021002275.38936@webbox.com> DWS wrote: >I have now received three emails from Steve that do not look real. >time for a full system scan, methinks. There is never time for one of those. Fortunately, you can find out rather more quickly whether you are likely to have the Bugbear virus: 1 Run regedit (Start, Run, type "regedit") 2 Click on the following in sequence: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE SOFTWARE Microsoft Windows Current Version RunOnce 3 If this does not say: Name Data (Default) (value not set) then you (very probably) have been infected with Bugbear. David Burn London, England From mlfrench@writeme.com Wed Oct 2 19:14:02 2002 From: mlfrench@writeme.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:14:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: Message-ID: <019401c26a3f$d0cd6200$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "J=FCrgen Rennenkampff" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the > > meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. But > > why do you assume that an infraction if spotted would automatically > > result in an adjusted score? > > > > I cited an example long ago, lessee if I can remember it. Client RHO > > opens 1H, I double, pro LHO bids 1S, client raises to 2S, which is > > passed around to my partner, who comes alive with 2NT. I bid 3C and the > > pro wants to know what 2NT meant. > > So if you are in a club game, RHO is a novice, > and LHO says "Please explain the 2NT bid to my partner", you think > something dreadful has happened and you need to call the police? Yes. In the real game of bridge, players do not help partners. Anyway, this happened in a regional KO event. > > > Now, pro knew what 2NT meant, yet insisted that I explain it, even after > > I said (truthfully) that the meaning I inferred came only from general > > knowledge and experience, not from a special partnership agreement. The > > TD backed her up. I forget what happened next, except that I took the > > name of the TD and never did explain the bid. > > > > You see, the pro was afraid that the 2NT bid would intimidate the > > client, perhaps causing her to pass with competing values. There was no > > damage in this case, no cause for a score adjustment, but a good TD > > would have had some words of reproach for the pro. > > And a reprimand for you too, I would think, for disputing the TD ruling > at the table. > Do you mean to say that a player may not dispute a ruling? As to not obeying an instruction of the TD, when an instruction is clearly illegal I feel no obligation to obey it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 2 19:50:44 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:50:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <019401c26a3f$d0cd6200$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004e01c26a45$0bed1650$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Marvin L. French" ..... Do you mean to say that a player may not dispute a ruling? As to not obeying an instruction of the TD, when an instruction is clearly illegal I feel no obligation to obey it. Marv Marvin L. French To dispute a ruling by TD at the table is a violation of Law90B8 and will, I trust, by most Directors and Appeals Commitees be considered a grave violation and contempt of the director, even if it should turn out that the ruling was wrong. I do as Director accept that a player asks for a clarification or explanation of my ruling, but I shall never accept a verbal objection or a failure to comply forthwith (possibly after hearing my explanation). The correct procedure if the player feels that my ruling is wrong is to appeal that ruling in the prescribed way. Sven From schuster@eduhi.at Wed Oct 2 20:51:05 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 21:51:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930132553.00ab46e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <72A71W6MGQO3Y41B6K5MHWTLF31ZY.3d9b4e29@pp-xp> Hi all, Many of you have stressed that an unusual auction on one hand is not enough to assume that a player has violated L16B by having extraneous information on a board and failing to inform the TD. But how do you propose to collect evidence of such an infraction? A player will rarely have UI on more than a handful of boards in a session, and will often be able to use it unobtrusively. Should not the question be something like: How much more likely is Player X to bid/play as he did with UI as opposed to a no-UI situation? If you judge something like "20 times more likely", then assume a violation of L16B. Is this not in some way similar to the treatment of psyches? You don`t wait for the tenth catch to invoke L40. --- Regards, Petrus From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Oct 2 20:53:45 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:53:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <019401c26a3f$d0cd6200$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Marvin L. French > Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2002 20:14 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > > > > From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > > It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the > > > meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. > But > > > why do you assume that an infraction if spotted would automatically > > > result in an adjusted score? > > > > > > I cited an example long ago, lessee if I can remember it. Client RHO > > > opens 1H, I double, pro LHO bids 1S, client raises to 2S, which is > > > passed around to my partner, who comes alive with 2NT. I bid 3C and > the > > > pro wants to know what 2NT meant. > > > > So if you are in a club game, RHO is a novice, > > and LHO says "Please explain the 2NT bid to my partner", you think > > something dreadful has happened and you need to call the police? > > Yes. In the real game of bridge, players do not help partners. Anyway, > this happened in a regional KO event. I think a lot could be gained if a clear distinction were made between tournament rules and club rules. I agree, of course, that in a serious tournament the 'Pro question' is improper; and this is not where a novice should be learning that 2NT can be a take-out. > > > > > Now, pro knew what 2NT meant, yet insisted that I explain it, even > after > > > I said (truthfully) that the meaning I inferred came only from > general > > > knowledge and experience, not from a special partnership agreement. > The > > > TD backed her up. I forget what happened next, except that I took > the > > > name of the TD and never did explain the bid. > > > > > > You see, the pro was afraid that the 2NT bid would intimidate the > > > client, perhaps causing her to pass with competing values. There was > no > > > damage in this case, no cause for a score adjustment, but a good TD > > > would have had some words of reproach for the pro. > > > > And a reprimand for you too, I would think, for disputing the TD > ruling > > at the table. > > > Do you mean to say that a player may not dispute a ruling? As to not > obeying an instruction of the TD, when an instruction is clearly illegal > I feel no obligation to obey it. Of course a player may dispute a ruling, but not at the table. This seems so elementary that no written rule ought to be necessary - L90 covers it. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 2 21:04:37 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:04:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> Marvin L. French: It is not difficult to spot the infraction when a pro questions the meaning of a call and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. Nigel: It is hard to be sure what a player knows; and wrong to impugn his motives. As an ordinary punter, I always ask meanings and even non-alerted calls ussually have hidden surprises; for example (Welsh Teams) (P) P (1H) 2C; (2S) End I asked for an explanation of the auction; Dummy told me I was not entitled to ask; I called the director; Dummy protested that he was not here to teach me Bridge. The TD asked Dummy to humour me. Dummy correctly said his partner had 10-11 HCP, exactly 5 spades and precisely 3 hearts. Robson and Segal might accept Dummy's logic given that opponents played weak twos; and I confess I did suspect some kind of FNJ but it still came as a revelation to my partner. I can see much benefit and no harm in asking such questions. It is ineffectual to call the director after play. Opponents may not then admit to their agreements, especially if undiscussed; and an adverse ruling is likely to cause spurious offence. IMO the law is an ass. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 2 21:07:03 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:07:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <72A71W6MGQO3Y41B6K5MHWTLF31ZY.3d9b4e29@pp-xp> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930132553.00ab46e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021002160040.00b16d50@pop.starpower.net> At 03:51 PM 10/2/02, Petrus wrote: >Many of you have stressed that an unusual auction on one >hand is not enough to assume that a player has violated L16B >by having extraneous information on a board and failing to >inform the TD. >But how do you propose to collect evidence of such an >infraction? A player will rarely have UI on more than a >handful of boards in a session, and will often be able to >use it unobtrusively. I'd start by asking the player why he bid as he did. Sometimes the nature (albeit not necessarily the substance) of his answer will be all the evidence you need one way or the other. >Should not the question be something like: >How much more likely is Player X to bid/play as he did with >UI as opposed to a no-UI situation? If you judge something >like "20 times more likely", then assume a violation of >L16B. Nope, not even if it's 20,000 times more likely. IMO it's never right to presume a violation based solely on the coincidence of an unusual action and a good result in the absence of any other corroborating evidence. Of course, if it happens a second time, that's a different story, as the circumstances of the first instance may well be the supporting evidence you need to find a violation in the second. >Is this not in some way similar to the treatment of psyches? >You don`t wait for the tenth catch to invoke L40. I don't see how this is at all relevant. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From adam@irvine.com Wed Oct 2 21:35:11 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:35:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 02:30:26 BST." <000901c269b3$497bae60$a4046bd5@annescomputer> Message-ID: <200210022035.NAA27682@mailhub.irvine.com> Anne wrote: > I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I have not had > many problems with this list - is the new set-up different? > > This one is WORM_BUGBEAR.A > Its a medium risk - so quite dangerous > > This worm terminates antivirus processes and propagates by sending > itself via email using its own SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) > engine. Here's some information I just received from the SANS Institute, for anyone who's interested: The Bugbear worm arrives as an attachment to an e-mail with a randomly selected subject line. If the attachment is opened, Bugbear, which is also known as Tanatos, disables antivirus software and installs a Trojan horse, called PWS-Hooker, that logs all keystrokes and saves the information in encrypted form on the infected computer; attackers can come back later to retrieve the information. The worm affects Internet Explorer 5.01 and 5.5 users who have not patched the Incorrect Mime header flaw. http://www.msnbc.com/news/815117.asp?0dm=C218T http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-960139.html -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 2 22:11:54 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:11:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: Message-ID: <012901c26a58$63693220$779468d5@default> Marvin L. French: (1H) X (1S) P; (2S) P (P) 2NT; (3C) Now, pro knew what 2NT meant, yet insisted that I explain it, even after I said (truthfully) that the meaning I inferred came only from general knowledge and experience, not from a special partnership agreement. The TD backed her [the pro] up. I forget what happened next, except that I took the name of the TD and never did explain the bid. Nigel: Thank you. I really enjoy your posts Marvin although I agree with Jurgen. IMO the pro's question was justified unless he could be certain he was on the same wavelength. If Most NT bids are natural in your circle (they are for many of the inexperienced) ... You never play UNT in other contexts. ... The 1S bid was not forcing. then your explanation was quite fair. else, were I a TD (Heaven forfend), I'd ask you to give the table the benefit of your "general knowledge and experience". I'd also ask why you did not alert 2N unless you deemed it natural. If you refused to comply I'd suspend play at your table and go for assistance. Lacking that option, I'd scrap the board at your table and impose a PP on you. (:I know, I know, just as well I'm not a TD:) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 2 23:20:02 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:20:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? Message-ID: <4A256C46.00796A34.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie suggested: [snip] >My suggestion was for large indices with >pips at the corners (for the short sighted) [snip] And for the peekers. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 3 06:31:55 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:31:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <019401c26a3f$d0cd6200$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <004e01c26a45$0bed1650$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <01e801c26a9e$80d7d280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > From: "Marvin L. French" > ..... > Do you mean to say that a player may not dispute a ruling? As to not > obeying an instruction of the TD, when an instruction is clearly illegal > I feel no obligation to obey it. > > To dispute a ruling by TD at the table is a violation of Law90B8 and > will, I trust, by most Directors and Appeals Commitees be considered > a grave violation and contempt of the director, even if it should turn > out that the ruling was wrong. The word "dispute" is not in L90B8. I do lots of disputing with TDs in these parts, with the usual result that they change their initial ruling. When they don't I am now trained by BLML to obey any legal instruction, no matter how much I disagree with it. However, when a TD says to back up the bidding a couple of rounds because of MI, I refuse to obey. We don't have Svens and Davids and other such in my part of ACBL-land, we have TDs who don't know the Laws and don't know ACBL regulations (e.g., the Alert Procedure), > I do as Director accept that a player asks for a clarification or > explanation of my ruling, but I shall never accept a verbal objection or > a failure to comply forthwith (possibly after hearing my explanation). This may be a cultural thing, as standing up to authority is routine over here. The able TDs at our NABCs are usually quite receptive to an objection, willing to consult with peers or the DIC on a legal or regulatory point. They know that an incorrect ruling cannot be fixed by an AC in many cases, and anyway they don't like to do appeal writeups. They do a good job without being officiously overbearing, and are usually ready to apologize when they have made a mistake. > > The correct procedure if the player feels that my ruling is wrong is to > appeal that ruling in the prescribed way. And I feel the correct procedure is to say, "Get help, please, I think you have that wrong." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 3 06:54:27 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:54:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <012901c26a58$63693220$779468d5@default> Message-ID: <021101c26aa2$04964b80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Marvin L. French: > (1H) X (1S) P; > (2S) P (P) 2NT; > (3C) > Now, pro knew what 2NT meant, yet insisted > that I explain it, even after I said > (truthfully) that the meaning I inferred came > only from general knowledge and experience, > not from a special partnership agreement. > The TD backed her [the pro] up. I forget what > happened next, except that I took the name of > the TD and never did explain the bid. > IMO the pro's question was justified unless he > could be certain he was on the same wavelength. Baloney. She had no intention of taking any action, whatever the meaning, and she knew damn well it was unusual notrump. My partner, not a regular one, was a strong player whom she knew well. I think my words concerning the meaning of 2NT were, "You know as much as I do." > If Most NT bids are natural in your circle > (they are for many of the inexperienced) > ... You never play UNT in other contexts. > ... The 1S bid was not forcing. > then your explanation was quite fair. > else, were I a TD (Heaven forfend), I'd ask > you to give the table the benefit of your > "general knowledge and experience". A pro is paid to teach their clients, I am not and I will not, especially when a pro's question is obviously illegal. > I'd also ask why you did not alert 2N unless > you deemed it natural. Unusual notrump is not Alertable in ACBL-land. The sequence had never come up before in this (or any other, for that matter) partnership. It was not the subject of a special partnership agreement, explicit or from experience. > If you refused to comply I'd suspend play > at your table and go for assistance. I think the TD did go for assistance, as he never returned. Sometimes TDs do that when they find out they are wrong. The pro bid on, no doubt satisifed that she had made client aware that the 2NT bid wasn't natural. Client passed my 3C, so no further problem. > Lacking that option, I'd scrap the board at > your table and impose a PP on you. > (:I know, I know, just as well I'm not a TD:) Sounds good to me. Just give an artificial score, as many imps as you wish, no need to call it a PP. However, when that option is not available, I handle such situations differently. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 3 07:12:53 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 07:12:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: <010101c25f98$9bdfd340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20021001160550.00b12a70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <014301c26aa4$d4595400$399868d5@default> Eric Landau: Mr. OS claims that his action was mandated by his system. But he doesn't have written documentation, so you automatically rule against him. But for all you know, he might be able to send you to ten different people in the room, all of whom have played his system with him, and all of whom could verify that he is telling the truth, that his action was indeed mandated by his system. Don't you think your ruling might be a bit over-hasty? It is the duty and responsibility of the TD to collect, examine and evaluate whatever relevant evidence he has available to him before making a ruling. He fails in his duty if he examines only that portion of the relevant evidence that happens to have been written down. Nigel: I was over-hasty. Other evidence (Eric's witnesses) may be just as as credible as documentary evidence. I meant only that you would be wrong to accept a self-serving claim, lacking independent corroboration; What if Mr OS is an expert friend who has never lied to you? Is that sufficient evidence? IMO no -- you should rule against him if you would so rule against a tyro or stranger. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 3 05:17:36 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:17:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C47.0016503E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: [snip] >In a case that happened a short time after Lille, a >well-fitted pair was given a single word as explanation >on one side of the screen, a complete explanation on >the other side. They messed the ensuing sequence. The >Director in charge of the Championships (no TD >available at the table in Belgium) decided that the >player who was given the one-word answer failed to >protect himself by asking for a full explanation. I >take this as meaning one should ask. [snip] The ruling partly depends on what the local Belgian regulation is for its Championship. For example, in the high-level WBF international events, there is a regulation stating players will not necessarily get redress for a technical violation of L75 or WBF Alert rules by their opponents. On the other hand, a one-word answer may be *more* than a technical violation of L75. If I am playing against unknown opponents in a New South Wales country congress, I never give the one-word explanation "Stayman". Instead, I provide two words, "Simple Stayman", since the default agreement of many NSW country players is the variant called "Extended Stayman". Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 3 08:43:18 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:43:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <019401c26a3f$d0cd6200$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <004e01c26a45$0bed1650$70d8fea9@WINXP> <01e801c26a9e$80d7d280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c26ab0$8b1eb8f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Marvin L. French" > The word "dispute" is not in L90B8. I do lots of disputing with TDs in > these parts, with the usual result that they change their initial > ruling. When they don't I am now trained by BLML to obey any legal > instruction, no matter how much I disagree with it. However, when a TD > says to back up the bidding a couple of rounds because of MI, I refuse > to obey. We don't have Svens and Davids and other such in my part of > ACBL-land, we have TDs who don't know the Laws and don't know ACBL > regulations (e.g., the Alert Procedure), Law 90B: Offences subject to penalty include but are not limited to: ..... 8: failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with any instruction of the Director. It is true that this law does not include the word "dispute", but nor does it include the word "legal" or anything to that effect as a condition for the term "instruction of the Director". When the Director gives you an instruction then you are to comply promptly (and appeal afterwards in the regular way if you feel for it) unless of course his instruction is in conflict with some law that takes precedence over the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (e.g the penal code). Can this be so difficult to understand and accept? Sven From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Thu Oct 3 08:39:40 2002 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 03 Oct 2002 08:39:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus - UK dialup users please pay special attention! In-Reply-To: Jesper Dybdal's message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:32:09 +0200" References: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> <0tampu0f0d124l4lvq61vkopnm2l9k15bo@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal writes: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:18:03 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson > wrote: > > >(As it happens, I've just purged my mailbox. Yesterday I could have > >provided a full list of BLML subscribers using pol.co.uk dialups) > > In the last approximately 5000 BLML messages, there are > occurrences of the following three posters posting through the > mail server that the virus message used (cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk): > > * "grandeval" > * "David Barton" > * Jeremy Rickard > > But this does not mean that the infected machine has to belong to > one of those three: it is probably also possible for it to belong > to somebody who reads BLML and never posts. The machine from which I dialup is not a Windows machine, so I don't think it's possible for me to have this particular virus. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Thu Oct 3 08:49:31 2002 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 03 Oct 2002 08:49:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? In-Reply-To: David Stevenson's message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:07:00 +0100" References: <4A256C44.00217B6A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson writes: > RH writes > > > > > >In the thread "WBF CoC comments solicited", > >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > >>New "symmetrical" playing cards were in > >>use. From reading BLML I now understand > >>their advantages, but they have the > >>unfortunate effect of making some heart > >>cards look like diamonds. I suggest that > >>the design be modified -- I understand it > >>has been once already. > > > >[snip] > > > >>In a missive in the daily bulletin Jose > >>Damiani mentioned the use of symmetric > >>playing cards, and how he hoped all NCBOs > >>would start using them. > > > >[snip] > > > >I am of the opinion that, no matter how the > >design of symmetric cards is modified, the > >number of revokes by players using symmetric > >cards will be proportionally greater than > >the number of revokes with traditional cards. > > This puzzles me, since I have now played with symmetric cards. The > chance of revoking is considerably reduced, not because the cards are > symmetric which makes no difference that I can see, but because the > suits are different colours, red, pink, black and grey. > > What am I missing? I think the instances of revoking induced by the new cards are not because people play one suit thinking they're playing another (the chance of which is, as you say, reduced by having different colours), but because they misrecognize the card that somebody else leads. When somebody leads a spade with an odd number of pips (especially the ace), the "symmetrized" spade symbol in the middle is easy to confuse with a club symbol. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Oct 3 09:32:52 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:32:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When you don't call the TD > Let me be quite sure I got this correct: > RHO Michal LHO pd > 1C - pass - 1D - 2D > X - pass - 1NT > corrected to 2S - 3D > X > > and only at this time was the director summoned? > Yes. > Assuming an event of some quality where there is > little excuse for ignoring Law 9B I would simply > apply Law 27B2 and instruct RHO to replace his > double with a pass. > Why do we apply 27B2 rather than 25B1? Best regards, Konrad ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Specjalnie dla Ciebie... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f165b From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 3 09:54:11 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:54:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When you don't call the TD > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] When you don't call the TD > > > > Let me be quite sure I got this correct: > > RHO Michal LHO pd > > 1C - pass - 1D - 2D > > X - pass - 1NT > > corrected to 2S - 3D > > X > > > > and only at this time was the director summoned? > > > > Yes. > > > Assuming an event of some quality where there is > > little excuse for ignoring Law 9B I would simply > > apply Law 27B2 and instruct RHO to replace his > > double with a pass. > > > > Why do we apply 27B2 rather than 25B1? Because the footnote to Law 25B1 tells you to apply Law 27 (rather than Law 25B1) when the original bid was insufficient. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 3 02:36:37 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:36:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD Message-ID: <4A256C47.0007946F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> RHO Michal LHO Michal's pard 1C(1) Pass 1D(2) 2D(3) X Pass 1NT 2S(4) 3D X TD! (1) Polish club (2) Artificial negative (3) Natural (4) Correction after Michal's pard said, "insufficient bid" Sven wrote: [snip] >Assuming an event of some quality where there is >little excuse for ignoring Law 9B I would simply >apply Law 27B2 and instruct RHO to replace his >double with a pass. I would rule that L27B2 was not applicable, since Michal's pard by bidding 3D had condoned LHO's irregularity. >Subsequent to this I would instruct LHO that he >cannot use whatever information he may have from >this withdrawn double when selecting his later >call(s) on this board, and finally I would >instruct the players that if pd (or Michal) >becomes declarer then the lead penalty in Law >26B applies. > >Specifically in that case, the first time LHO >is on the lead declarer may name any specific >denomitnation at his choice and prohibit a lead in >this suit for as long as LHO retains the lead. I would not rule that LHO was subject to a potential lead penalty, due to Michal's pard's condoning of the change of call. Nor would I rule that RHO was subject to a potential lead penalty due to LHO's withdrawn 1NT call, since a non-timely TD call has jeopardised the OS rights. >There is an alternative line of action that I would >take in an event of less quality where you would >expect participants that cannot be expected to be >familiar with the laws: > >Draw the players attention to Law 9B and tell them >that because of their ignorance to this law I would >not take any action whatsoever on the insufficient >bid but let the auction continue (with Michal being >the next player to call). Surely this is the ruling mandated in an event of *any* quality when a TD call is sufficiently out of time? >I would, however, inform them of what redress >they have forfeited by ignoring Law 9B (assuming >that this lesson will stick forever afterwards). No need to rub salt in the wounds; simply inform all four players that all of them are *required* to summon the TD as soon as attention is drawn to an irregularity, whether or not the irregularity was caused by their side or their opponents. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 3 10:19:29 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:19:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <4A256C47.0007946F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <007c01c26abd$f9fee530$70d8fea9@WINXP> ......... > >There is an alternative line of action that I would > >take in an event of less quality where you would > >expect participants that cannot be expected to be > >familiar with the laws: > > > >Draw the players attention to Law 9B and tell them > >that because of their ignorance to this law I would > >not take any action whatsoever on the insufficient > >bid but let the auction continue (with Michal being > >the next player to call). > > Surely this is the ruling mandated in an event of > *any* quality when a TD call is sufficiently out of > time? There is no automatic or mandatory consequence when law 9B is violated. Law 11A states that the right to penalise an irregularity may (sic!) be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The actual consequence must be a matter of judgement by the Director specifically for each individual case. Sven From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 3 10:39:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000d01c26ab0$8b1eb8f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sven wrote: > It is true that this law does not include the word "dispute", but nor > does it include the word "legal" or anything to that effect as a > condition for the term "instruction of the Director". > > When the Director gives you an instruction then you are to comply > promptly (and appeal afterwards in the regular way if you feel for > it) unless of course his instruction is in conflict with some law that > takes precedence over the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge > (e.g the penal code). > > Can this be so difficult to understand and accept? Yes. If the TD instructs me to strip to my boxers and dance a can-can I ain't going to do it (despite it me legal for me to do so in the UK). Once we accept that ridiculous instructions don't have to be obeyed we are on firm ground. Probably the best way for an AC to deal with this sort of TD error is to rule that the "apparent instruction" was a "suggestion" and thus not requiring obedience. It would be a travesty of justice to penalise a player for ignoring an improper TD instruction. FWIW I would almost certainly have ruled against Marv had his case gone to appeal. He knew his partner was a strong player and that the 2N was thus extremely likely to be unusual. He might also know how many points an immediate 2S bid would likely have shown, and what hands would make an immediate X of 1S. A pro who knows Marv well may have a good idea what the answers are likely to be - be he couldn't be sure. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 3 10:39:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C47.00173883.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Hi Richard, > Former chess champion of Tasmania and Canberra The important word is "former" - personality often develops over time. Am told this can take longer for Australians. Still smiling, Best Wishes, Tim (ex junior county chess-player and so's my wife). From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Oct 3 10:56:01 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:56:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" > > Why do we apply 27B2 rather than 25B1? > > Because the footnote to Law 25B1 tells you to > apply Law 27 (rather than Law 25B1) when the > original bid was insufficient. > I know but this looks absurd (to me, at least). Suppose that the TD is not summoned until the end of the auction. It would mean that that all calls following Michal's LHO double and the double itself are cancelled - this makes no sense to me. Also it would mean that while you are allowed to accept an insufficient bid (1NT) and you are allowed to accept the change of call (say RHO bids 2NT and then changes it to 2S) but you are not allowed to accept a change of an insuffiecient bid (1NT changed to 2S). That would be odd. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Specjalnie dla Ciebie... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f165b From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Oct 3 11:16:06 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:16:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 Message-ID: Law 16 contains the famous phrase "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." (A) Suppose it were written thus: "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested by the extraneous information." (B) Are the two formulations equivalent? If not, what is the difference? Jürgen From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 3 11:26:36 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:26:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > Why do we apply 27B2 rather than 25B1? > > > > Because the footnote to Law 25B1 tells you to > > apply Law 27 (rather than Law 25B1) when the > > original bid was insufficient. > > > > I know but this looks absurd (to me, at least). > Suppose that the TD is not summoned > until the end of the auction. > It would mean that that all calls following > Michal's LHO double and the double itself > are cancelled - this makes no sense to > me. Also it would mean that while you > are allowed to accept an insufficient bid > (1NT) and you are allowed to accept > the change of call (say RHO bids 2NT > and then changes it to 2S) but > you are not allowed to accept > a change of an insuffiecient bid > (1NT changed to 2S). That would > be odd. As I wrote in a separate post: The consequence of a violation to Law 9 is not automatic but a matter of judgement by the Director. If the auction continued to the end before the Director was summoned this is something that should influence his judgement, and in a case like that I would most likely tend to let the auction stand with no "correction". The fact that an insufficient bid prematurely corrected by the offender shall be handled under law 27 and not under Law 25B1 is (probably) because the offending side has now added another offence to the first, and Law 27 as far as I can see places the non- offending side in a better position than they would be subject to law 25B1. The offending side shall not under any circumstance be allowed to improve their position after an offence by violating Law 9B2 Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 3 11:29:33 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:29:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 References: Message-ID: <009201c26ac7$c4182cb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:16 PM Subject: [blml] L16 > Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > by the extraneous information." (A) > > Suppose it were written thus: > > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > by the extraneous information." (B) > > Are the two formulations equivalent? If not, what is the > difference? > > Jürgen Anything "could have been suggested", but "could demonstrably have been suggested" requires some plausible reasoning (although no proof!). Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 3 04:55:04 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:55:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C47.00144093.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ron Johnson wrote: [big snip] >Well to be fair it seems plausible that some people see >Kaplan's logic as license to ask the "pro question". And >the pro question is a very Bad Thing. It may be that the >Lille declaration is something of a lesser of two evils -- >though I confess I don't see it. I propose to define a few terms here: 1. Kaplan question = Questioning opponents who have given MI to pard by an inadequate explanation, even though you know the correct answer, in order to avoid unpleasantness of later TD and AC ruling (and also avoiding possible incorrect TD and AC determination of consequent damage caused by the MI). 2. Pro question = Questioning opponents, even when you know the correct answer, because pard is too timid to ask their own questions. 3. Mordor question = "Does your 1C opening _really_ show length in clubs?" when holding a good hand with long clubs. The Mordor question is an obvious violation of L16, so the WBF Lille declaration is superfluous in guiding a TD to a ruling on such a land-of-shadow question. However, the Lille declaration was aimed at outlawing option 2 - the Pro question - which is not an obvious violation of L16, and so therefore required a special WBF official interpretation of the Laws. The wording of the Lille declaration also outlawed option 1 - the Kaplan question. Presumably the outlawing of the Kaplan question was to prevent a pro from asking such a question, even though the pro's opponents have infracted L75. Is it desirable for the WBF to reword the Lille declaration, perhaps for inclusion in the next edition of the Laws? Do I hear a *noted* from Grattan? Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 3 13:28:55 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:28:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <009201c26ac7$c4182cb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021003081925.00b25c80@pop.starpower.net> At 06:29 AM 10/3/02, Sven wrote: >From: "J=FCrgen Rennenkampff" > > > Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > > > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > > by the extraneous information." (A) > > > > Suppose it were written thus: > > > > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > > by the extraneous information." (B) > > > > Are the two formulations equivalent? If not, what is the > > difference? > > > > J=FCrgen > >Anything "could have been suggested", but >"could demonstrably have been suggested" requires >some plausible reasoning (although no proof!). And "from among logical alternatives" means that a TD/AC is not=20 required to seek out and find a non-suggested action on which to base a=20 presumptive auction that fails some test of "reasonableness". Most (if=20 not all) NCBOs provide guidance as to the determination of=20 reasonableness, typically along the lines of "X% of players would have=20 taken the action" or "Y% of players would have considered taking the=20 action". IMO, such guidance is necessary to insure sensible and=20 consistent rulings. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Oct 3 14:32:25 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:32:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8DBF35B0-D6D4-11D6-B506-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:16 AM, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: > Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > by the extraneous information." (A) > > Suppose it were written thus: > > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > by the extraneous information." (B) > > Are the two formulations equivalent? No > If not, what is the > difference? In the latter formulation one would be prohibited from doing something=20= suggested by the UI, even if it were the only logical thing to do. One=20= would be required to do something silly every time the only sensible=20 course of action had been suggested by partner's UI. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 3 04:17:56 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:17:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? Message-ID: <4A256C47.0010DAA6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Petrus Schuster wrote: >Many of you have stressed that an unusual auction on one >hand is not enough to assume that a player has violated L16B >by having extraneous information on a board and failing to >inform the TD. [snip] >Should not the question be something like: > >How much more likely is Player X to bid/play as he did with >UI as opposed to a no-UI situation? If you judge something >like "20 times more likely", then assume a violation of >L16B. > >Is this not in some way similar to the treatment of psyches? >You don`t wait for the tenth catch to invoke L40. The differentiation between a true psyche - L40A - and a false psyche, or concealed partnership understanding - L40B - *does* require more than one catch. Even the ACBL acknowledges that "*one* psyche in a lifetime" is legal. I have never come across a report of a fielding of a psyche case, where the offender has argued that this was partner's first ever psyche. [The usual argument by the offender in a psyche-fielding situation is that their hand and the auction *guaranteed* that the psycher was partner rather than one of the opponents. Such a "guarantee" carries the logical inference that this is *not* pard's first ever psyche.] Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 3 14:58:12 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:58:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <012901c26a58$63693220$779468d5@default> <021101c26aa2$04964b80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <018d01c26ae4$f23bfaa0$399868d5@default> Marvin L French: Sounds good to me. Just give an artificial score, as many imps as you wish, no need to call it a PP. However, when that option is not available, I handle such situations differently. Nigel: Thank you Marv for your expected usual clear, relevant, informative, and good humoured reply to my cheeky email. You are an example to us all. From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Oct 3 15:19:17 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:19:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <8DBF35B0-D6D4-11D6-B506-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Oktober 2002 15:32 > Cc: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] L16 > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: > > > Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > > > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > > by the extraneous information." (A) > > > > Suppose it were written thus: > > > > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > > by the extraneous information." (B) > > > > Are the two formulations equivalent? > > No > > > If not, what is the > > difference? > > In the latter formulation one would be prohibited from doing something > suggested by the UI, even if it were the only logical thing to do. One > would be required to do something silly every time the only sensible > course of action had been suggested by partner's UI. Yes, (B) implies that - but so does (A). (A) says I must either choose a logical alternative that cannot have been suggested or an illogical alternative (even if suggested). Jürgen > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 3 16:23:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:23:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 References: Message-ID: <001601c26af0$e1fc5160$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Jurgen wrote > > On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: > > > > > Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > > > > > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > > > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > > > by the extraneous information." (A) > > > > > > Suppose it were written thus: > > > > > > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > > > by the extraneous information." (B) > > > > > > Are the two formulations equivalent? and Gordon wrote: > > No [JR} > > > If not, what is the difference? [GR] > > In the latter formulation one would be prohibited from doing something > > suggested by the UI, even if it were the only logical thing to do. One > > would be required to do something silly every time the only sensible > > course of action had been suggested by partner's UI. [JR] > Yes, (B) implies that - but so does (A). >(A) says I must either choose a logical alternative that cannot have been suggested or > an illogical alternative (even if suggested). True. But your formulation (B), as Gordon points out, compels you to do something silly if everything sensible is suggested in some way by UI. The things you have missed out from your formulation are the crucial words "alternative" and "over another". If there is no logical alternative to an action X, then you may take action X even if it could have been suggested by the UI; the view then is that the action was not in fact suggested by the UI, but by the contents of your hand (and any AI in your possession). If there are a number of logical alternatives X1, X2...Xn, then you may not take any of those actions that could have been suggested instead of ("over") any of the others by the UI; you may choose freely from among those actions that are suggested only by the contents of your hand and by AI. In practice, it is rare to find so many logical alternative actions that they fall into two sets (those not suggested by UI and those suggested by it) with more than one member, but it could happen. David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Oct 3 16:28:28 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Virus Message-ID: <200210031528.LAA06756@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Anne Jones" > I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. I neither send nor receive email from a Windows machine, so it is likely the "from" address was forged. (Especially so if it spelled my name with one 'l'.) Henk: I support the idea of blocking all attachments to the list if the software will do that. > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > The virus arrived here but was caught by Norton's. Hope all are protected > and that Steve's computer is OK... Nancy Thanks for the kind wishes. This machine runs Solaris (and thus not Internet Explorer), so it seems unlikely to be infected. My Windows machine (which would not know how to send to blml) is also clean as far as I can tell. From David.Barton@cwcom.net Thu Oct 3 16:35:44 2002 From: David.Barton@cwcom.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:35:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus - UK dialup users please pay special attention! References: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> <0tampu0f0d124l4lvq61vkopnm2l9k15bo@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <002201c26af2$8c6ed9a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Since I have been named as a possible originator of this virus I wish to state that:- (1)My web browser and email software have all the latest security patches (2)A full scan with the latest McAfee antivirus software pronounced it clean. Issued 30/09/02 including the Bugbear virus detection. (3)My registry does not have the unusual entry typical of "Bugbear" nor any other of the symptoms. (4)I do not open or preview emails with attachments. I am therefore as certain as I can possibly be that I am NOT responsible for this virus. David.Barton@cwcom.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Rickard" To: Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Virus - UK dialup users please pay special attention! > Jesper Dybdal writes: > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:18:03 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson > > wrote: > > > > >(As it happens, I've just purged my mailbox. Yesterday I could have > > >provided a full list of BLML subscribers using pol.co.uk dialups) > > > > In the last approximately 5000 BLML messages, there are > > occurrences of the following three posters posting through the > > mail server that the virus message used (cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk): > > > > * "grandeval" > > * "David Barton" > > * Jeremy Rickard > > > > But this does not mean that the infected machine has to belong to > > one of those three: it is probably also possible for it to belong > > to somebody who reads BLML and never posts. > > The machine from which I dialup is not a Windows machine, so I don't > think it's possible for me to have this particular virus. > > Jeremy. > > -- > Jeremy Rickard > Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk > WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Oct 3 17:32:54 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? Message-ID: <200210031632.MAA06809@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > All you are saying is that this is not a L70C case, which is a > specific common situation. But that does not stop you making a ruling > under L70D. This seems obvious and straightforward to me, and I don't see that L70A (which Petrus mentions later) affects the conclusion. It is interesting that David applies this reasoning here but is unwilling to do so in other contexts. From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Oct 3 17:39:57 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:39:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <001601c26af0$e1fc5160$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Burn > Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Oktober 2002 17:24 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] L16 > > > Jurgen wrote > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Jürgen Rennenkampff > wrote: > > > > > > > Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > > > > > > > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > > > > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > > > > by the extraneous information." (A) > > > > > > > > Suppose it were written thus: > > > > > > > > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > > > > by the extraneous information." (B) > > > > > > > > Are the two formulations equivalent? > > and Gordon wrote: > > > > No > > [JR} > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > [GR] > > > In the latter formulation one would be prohibited from doing > something > > > suggested by the UI, even if it were the only logical thing to do. > One > > > would be required to do something silly every time the only sensible > > > course of action had been suggested by partner's UI. > > [JR] > > Yes, (B) implies that - but so does (A). > > >(A) says I must either choose a logical alternative that cannot have > been suggested or > > an illogical alternative (even if suggested). > > True. But your formulation (B), as Gordon points out, compels you to do > something silly if everything sensible is suggested in some way by UI. Yes it does, and so does (A). To me it seems that 'to choose from among alternative actions' is a clumsy and pretentious way of saying 'to choose an action'. 'Alternative' seems not crucial but redundant. - Similarly 'over another'. If there is no alternative then there is no choice. The meaning does change if the word 'logical' is left in, since now (A) explicitly allows illogical actions. This seems to be roughly the opposite of the intended meaning. Finally, the word 'demonstrably' is troublesome: The suggestion is never demonstrable and, therefore, if a demonstration were required then all actions would be allowed. > > The things you have missed out from your formulation are the crucial > words "alternative" and "over another". If there is no logical > alternative to an action X, then you may take action X even if it could > have been suggested by the UI; the view then is that the action was not > in fact suggested by the UI, but by the contents of your hand (and any > AI in your possession). If there are a number of logical alternatives > X1, X2...Xn, then you may not take any of those actions that could have > been suggested instead of ("over") any of the others by the UI; you may > choose freely from among those actions that are suggested only by the > contents of your hand and by AI. > > In practice, it is rare to find so many logical alternative actions that > they fall into two sets (those not suggested by UI and those suggested > by it) with more than one member, but it could happen. This is the problem, isn't it? An argument can nearly always be made that any particular logical alternative 'could have been suggested', and a demonstration (a proof) is never available. Jürgen > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 3 19:28:57 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:28:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.00144093.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <003d01c26b0b$3b2ccfc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote, very sensibly: > I propose to define a few terms here: > > 1. Kaplan question = Questioning opponents who have given > MI to pard by an inadequate > explanation, even though you know > the correct answer, in order to > avoid unpleasantness of later TD and > AC ruling (and also avoiding possible > incorrect TD and AC determination of > consequent damage caused by the MI). > > 2. Pro question = Questioning opponents, even when you > know the correct answer, because > pard is too timid to ask their own > questions. > > 3. Mordor question = "Does your 1C opening _really_ show > length in clubs?" when holding a good > hand with long clubs. > > The Mordor question is an obvious violation of L16, so the > WBF Lille declaration is superfluous in guiding a TD to a > ruling on such a land-of-shadow question. It is also a violation of L20F1, which permits asking for an explanation of the auction, not inquiring about a particular call unless a deficient explanation requires more clarification. It often happens that L16 is not applied because there is no proof that the UI helps the partner, even when it does.. If TDs would handle such UI with more toughness, not requiring proof, citing L16, that would be very welcome. However, the WBFLC pusilanimously said regarding a violation of L20F1 (and L20F2) "this minor infringement of the Laws should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that it entails and the relevance of L16 to such circumstances." Risk? What risk? It *definitely* creates UI. Apply L16 every time, not permitting the partner to take an action that could demonstably have been suggested by the UI when there is a logical alternative. Do not accept the usual statement (usually made not to deceive the TD, David, but a case of self-deception), "I did not learn anything from the questioning." Just as we do not accept the statement, "I was going to make that bid anyway," after an action is taken that other forms of UI suggest (e.g., a marked hesitation). > > However, the Lille declaration was aimed at outlawing > option 2 - the Pro question - which is not an obvious > violation of L16, and so therefore required a special WBF > official interpretation of the Laws. Both the question and the reply are UI, obviously. The question is a violation of other Laws, not L16. It constitutes illegal communication with partner, who may or may not violate L16 as a result. The questioner has not followed correct procedure, and should be given a lecture > > The wording of the Lille declaration also outlawed option 1 > - the Kaplan question. Presumably the outlawing of the > Kaplan question was to prevent a pro from asking such a > question, even though the pro's opponents have infracted L75. > > Is it desirable for the WBF to reword the Lille declaration, > perhaps for inclusion in the next edition of the Laws? Do > I hear a *noted* from Grattan? > After giving this a lot of thought, I think that it is more in the spirit of the game to let partner fend for himself/herself, even if it proves to be harmful to one's side. Unless attention is drawn to the irregularity, L9B1(a) doesn't apply. Declarer should call attention to it before the opening lead is made, and a defender can do so after the deal is completed. Good luck with that. In these parts the TD is likely to say to me, "You could have asked." No, I couldn't. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Oct 3 20:11:34 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <008601c26994$42158ca0$2150e150@endicott> from "Grattan Endicott" at Oct 01, 2002 10:47:35 PM Message-ID: <200210031911.PAA22254@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Grattan Endicott writes: > > By the way, the 'et al' includes the general agreement > of the WBFLC. In which regard Ron Johnson may care to > remind himself that Edgar was already beyond challenge or > endorsement in 1998 when the WBFLC put the fact of the > law firmly on record. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes, for some reason I have always thought of Lille as taking place in 1996. Possibly my mind is playing tricks on me, but I have a distinct memory of a comment that you made about Kaplan not objecting to the text of the Lille declaration. Possibly an early draft. For some reason, the phrase "deemed to have acquiesced" sticks in my mind. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 3 20:14:16 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:14:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.00144093.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003d01c26b0b$3b2ccfc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <013901c26b11$115b3000$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Marvin wrote: > Richard Hills wrote, very sensibly: > > > I propose to define a few terms here: > > > > 1. Kaplan question = Questioning opponents who have given > > MI to pard by an inadequate > > explanation, even though you know > > the correct answer, in order to > > avoid unpleasantness of later TD and > > AC ruling (and also avoiding possible > > incorrect TD and AC determination of > > consequent damage caused by the MI). > > > > 2. Pro question = Questioning opponents, even when you > > know the correct answer, because > > pard is too timid to ask their own > > questions. > > > > 3. Mordor question = "Does your 1C opening _really_ show > > length in clubs?" when holding a good > > hand with long clubs. > > > > The Mordor question is an obvious violation of L16, so the > > WBF Lille declaration is superfluous in guiding a TD to a > > ruling on such a land-of-shadow question. Well, perhaps not all that sensibly, though one understands what he means. If I were to ask Richard to point to the words in Law 16 that forbid the asking of the "Mordor question", we would have to wait until Mount Doom crumbled to dust before he could answer. Fortunately, Law 73 provides the necessary formulation; however, one cannot be too careful when one is "defining terms". David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 3 06:06:58 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:06:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [snip] >It is for the opponents to tell me what their >methods are, not for my partner. I would argue slightly differently, "I am entitled to know what the opponents' agreements are. One way I discover what the opponents' agreements are, is by listening to an opponent's explanation in response to partner's question." >If their explanation is deficient, and our side >is damaged thereby, there is a means by which we >may be granted redress. If their explanation is deficient, and their explanation is corrected in a timely fashion, redress need not be sought, and the possibility of inadequate redress is averted. >In the meantime, what is clear is that any >communication between partners, other than by >means of calls and plays, is not permitted. In the meantime, what is clear is that a question asking an opponent, "Could you please provide a more comprehensive explanation?" is not necessarily a communication about your cards to your partner. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 3 21:20:01 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:20:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this References: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> <0tampu0f0d124l4lvq61vkopnm2l9k15bo@nuser.dybdal.dk> <002201c26af2$8c6ed9a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <018001c26b1a$41089b40$29a423d9@pbncomputer> I have just received two messages with the Bugbear virus. They purport to have come from: mfrench1@worldonline.nl which as everyone will realise is a composite (non-existent) address that combines Marvin's id with an ISP in the Netherlands. They don't come from Marvin, any more than any of the previous messages came from Grattan or Jim or David. Viruses these days commonly spoof From addresses; these are almost no help in tracking down the problem. The messages do, however, come from servers within the domain pol.co.uk. These servers belong to Energis in Leeds, England. Now, if there is anyone on this list who uses Energis in some shape, manner or form to provide Internet services or even telephony (and there probably is, because Energis carries about 40% of the UK's Internet traffic), then will whoever it is please either check things for themselves, or get in touch with me and I will help you (it was about five years ago now, but I was for some time an IT security consultant, so I have some vague idea of what is going on). I will independently contact Energis to see if they are aware of any problem. David Burn London, England From henk@ripe.net Thu Oct 3 21:38:38 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:38:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this In-Reply-To: <018001c26b1a$41089b40$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: Hi, > I have just received two messages with the Bugbear virus. They purport > to have come from: > > mfrench1@worldonline.nl > > which as everyone will realise is a composite (non-existent) address > that combines Marvin's id with an ISP in the Netherlands. They don't > come from Marvin, any more than any of the previous messages came from > Grattan or Jim or David. Viruses these days commonly spoof From > addresses; these are almost no help in tracking down the problem. > > The messages do, however, come from servers within the domain pol.co.uk. > These servers belong to Energis in Leeds, England. Now, if there is > anyone on this list who uses Energis in some shape, manner or form to > provide Internet services or even telephony (and there probably is, > because Energis carries about 40% of the UK's Internet traffic), then > will whoever it is please either check things for themselves, or get in > touch with me and I will help you (it was about five years ago now, but > I was for some time an IT security consultant, so I have some vague idea > of what is going on). I will independently contact Energis to see if > they are aware of any problem. Can somebody please send me BY PRIVATE MAIL the headers of the message? Henk (and yes, I know who to contact at energis...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Oct 3 22:03:39 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:03:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jürgen Rennenkampff > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:40 PM > To: BLML > Subject: RE: [blml] L16 > > To me it seems that 'to choose from among alternative > actions' is > a clumsy and pretentious way of saying 'to choose an action'. The addition of "from among" implies that the set of actions you're chosing from will be somehow limited. It is probably unjust to consider the actions of bidding 1C vs. bidding 7NT as though both were equal in consideration. The two words add meaning. > 'Alternative' seems not crucial but redundant. - > Similarly 'over another'. > If there is no alternative then there is no choice. > > The meaning does change if the word 'logical' is left > in, since now (A) > explicitly allows illogical actions. This seems to be > roughly the opposite of the intended meaning. The goal of L16A is not to allow, but rather to forbid, some actions. > Finally, the word 'demonstrably' is troublesome: The > suggestion is never demonstrable I would operate on a different premise. The concern is about actions that are demonstrably suggested, not suggestions that are demonstrable. Further, I believe actions that are demonstrably suggested exist. > and, therefore, if a demonstration were > required then all actions would be allowed. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 3 05:37:14 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:37:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C47.00181C77.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+=+ Well, now, perhaps we had better look more >closely at the law. Law 16A: ".... makes available to >his partner extraneous information that may suggest a >call or play, as by means of a remark, question ....". >The key words are "by means of". The question itself >does not have to contain the information; "by means >of" only requires that the question is instrumental in >making the information available - in using the question >to bounce the information from opponent to partner >the player has conveyed the information 'by means of'. > As for the purposeful question designed to >do exactly that, it is a clear violation of Law 73B1. [snip] In my opinion, other *key words* are "extraneous information". Is it extraneous to prevent pard getting MI from the opponents by asking a clarifying Kaplan question? Best wishes Richard From ziffbridge@t-online.de Thu Oct 3 23:05:25 2002 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:05:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this References: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> <0tampu0f0d124l4lvq61vkopnm2l9k15bo@nuser.dybdal.dk> <002201c26af2$8c6ed9a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <018001c26b1a$41089b40$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3D9CBF25.7030004@t-online.de> David Burn wrote: > I have just received two messages with the Bugbear virus. They purport > to have come from: > > mfrench1@worldonline.nl > > which as everyone will realise is a composite (non-existent) address > that combines Marvin's id with an ISP in the Netherlands. They don't > come from Marvin, any more than any of the previous messages came from > Grattan or Jim or David. Viruses these days commonly spoof From > addresses; these are almost no help in tracking down the problem. > > The messages do, however, come from servers within the domain pol.co.uk. > These servers belong to Energis in Leeds, England. Now, if there is > anyone on this list who uses Energis in some shape, manner or form to > provide Internet services or even telephony (and there probably is, > because Energis carries about 40% of the UK's Internet traffic), then > will whoever it is please either check things for themselves, or get in > touch with me and I will help you (it was about five years ago now, but > I was for some time an IT security consultant, so I have some vague idea > of what is going on). I will independently contact Energis to see if > they are aware of any problem. > > David Burn > London, England > Hi all, I just received an infested mail from Adam Wildavsky ( well, probably I didn`t, but the mail said so). My antivirus software identified it as "Bugbear". Adress was Madaboutbikes.com. Since this should be faked, does it ring a bell? Or can Viruses "invent" adresses instead of taking something from the infested machine`s adress book? Maybe this helps to identify the "sender". Cheers Matthias From henk@ripe.net Thu Oct 3 23:22:14 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this Message-ID: All, Thanks for sending me a couple of headers, they all appear to be from 195.92.0.0/16 which is Energis UK. Their CTO of Energis is going to get a phonecall from me in the morning. (Or do you want me to call him at home right now ;-) Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Oct 3 23:48:10 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:48:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this In-Reply-To: <018001c26b1a$41089b40$29a423d9@pbncomputer> References: <007901c26a30$651dee30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <200210021718.NAA18236@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> <0tampu0f0d124l4lvq61vkopnm2l9k15bo@nuser.dybdal.dk> <002201c26af2$8c6ed9a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <018001c26b1a$41089b40$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:20:01 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >They don't >come from Marvin, any more than any of the previous messages came from >Grattan or Jim or David. Viruses these days commonly spoof From >addresses; these are almost no help in tracking down the problem. >The messages do, however, come from servers within the domain pol.co.uk. >These servers belong to Energis in Leeds, England. Now, if there is >anyone on this list who uses Energis in some shape, manner or form=20 - which is precisely what Grattan, Jeremy, and David do. My suggestion that it might have been one of them had nothing to do with From-headers, but with the fact that they have posted legitimate BLML messages through the same mail server that the first of these virus messages was posted through - because they use Energis/Planet Online. It therefore does make sense for them to check carefully whether they have the virus. Though as I said earlier, it can probably also be a customer of Energis/Planet Online who only reads BLML. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 4 01:49:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:49:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <000d01c26ab0$8b1eb8f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 10/3/02, Sven Pran wrote: >When the Director gives you an instruction then you are to comply >promptly (and appeal afterwards in the regular way if you feel for >it) unless of course his instruction is in conflict with some law that >takes precedence over the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge >(e.g the penal code). > >Can this be so difficult to understand and accept? Would you penalize a player for asking the TD to read his ruling from the law book? After all, that's not "complying promptly", is it? NB: around here, TDs *rarely*, if ever, read rulings from the book. They seem to make it a point of pride to rule from memory - and sometimes they get it wrong. From nancy@dressing.org Fri Oct 4 02:24:15 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:24:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Virus References: <200210031528.LAA06756@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000801c26b44$c1119ba0$6401a8c0@hare> Steve, your email came thru with no virus warnings but I do have messages from Marvin French and Grattan now in quarantine. Check your computers, Guys.... Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > From: "Anne Jones" > > I got a virus just now, supposedly from Steve Wilner. > > I neither send nor receive email from a Windows machine, so it is > likely the "from" address was forged. (Especially so if it spelled my > name with one 'l'.) > > Henk: I support the idea of blocking all attachments to the list if the > software will do that. > > > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > > The virus arrived here but was caught by Norton's. Hope all are protected > > and that Steve's computer is OK... Nancy > > Thanks for the kind wishes. This machine runs Solaris (and thus not > Internet Explorer), so it seems unlikely to be infected. My Windows > machine (which would not know how to send to blml) is also clean as far > as I can tell. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 4 03:26:54 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:26:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> Richard Hills: Asking an opponent, "Could you please provide a more comprehensive explanation?" is not necessarily a communication about your cards to your partner. Nigel: Again Richard has hit the nail on the head. He seems to have composed the perfect question. If the poor pro is forbidden to use this a form of words then the TD will be busy. Either both partner and I are entitled to be told pertinent facts from opponents understandings or we are not. If the latter then the IMO the Law is should be changed. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 4 04:39:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:39:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> Message-ID: <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Nigel wrote: > Richard Hills: > Asking an opponent, "Could you please provide > a more comprehensive explanation?" is not > necessarily a communication about your cards > to your partner. > Nigel: > Again Richard has hit the nail on the head. I have often wondered about this phrase. On the rare occasions when I have employed a hammer, I have never failed to hit a nail. The difficulty is that more often than not, the nail has been the one attached to my left thumb. I will quote Law 20F1 in full, since it seems to me to exemplify better than any other the extent to which the Laws are full of weasel words that do not, and could not, work: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question." Very well; a player may ask the opponents to explain their auction in full. But this Law does not imply that the opponents must answer the question; it says only that the player may ask it. Suppose that, in response to a question legitimately asked under Law 20F1, an opponent told you to mind your own business. Would you have any recourse? As it happens, you would (see Law 40, which nobody understands either) but not under Law 20F1, which (for the benefit of any Grattans who may have wandered in) should contain the words "and must be given" after the word "request". Commercial break over. The Laws are full of rubbish that simply does not hang together any more than - well, rubbish does. We have until 2005 to alter that, and the bridge world's finest minds are on the case. But just because the rules are no good, it does not follow that Nigel's and Richard's arguments (which are illegal) are any good either. They are not. > He seems to have composed the perfect question. Indeed he does, for no hand would ever reach the stage at which an opening lead was made and the dummy was placed on the table. You see, in order to be able to ask the question without communicating with partner, it is necessary always to ask the question after any auction that the opponents may have conducted. Thus, if your right-hand opponent were to open 1NT, and you were to ask your left-hand opponent what this might mean, and if he were to tell you that it showed 12-14 Milton Work points and a balanced hand, you would then be obliged to ask, in Richard's splendid words: "Could you please provide a more comprehensive explanation?" I say "you see" with no great optimism, for you and Richard do not appear to me to see very much at all as far as this topic is concerned; you will certainly not have understood the paragraph above. You appear to me instead to be striving to find some way in which one partner may, in accordance with the Laws, communicate with the other by some device that is not a call or play. Trust me: there is no such way. Just because Edgar once did it, that does not mean that you can. Even when he did it, he couldn't, but he wrote so eloquently in his own justification and he did so many other things for the game that it was all right somehow. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 4 06:44:14 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:44:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: Message-ID: <001a01c26b69$130889e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) > On 10/3/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >When the Director gives you an instruction then you are to comply > >promptly (and appeal afterwards in the regular way if you feel for > >it) unless of course his instruction is in conflict with some law that > >takes precedence over the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge > >(e.g the penal code). > > > >Can this be so difficult to understand and accept? > > Would you penalize a player for asking the TD to read his ruling from > the law book? After all, that's not "complying promptly", is it? > > NB: around here, TDs *rarely*, if ever, read rulings from the book. They > seem to make it a point of pride to rule from memory - and sometimes > they get it wrong. That is part of having the Director explaining and clarifying his ruling. It may interest you to learn that at the tests for a director's licence in Norway we disqualify any candidate who makes his/her ruling(s) from memory rather than looking up the laws even if the ruling in question happens to be correct! Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Oct 4 08:04:29 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:04:29 -0700 Subject: Fw: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) Message-ID: <010001c26b74$4f52ccc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> I just received this message from "myself" in the Netherlands. Anyone know what's happening here? See info which I pasted on at the bottom. Marv ###########3 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > Linda Trent wrote: > > What is the best duplicating machine to get? > > I do not know what is the best, but an Australian firm makes two versions. > One requires bar codes and the other does not. If memory serves, price is > about $2800 for the bar code machine and $3200 ($3400?) for the other. Both > can use a specially made set of boards and put the duplicated hands in each > slot. I have seen the ######### Return-Path: Received: from lamx01.mgw.rr.com ([66.75.160.12]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:52:21 -0700 Received: from imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.179]) by lamx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93JaP85000269 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from modem4294967203.firearms.dialup.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.221] helo=dajill-jnhr2v0j) by imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17xBOs-0007YM-00; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:12:43 +0100 From: "Marvin L. French" Subject: Re: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------1OVYAVHHWLTZ73J" Message-Id: Bcc: Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:12:43 +0100 From henk@ripe.net Fri Oct 4 08:36:10 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, > Thanks for sending me a couple of headers, they all appear to be from > 195.92.0.0/16 which is Energis UK. > > Their CTO of Energis is going to get a phonecall from me in the morning. > (Or do you want me to call him at home right now ;-) I've contacted Energis and they got more complaints about this address, they are now trying to find out if this is one of their users or somebody spoofing the address (and will, in the former case, take appropriate action). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Oct 4 09:21:08 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:21:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Burn > Sent: Freitag, 4. Oktober 2002 05:40 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > > > [...] The Laws are full of rubbish that simply does not > hang together any more than - well, rubbish does. We have until 2005 to > alter that, and the bridge world's finest minds are on the case. The bridge world's finest minds produced this pile of rubbish, and the most likely outcome of the revision is that the pile will become larger. For an example of the current level of competence take a look at the 'Laws for Electronic Bridge': The vast majority of the laws are totally meaningless for online (electronic?) bridge, yet not a single one was eliminated; of the significant new issues not one was addressed; the a pompous introduction is much longer than the new text. Read Parkinson on burocracies in their declining phase... Jürgen > [...] > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 4 10:07:10 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:07:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <678581D40E52AB4FA7BD7138BA628E25023CDEB1@reoexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net> Message-ID: <00be01c26b85$77e03540$279468d5@default> Stuart Maurice (a colour-blind team-mate who mis-sorts his hand less often than I do) answered some questions... [NG] Are you colour-blind? If so is it the common "red-green" kind? [SM] Yes I am red-green colour blind but I most notice it with delicate shades of pink that appear light grey to me. I have no problem with traffic lights you'll be relieved to hear! [NG] Can you distinguish the pips in the new bidding boxes by colour/shade or do you rely mainly on shape? [SM] But what are these new bidding boxes you speak of - are there any at Reading BC? [NG Later on the telephone, Stuart said he has no problem with our bidding boxes which I think have black red orange and green pips but I suppose discrimination would depend on shade as well] Would you prefer black, red, pink, and grey for the four suits, as on a popular variety of symmetric playing card? [SM] Of black, red, pink, and grey, I could imagine a problem between pink and grey. Are the designs on the web anywhere? {NG I don't know. Are they?] Any other comments? May I post your answers to BLML (Bridge Laws Mailing List) where a controversy is raging on this subject? [SM] Yes - you can forward this memo {NG I also asked Stuart if different patterns would help e.g. vertical stripes, horizontal stripes, cross-hatching and plain but he said he did not think so] From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 4 10:49:16 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:49:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00d901c26b8b$536a5960$279468d5@default> David Burn: I say "you see" with no great optimism, for you and Richard do not appear to me to see very much at all as far as this topic is concerned; you will certainly not have understood the paragraph above. You appear to me instead to be striving to find some way in which one partner may, in accordance with the Laws, communicate with the other by some device that is not a call or play. Trust me: there is no such way. Nigel: Thank you David for so charmingly vouchsafing your pearls of wisdom. You are right: sometimes I do fail to understand what point you are making. You think a full explanation would take too long. I was under the impression that I was entitled to that by law; but all I actually want is that at least those agreements likely to be of practical help in the current bidding or play problem be included in the explanation. You equate "communicating with partner" to "asking an opponent to communicate with us both". I accept this may well be the current legal interpretation and as soon as I am convinced, I will comply with it; but if you are right about this law, I believe it should be changed. From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 00:48:56 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:48:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? In-Reply-To: <200210031632.MAA06809@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200210031632.MAA06809@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <$WCRViAodNn9EwCS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> All you are saying is that this is not a L70C case, which is a >> specific common situation. But that does not stop you making a ruling >> under L70D. > >This seems obvious and straightforward to me, and I don't see that >L70A (which Petrus mentions later) affects the conclusion. > >It is interesting that David applies this reasoning here but is >unwilling to do so in other contexts. That's fighting talk, mister! The case Petrus refers to is covered by L70D. What similarity has this to some other case where I do not allow you to use a Law that covers a particular case, pray? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 00:56:59 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: <021002275.38936@webbox.com> References: <021002275.38936@webbox.com> Message-ID: David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >>I have now received three emails from Steve that do not look >real. > >>time for a full system scan, methinks. > >There is never time for one of those. Fortunately, you can find >out rather more quickly whether you are likely to have the Bugbear >virus: > >1 Run regedit (Start, Run, type "regedit") >2 Click on the following in sequence: > >HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE >SOFTWARE >Microsoft >Windows >Current Version >RunOnce > >3 If this does not say: > >Name Data >(Default) (value not set) It does. >then you (very probably) have been infected with Bugbear. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 4 11:56:43 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:56:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> I have asked before about a explaining a common kind of auction. Please can someone enlighten me? 2N(1) - 3c(2) - 3D(3) - 3h(4) - 3NT(5) (1) 20-22 4333/4432/5332 shape (any order) (2) Asks for 5 card majors. (3) No 5 card major; also... denies holding exactly 2 spades and 3 hearts. (4) Shows 4 spades. (5) Denies 3 or more spades. [A] Would you judge this explanations adequate? [B] If you are familiar with this version of Puppet Stayman or if you are logical, you can derive the inference that opener has exactly 4 hearts. Must you make this inference explicit? [C] Must you make this inference explicit, if one opponent is inexperienced and incapable of this deduction but the other, who asked you to explain the auction, is a pro. Initially, the pro was genuinely unclear about your system but you are sure he will deduce the 4-heart holding, automatically. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 4 12:17:32 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 4 Oct 2002 04:17:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <041002277.15453@webbox.com> Nigel wrote: > Thank you David for so charmingly vouchsafing > your pearls of wisdom. Sorry. It was late, and I'd spent most of the early morning looking at bugbears. > You are right: sometimes > I do fail to understand what point you are > making. That is not yet a crime, though perhaps... > You think a full explanation would take > too long. I don't know how long it would take; it would depend what the method being explained was. That's not why you're not entitled to one - you are. But what you are not entitled to do is to take it upon yourself to remedy, by extra-legal means, the opponents' deficiencies in respect of full disclosure (or in any other respect). > I was under the impression that I > was entitled to that by law; but all I actually > want is that at least those agreements likely > to be of practical help in the current bidding > or play problem be included in the explanation. The Law says: A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. Now, in a tournament for the championship of the world, it is "reasonable" to expect that your opponents will have spent some time studying your methods before they play against you. Those methods must be "fully disclosed" prior to the start of play, in order that they may be studied. If the WBF did not consider that the Italians had provided adequate disclosure, they were at liberty to say so. If a situation arose at the table in which a pair had been disadvantaged because of inadequate disclosure, the tournament director would apply the appropriate remedy. Somebody (probably Tim) asserted that if this had happened, the result would have been the same as it was when Kaplan asked his question. This may or may not have been so, but that is not the point. As in every other sport, it is the responsibility of the referee to determine what would have happened had the Law been followed; it is the responsibility of the players only to follow the Law. It is not, in fact, unlikely that had Kaplan not broken the Law, and had Kay been "disadvantaged" because of Avarelli's "deficient" explanation, an appeals committe would have taken the view that this was Kay's fault for not having prepared adequately before the match. Certainly, in the current "protect yourself" climate, he might very well have received short shrift from a director or a committee. And quite right too - if you are going to play a world championship, you have got to study the opponents' methods, not rely on your partner to tell you what they are by illegal means at the table. > You equate "communicating with partner" to > "asking an opponent to communicate with us both". No, I don't. Suppose I made a tape recording of the opponents' system, and when they made a conventional bid, I pressed the "Play" button. Now I would be asking a tape recorder to communicate with partner, instead of doing it myself. Do you think this is legal? > I accept this may well be the current legal > interpretation and as soon as I am convinced, > I will comply with it ...severe frost overnight, heavy snow later, maximum temperature minus six degrees Celsius. That is the end of the weather forecast for Hell. Back to the studio. > but if you are right > about this law, I believe it should be changed. ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 4 13:38:35 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 14:38:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> Message-ID: <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I have asked before about a explaining a common > kind of auction. Please can someone enlighten me? > 2N(1) - 3c(2) - > 3D(3) - 3h(4) - > 3NT(5) > (1) 20-22 4333/4432/5332 shape (any order) > (2) Asks for 5 card majors. > (3) No 5 card major; also... > denies holding exactly 2 spades and 3 hearts. I find it very remarkable that this would be added. I would not have problems with it not being added at that time but rather at some later stage. If no auction would happen in which this negative is not clear, then I would add it before the lead. But OK, let's suppose it's added at this stage. > (4) Shows 4 spades. > (5) Denies 3 or more spades. > [A] Would you judge this explanations adequate? Only just. I know it is easy to deduce that 4 hearts were shown, but I'd rather hear this said as well. I would not look kindly on bridge-lawyers who would answer : "they can deduce that for themselves". Which is also why I would not mind it not being said earlier and prefer it to be added at this later stage. > [B] If you are familiar with this version of > Puppet Stayman or if you are logical, you > can derive the inference that opener has > exactly 4 hearts. > Must you make this inference explicit? see above. I would say it, and so would many. Perhaps that is some standard. We know it, we tell it, even if it is inferrable. I believe the exemption that is in the laws is just there for overly clear cases, not to help bridge-lawyers mask their system by the word "inference". > [C] Must you make this inference explicit, if > one opponent is inexperienced and incapable > of this deduction but the other, who asked > you to explain the auction, is a pro. > Initially, the pro was genuinely unclear > about your system but you are sure he will > deduce the 4-heart holding, automatically. > Since I believe you should always say it, especially when asked, I think you should also (certainly) say it in reply to a pro-question. The fact that the pro is asking might well suggest that the inference is beyond his partner's capabilities. You are not obliged to say things that are "clear" to everyone, and this, apparently, is not clear to the beginner. You should explain to the beginner, and I will not rule against a "pro" who is merely trying to point out your legal obligations. To refuse to answer these questions is bridge-lawyering, IMO. Even if they are pro questions. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jimfox00@cox.net Fri Oct 4 14:46:07 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 9:46:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <20021004134607.WKPI1315.lakemtao04.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> > Herman De Wael wrote: > Since I believe you should always say it, especially when asked, I > think you should also (certainly) say it in reply to a pro-question. > The fact that the pro is asking might well suggest that the inference > is beyond his partner's capabilities. You are not obliged to say > things that are "clear" to everyone, and this, apparently, is not > clear to the beginner. You should explain to the beginner, and I will > not rule against a "pro" who is merely trying to point out your legal > obligations. > > To refuse to answer these questions is bridge-lawyering, IMO. > Even if they are pro questions. Mighten I simply ask the "pro" to come with me a short distance away from the table and explain the bid if I am uncomfortable about the "client" overhearing? Mmbridge From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Oct 4 15:23:54 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 14:23:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Virus Message-ID: Not snipped any of the following for a reason. See afterwards. >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Virus >Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:56:59 +0100 > >David Burn writes > >DWS wrote: > > > >>I have now received three emails from Steve that do not look > >real. > > > >>time for a full system scan, methinks. > > > >There is never time for one of those. Fortunately, you can find > >out rather more quickly whether you are likely to have the Bugbear > >virus: > > > >1 Run regedit (Start, Run, type "regedit") > >2 Click on the following in sequence: > > > >HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > >SOFTWARE > >Microsoft > >Windows > >Current Version > >RunOnce > > > >3 If this does not say: > > > >Name Data > >(Default) (value not set) > > It does. > > >then you (very probably) have been infected with Bugbear. > > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Okay, so that was David Burns entire posting, eight lines of signature (including picture of cat) and...er...what exactly was the message? "It does". Not much, is it? Firstly, I don't imagine that anyone cares what the contents of any individual contributor's Windows (TM) registry are. Secondly... "It is very irritating to download a post that either says nothing at all except for, "I agree!" or to download a post that appears to have 75 lines, and all it turns out to be is a repeated post that has your comment tacked onto the end, saying "I agree!" This gem comes from http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/nwby_faq.htm When I whinged last week about John Probst not snipping I received a polite note from Marvin L. French suggesting that such a flame should have been done by private e-mail. My not very convincing response was that it wasn't so much a flame as a good point made badly. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Marv might well have the same opinion of this posting. My defense on this occasion would be that someone who pontificates so frequently about the "netiquette" of others has no recourse should he, the biter, turn out, on occasion, to be bit... Norman Scorbie UK _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 4 15:55:10 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:55:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus References: Message-ID: <008301c26bb6$0a56b630$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Norman Scorbie" ........... > Not snipped any of the following for a reason. See afterwards. ........... > > >There is never time for one of those. Fortunately, you can find > > >out rather more quickly whether you are likely to have the Bugbear > > >virus: > > > > > >1 Run regedit (Start, Run, type "regedit") > > >2 Click on the following in sequence: > > > > > >HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > > >SOFTWARE > > >Microsoft > > >Windows > > >Current Version > > >RunOnce > > > > > >3 If this does not say: > > > > > >Name Data > > >(Default) (value not set) > > > > It does. .......... > Okay, so that was David Burns entire posting, eight lines of signature > (including picture of cat) and...er...what exactly was the message? > > "It does". > > Not much, is it? Firstly, I don't imagine that anyone cares what the > contents of any individual contributor's Windows (TM) registry are. > Secondly... > > "It is very irritating to download a post that either says nothing at all > except for, "I agree!" or to download a post that appears to have 75 lines, > and all it turns out to be is a repeated post that has your comment tacked > onto the end, saying "I agree!" While there are many postings which seem rather superfluous, I think your example here was not very well taken: The fact that the post you comment was by DWS, not by David Burns is a minor detail, but the essential fact is that DB adviced a procedure on how DWS could test for the precence of the BUGBEAR virus and DWS confirmed that his computer was clean while leaving the procedure available for anybody who might care to repeat that procedure on their own machine. I think this way of posting is rather commendable (if at all you want to give feedback on a received advice). We have a BUGBEAR virus on the loose within machines used for monitoring blml. At present I know for sure that the virus has been spread from such machines through dial-in nodes in the UK and in the Netherlands, and the sooner we can have those infected machines neutralized the better. One way to achieve this is to spread information on how to test, and which machine owners should be particularly on the alert. Personally I don't care at all to learn which machines have been infected, but I do hope that the affected owners recognise their positions and get their machines "cleaned" of the virus. regards Sven From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Oct 4 16:15:21 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: <041002277.15453@webbox.com> from "David Burn" at Oct 04, 2002 04:17:32 AM Message-ID: <200210041515.LAA25344@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> David Burn writes: > > > Nigel wrote: > > > I was under the impression that I > > was entitled to that by law; but all I actually > > want is that at least those agreements likely > > to be of practical help in the current bidding > > or play problem be included in the explanation. > > The Law says: > > A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected > to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use > of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the > sponsoring organisation. > > Now, in a tournament for the championship of the world, it is > "reasonable" to expect that your opponents will have spent some > time studying your methods before they play against you. Those > methods must be "fully disclosed" prior to the start of play, > in order that they may be studied. If the WBF did not consider > that the Italians had provided adequate disclosure, they were > at liberty to say so. If this is the case, it's a relatively new procedure. Remember Albuquerque? A Polish pair reached the last segment of the semi-finals before being held to have inadequately disclosed their methods. (Which expalins the savage penalty imposed, but does nothing for all of the previous matches.) I recall Kaplan reporting that the Poles had been informally approached on the matter and had assured everybody that what they had provided was complete. It wasn't. > If a situation arose at the table in which > a pair had been disadvantaged because of inadequate disclosure, > the tournament director would apply the appropriate remedy. > > Somebody (probably Tim) asserted that if this had happened, the > result would have been the same as it was when Kaplan asked his > question. This may or may not have been so, but that is not the > point. As in every other sport, it is the responsibility of the > referee to determine what would have happened had the Law been > followed; it is the responsibility of the players only to follow > the Law. > > It is not, in fact, unlikely that had Kaplan not broken the Law, > and had Kay been "disadvantaged" because of Avarelli's "deficient" > explanation, an appeals committe would have taken the view that > this was Kay's fault for not having prepared adequately before > the match. Certainly, in the current "protect yourself" climate, > he might very well have received short shrift from a director > or a committee. And quite right too - if you are going to play > a world championship, you have got to study the opponents' methods, > not rely on your partner to tell you what they are by illegal > means at the table. David that strikes me as a terribly dangerous attitude for an official to take. It creates an incentive to practice less than complete disclosure. This is *far* more dangerous to the game than the Kaplan question. Mind you, given screens and all exactly how do you ask a question for partner? A secondary issue is that in the case in question even if advance disclosure had included the Italian's system notes it's probable that Kay would not have known about what was going on. The hand in question was a system hole -- there was no systemic bid for the combination of strength and distribution. THere were maybe a half-dozen players in the world at the time who would have understood what was happening at the time. Kaplan was among them because he'd played quite a bit with Belladonna. And had of course spent a fair amount of time discussing bidding theory with him. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Oct 4 16:21:03 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:21:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Virus Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: "One way to achieve this is to spread information on how to test, and which machine owners should be particularly on the alert." The information on how to test for the virus was useful, and via the list the best way to spread it. SP: "Personally I don't care at all to learn which machines have been infected," And nor do I. SP: "but I do hope that the affected owners recognise their positions and get their machines "cleaned" of the virus." And so do I, but if everyone reports back to the list quoting the instructions in full with "It doesn't" tacked on at the end, it's going to lead to rather a lot of useless postings, isn't it? _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 4 16:48:21 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 08:48:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:21:03 -0000." Message-ID: <200210041548.IAA10792@mailhub.irvine.com> Oh, great, now a 2-word post with 27 lines of quoted material has led to a three-post, 58-line argument about whether a 2-word post with 27 lines of quoted material is appropriate. > And so do I, but if everyone reports back to the list quoting the > instructions in full with "It doesn't" tacked on at the end, it's going to > lead to rather a lot of useless postings, isn't it? Obviously it already has. -- Adam From bigfoot@dc.rr.com Fri Oct 4 17:43:30 2002 From: bigfoot@dc.rr.com (Irv Kostal) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> Message-ID: <004101c26bc5$2be2ac00$6501a8c0@irv> Perhaps my inferential machine is malfunctioning, but I don't see that four hearts can be inferred at all. I pick up my nice 3334 21 point hand, open 2N, rebid 3D (no 5 card major, or 2344), rebid 3N (don't have 4 spades). Presumably, with 3244, I would have responded 3N, not 3D, but my bidding seems perfectly consistent with a 3343 or 3334 pattern, and why couldn't I be 3424 or 2434? Just when, according to the explanations given below, did I show four hearts? If in fact I have shown 4 hearts the explanation is most definitely incomplete. Irv Kostal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > I have asked before about a explaining a common > kind of auction. Please can someone enlighten me? > 2N(1) - 3c(2) - > 3D(3) - 3h(4) - > 3NT(5) > (1) 20-22 4333/4432/5332 shape (any order) > (2) Asks for 5 card majors. > (3) No 5 card major; also... > denies holding exactly 2 spades and 3 hearts. > (4) Shows 4 spades. > (5) Denies 3 or more spades. > [A] Would you judge this explanations adequate? > [B] If you are familiar with this version of > Puppet Stayman or if you are logical, you > can derive the inference that opener has > exactly 4 hearts. > Must you make this inference explicit? > [C] Must you make this inference explicit, if > one opponent is inexperienced and incapable > of this deduction but the other, who asked > you to explain the auction, is a pro. > Initially, the pro was genuinely unclear > about your system but you are sure he will > deduce the 4-heart holding, automatically. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bigfoot@dc.rr.com Fri Oct 4 17:55:16 2002 From: bigfoot@dc.rr.com (Irv Kostal) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:55:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) (OOPS) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <004101c26bc5$2be2ac00$6501a8c0@irv> Message-ID: <005001c26bc6$d057b220$6501a8c0@irv> I see I owe the list an "oops" for not applying the information that 3N denied THREE spades, so it suddenly is clear to me. Is my error one that I "should" be held (at the table) accountable for? If I could make the mistake, then certainly relative beginners are capable of making it. Is this just the edge that better players have? Is that the way we want our game to be? Irv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irv Kostal" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > Perhaps my inferential machine is malfunctioning, but I don't see that four > hearts can be inferred at all. I pick up my nice 3334 21 point hand, open > 2N, rebid 3D (no 5 card major, or 2344), rebid 3N (don't have 4 spades). > Presumably, with 3244, I would have responded 3N, not 3D, but my bidding > seems perfectly consistent with a 3343 or 3334 pattern, and why couldn't I > be 3424 or 2434? Just when, according to the explanations given below, did I > show four hearts? If in fact I have shown 4 hearts the explanation is most > definitely incomplete. > > Irv Kostal > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:56 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > > > > I have asked before about a explaining a common > > kind of auction. Please can someone enlighten me? > > 2N(1) - 3c(2) - > > 3D(3) - 3h(4) - > > 3NT(5) > > (1) 20-22 4333/4432/5332 shape (any order) > > (2) Asks for 5 card majors. > > (3) No 5 card major; also... > > denies holding exactly 2 spades and 3 hearts. > > (4) Shows 4 spades. > > (5) Denies 3 or more spades. > > [A] Would you judge this explanations adequate? > > [B] If you are familiar with this version of > > Puppet Stayman or if you are logical, you > > can derive the inference that opener has > > exactly 4 hearts. > > Must you make this inference explicit? > > [C] Must you make this inference explicit, if > > one opponent is inexperienced and incapable > > of this deduction but the other, who asked > > you to explain the auction, is a pro. > > Initially, the pro was genuinely unclear > > about your system but you are sure he will > > deduce the 4-heart holding, automatically. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 4 20:35:30 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:35:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Virus References: Message-ID: <002101c26bdd$332cbe70$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Norman Scorbie" > Sven Pran wrote: > > "One way to achieve this is to spread information on how to test, and which > machine owners should be particularly on the alert." > > The information on how to test for the virus was useful, and via the list > the best way to spread it. > > SP: > "Personally I don't care at all to learn which machines have been infected," > > And nor do I. > > SP: > "but I do hope that the affected owners recognise their positions and get > their machines "cleaned" of the virus." > > And so do I, but if everyone reports back to the list quoting the > instructions in full with "It doesn't" tacked on at the end, it's going to > lead to rather a lot of useless postings, isn't it? I also did write: I think this way of posting is rather commendable (if at all you want to give feedback on a received advice). Please note this last clause. That particular thread started with DWS expressing he felt the need to perform a general scan and then being advised a simpler way of checking his machine for this particular infection. Although I don't think it was called for I do not mind him confirming the results of that test, but I certainly do not expect (or appreciate) if everybody else on this list clobber it with individual feedbacks. So far that has not been any "problem". (Let us just hope that the affected persons recognise the symptoms, have the guts to perform the test themselves, discover their infections and get rid of it - and keep quiet about it) regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 4 22:45:08 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? Message-ID: <200210042145.RAA19357@cfa183.harvard.edu> I wrote: > >This seems obvious and straightforward to me, and I don't see that > >L70A (which Petrus mentions later) affects the conclusion. > > > >It is interesting that David applies this reasoning here but is > >unwilling to do so in other contexts. > From: David Stevenson > That's fighting talk, mister! I have never been any good at guessing what will offend other people, and it appears I have done it again. I am not trying to pick a fight, but there is an inconsistency between the way David approaches this question and the way he has approached others. > The case Petrus refers to is covered by L70D. > > What similarity has this to some other case where I do not allow you > to use a Law that covers a particular case, pray? I am not sure what you want. My position is clear enough: if a given law does not cover a particular case, ignore that law and find a different law that covers the case at issue. I have no problem with the case above: L70C does not force us to award a trick to the outstanding trump, but L70D still applies. I also have no problem when dummy asks a defender about a possible revoke. L61B does not apply; L43A1 does apply. David seemed to find this difficult. I also have no problem when a player looks at an opponent's convention card other than at his own turn. L40E2 does not apply, but L73B1 may very well apply. So may L16, and I suppose there may be other laws that apply as well, depending on circumstances. Here David seems to think L40E2 does apply, in spite of the circumstances for it not being met. I find this inconsistent. I'm about to leave on a business trip, so please do not expect a quick response, should one be necessary. From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:28:36 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:28:36 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) In-Reply-To: <010001c26b74$4f52ccc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <010001c26b74$4f52ccc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L. French writes >I just received this message from "myself" in the Netherlands. Anyone >know what's happening here? See info which I pasted on at the bottom. It is because of the virus going around. When one of my cats received emails from you and Grattan I decided something was strange! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:28:47 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: <8DBF35B0-D6D4-11D6-B506-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >> Gordon Rainsford >> On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Jrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >> >> > Law 16 contains the famous phrase >> > >> > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions >> > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another >> > by the extraneous information." (A) >> > >> > Suppose it were written thus: >> > >> > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested >> > by the extraneous information." (B) >> > >> > Are the two formulations equivalent? >> >> No >> >> > If not, what is the >> > difference? >> >> In the latter formulation one would be prohibited from doing something >> suggested by the UI, even if it were the only logical thing to do. One >> would be required to do something silly every time the only sensible >> course of action had been suggested by partner's UI. > >Yes, (B) implies that - but so does (A). > >(A) says I must either choose a logical alternative that cannot have been >suggested or >an illogical alternative (even if suggested). So, choose an LA that cannot have been suggested - wtp? --------------- Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >> David Burn >> True. But your formulation (B), as Gordon points out, compels you to do >> something silly if everything sensible is suggested in some way by UI. >Yes it does, and so does (A). > >To me it seems that 'to choose from among alternative actions' is >a clumsy and pretentious way of saying 'to choose an action'. >'Alternative' seems not crucial but redundant. - Similarly 'over another'. >If there is no alternative then there is no choice. 'over another' is helpful, and is an unfortunate omission from [B]. It is not just saying there are alternatives, but that the UI is suggesting one 'over another'. >The meaning does change if the word 'logical' is left in, since now (A) >explicitly allows illogical actions. This seems to be roughly the >opposite of the intended meaning. > >Finally, the word 'demonstrably' is troublesome: The suggestion is never >demonstrable and, therefore, if a demonstration were required then >all actions would be allowed. That is not true. Things are usually demonstrable, and it makes the whole Law more sensible if interpreted ina helpful fashion. >> The things you have missed out from your formulation are the crucial >> words "alternative" and "over another". If there is no logical >> alternative to an action X, then you may take action X even if it could >> have been suggested by the UI; the view then is that the action was not >> in fact suggested by the UI, but by the contents of your hand (and any >> AI in your possession). If there are a number of logical alternatives >> X1, X2...Xn, then you may not take any of those actions that could have >> been suggested instead of ("over") any of the others by the UI; you may >> choose freely from among those actions that are suggested only by the >> contents of your hand and by AI. >> >> In practice, it is rare to find so many logical alternative actions that >> they fall into two sets (those not suggested by UI and those suggested >> by it) with more than one member, but it could happen. >This is the problem, isn't it? An argument can nearly always be made that >any particular logical alternative 'could have been suggested', and a >demonstration (a proof) is never available. A demonstration is not a proof, which is why we use the word 'demonstrable' and not the word 'proven'. Application of this Law depends on judgement, but unlike some Laws this one works well if treated with common sense. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:28:55 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:28:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: <4A256C47.00144093.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C47.00144093.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RH writes >Ron Johnson wrote: >>Well to be fair it seems plausible that some people see >>Kaplan's logic as license to ask the "pro question". And >>the pro question is a very Bad Thing. It may be that the >>Lille declaration is something of a lesser of two evils -- >>though I confess I don't see it. >I propose to define a few terms here: > >1. Kaplan question = Questioning opponents who have given > MI to pard by an inadequate > explanation, even though you know > the correct answer, in order to > avoid unpleasantness of later TD and > AC ruling (and also avoiding possible > incorrect TD and AC determination of > consequent damage caused by the MI). > >2. Pro question = Questioning opponents, even when you > know the correct answer, because > pard is too timid to ask their own > questions. > >3. Mordor question = "Does your 1C opening _really_ show > length in clubs?" when holding a good > hand with long clubs. > >The Mordor question is an obvious violation of L16, so the >WBF Lille declaration is superfluous in guiding a TD to a >ruling on such a land-of-shadow question. > >However, the Lille declaration was aimed at outlawing >option 2 - the Pro question - which is not an obvious >violation of L16, and so therefore required a special WBF >official interpretation of the Laws. I did not realise anyone was suggesting it as a violation of L16, though I suppose it is. However, it is the breach of L73A1 that worries me in all three cases. The problem with allowing the Kaplan question is that people assume it was OK because Kaplan did it, judging correctly that neither opponent would mind, and also judging correctly that it would do more good than harm in this particular case. But the moment you allow it people will do it without Kaplan's judgement, and will tell partner what to do - legally. --------- RH writes >In the meantime, what is clear is that a >question asking an opponent, "Could you please >provide a more comprehensive explanation?" is >not necessarily a communication about your >cards to your partner. Of course it is not necessarily! But the worry is that certain people are communicating in such a way. And allowing the pro question or the Kaplan question will permit such communication legally, in defiance of L73A1. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:29:23 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:29:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >The deeper point is this: Once you have a profusion of regulations that are >not based on easily understood principles, that define fair play in a way >often at odds with common perceptions, and when there is an enforcer present >at all >times, then you will find people ignoring the common proprieties and begin >lawyering. Fortunately that is not the way the game is going. >If you are interested in the survival of this dying game make the >rules as simple as possible - they will still be complicated - and keep the >TD out of the game as much as possible. Absolutely not. The strongest arguments I have ever heard have started with the words "I am not going to call the Director, but ..." By keeping the TD out of the game you increases unfriendliness, bad ethics, downright cheating and frustration. You try playing International Football with no officials! The game is far fairer, better, and more friendly if the TD sorts out problems. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:30:21 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:30:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> References: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie writes >Marvin L. French: > It is not difficult to spot the infraction > when a pro questions the meaning of a call > and the TD is certain that s/he knew the answer. >Nigel: > It is hard to be sure what a player knows; > and wrong to impugn his motives. > As an ordinary punter, I always ask meanings > and even non-alerted calls ussually have > hidden surprises; for example (Welsh Teams) > (P) P (1H) 2C; > (2S) End > I asked for an explanation of the auction; > Dummy told me I was not entitled to ask; > I called the director; > Dummy protested that he was not here to teach > me Bridge. The TD asked Dummy to humour me. > Dummy correctly said his partner had 10-11 HCP, > exactly 5 spades and precisely 3 hearts. > Robson and Segal might accept Dummy's logic > given that opponents played weak twos; and > I confess I did suspect some kind of FNJ but > it still came as a revelation to my partner. > I can see much benefit and no harm in asking > such questions. It is ineffectual to call the > director after play. Opponents may not then > admit to their agreements, especially if > undiscussed; and an adverse ruling is likely to > cause spurious offence. IMO the law is an ass. If 2S shows three hearts then it was definitely alertable. If dummy had said he was not there to teach the opponents bridge when he had that sort of information concealed then I would have hit him with a PP of a full board. OK, your TD was not strict enough. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:30:44 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:30:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >> From: "Sven Pran" >> >> > > Why do we apply 27B2 rather than 25B1? >> > >> > Because the footnote to Law 25B1 tells you to >> > apply Law 27 (rather than Law 25B1) when the >> > original bid was insufficient. >> > >> >> I know but this looks absurd (to me, at least). >> Suppose that the TD is not summoned >> until the end of the auction. >> It would mean that that all calls following >> Michal's LHO double and the double itself >> are cancelled - this makes no sense to >> me. Also it would mean that while you >> are allowed to accept an insufficient bid >> (1NT) and you are allowed to accept >> the change of call (say RHO bids 2NT >> and then changes it to 2S) but >> you are not allowed to accept >> a change of an insuffiecient bid >> (1NT changed to 2S). That would >> be odd. > >As I wrote in a separate post: The consequence >of a violation to Law 9 is not automatic but a matter >of judgement by the Director. > >If the auction continued to the end before the >Director was summoned this is something that >should influence his judgement, and in a case >like that I would most likely tend to let the >auction stand with no "correction". > >The fact that an insufficient bid prematurely >corrected by the offender shall be handled >under law 27 and not under Law 25B1 is >(probably) because the offending side has >now added another offence to the first, and >Law 27 as far as I can see places the non- >offending side in a better position than they >would be subject to law 25B1. > >The offending side shall not under any >circumstance be allowed to improve their >position after an offence by violating Law 9B2 Let us get this straight. Both sides are at fault for not calling the TD. Someone who does not understand the Laws may have done something stupid here. Now, why should we be on anyone's side? Why should we try to benefit one side who are just as at fault? If you cancel the double and replace it by a pass then you have penalised one side for their ignorance of the Law and given their opponents the benefit. Would the player have bid 2S if he had known it would silence pd? The failure to follow L9 is bad, sure, but we should not penalise one side and give their opponents the benefit. How about L11A? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:30:03 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:30:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021002160936.00abd6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021002160936.00abd6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >In a case that happened a short time after Lille, a well-fitted pair was >given a single word as explanation on one side of the screen, a complete >explanation on the other side. They messed the ensuing sequence. The >Director in charge of the Championships (no TD available at the table in >Belgium) decided that the player who was given the one-word answer failed >to protect himself by asking for a full explanation. I take this as meaning >one should ask. Without commenting on your specific case, but as a general remark, it is accepted that people have a greater responsibility to protect themselves by questions when playing with screens, precisely because all the UI problems of questions are removed. >The ensuing story : the case went to the highest level, where the Committee >delivered the worst decision I've ever heard of. Did you ever hear about >keeping *part* of the deposit ? As part of an AC who did just that in South Wales, yes. Of course, both the WBU L&EC and the EBU L&EC were properly scathing! There was also a case in Lille, where there was general agreement that the AC did the right thing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:30:58 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:30:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >Law 16 contains the famous phrase > >"...may not choose from among logical alternative actions >one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another >by the extraneous information." (A) > >Suppose it were written thus: > >"...may not choose an action that could have been suggested >by the extraneous information." (B) > >Are the two formulations equivalent? If not, what is the >difference? Suppose I open 1S and partner responds a forcing 3S, saying "I have the values for game". Now, any call except Pass is suggested by the UI. However, Pass is not an LA since 3S is forcing, so bidding 4S [eg] is not illegal. Yes, it is suggested by the UI, but there is no LA that is not. Using your wording, all actions except Pass are illegal, which is clearly wrong when 3S is forcing. Take another even sillier case. As he bids 3S your partner says "I do hope Jürgen calls again because any call he makes will lead to a good board for us." Now your Law would make *every* call you could make illegal! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 13:45:14 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:45:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> Thanks for sending me a couple of headers, they all appear to be from >> 195.92.0.0/16 which is Energis UK. >> >> Their CTO of Energis is going to get a phonecall from me in the morning. >> (Or do you want me to call him at home right now ;-) >I've contacted Energis and they got more complaints about this address, >they are now trying to find out if this is one of their users or somebody >spoofing the address (and will, in the former case, take appropriate >action). I have heard of Bugbear on the radio news - apparently it is nasty. Ian Muir asks me to point out he has had emails containing the virus from Ed as well as Steve. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 4 23:16:47 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:16:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <001a01c26b69$130889e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 10/4/02, Sven Pran wrote: >It may interest you to learn that at the tests for a director's >licence in Norway we disqualify any candidate who makes his/her >ruling(s) from memory rather than looking up the laws even if the >ruling in question happens to be correct! I'm not surprised. Certainly more enlightened than the ACBL approach. :-) From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 23:31:51 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 23:31:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? In-Reply-To: <200210042145.RAA19357@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200210042145.RAA19357@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes >I wrote: >> >This seems obvious and straightforward to me, and I don't see that >> >L70A (which Petrus mentions later) affects the conclusion. >> > >> >It is interesting that David applies this reasoning here but is >> >unwilling to do so in other contexts. > >> From: David Stevenson >> That's fighting talk, mister! > >I have never been any good at guessing what will offend other people, >and it appears I have done it again. I am not trying to pick a fight, >but there is an inconsistency between the way David approaches this >question and the way he has approached others. I am not offended, merely puzzled. >> The case Petrus refers to is covered by L70D. >> >> What similarity has this to some other case where I do not allow you >> to use a Law that covers a particular case, pray? > >I am not sure what you want. My position is clear enough: if a given >law does not cover a particular case, ignore that law and find a >different law that covers the case at issue. I have no problem with >the case above: L70C does not force us to award a trick to the >outstanding trump, but L70D still applies. > >I also have no problem when dummy asks a defender about a possible >revoke. L61B does not apply; L43A1 does apply. David seemed to find >this difficult. Not at all. >I also have no problem when a player looks at an opponent's convention >card other than at his own turn. L40E2 does not apply, but L73B1 may >very well apply. So may L16, and I suppose there may be other laws >that apply as well, depending on circumstances. Here David seems to >think L40E2 does apply, in spite of the circumstances for it not being >met. I find this inconsistent. L40E2 makes it clear that you may not look at your CC when it is not your turn, so other Laws are irrelevant. When a Law covers a situation then I am happy to use it. WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 4 23:39:42 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 23:39:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> I have asked before about a explaining a common >> kind of auction. Please can someone enlighten me? >> 2N(1) - 3c(2) - >> 3D(3) - 3h(4) - >> 3NT(5) >> (1) 20-22 4333/4432/5332 shape (any order) >> (2) Asks for 5 card majors. >> (3) No 5 card major; also... >> denies holding exactly 2 spades and 3 hearts. > >I find it very remarkable that this would be added. I would not have >problems with it not being added at that time but rather at some later >stage. If no auction would happen in which this negative is not >clear, then I would add it before the lead. It is part of the meaning of 3D, and not to say it is not acceptable. I am surprised you are advocating hiding part of the agreed system, and can only deduce that I have misunderstood. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 5 00:35:06 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:35:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> Message-ID: <004001c26c03$f20041c0$249868d5@default> [Nigel ] > (P) P (1H) 2C; > (2S) End > Dummy protested that he was not here to teach > me Bridge. The TD asked Dummy to humour me. > Dummy correctly said his partner had 10-11 HCP, > exactly 5 spades and precisely 3 hearts. [David Stevenson] If 2S shows three hearts then it was definitely alertable. If dummy had said he was not there to teach the opponents bridge when he had that sort of information concealed then I would have hit him with a PP of a full board. [Nigel] IMO, Robson and Segal would defend Dummy and say that 2S was completely natural, in context. Their only quibble might be that it should show four rather than three hearts. Although I agree with you that it is a completely wrong to expect opponents to be familiar with your "general bridge knowledge and experience" even if that is what the fabulous laws prescribe. From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 5 02:17:04 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 02:17:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Norman Scorbie writes >Not snipped any of the following for a reason. See afterwards. snip > >When I whinged last week about John Probst not snipping I received a polite >note from Marvin L. French suggesting that such a flame should have been >done by private e-mail. > I didn't mind the flame at all, it was perfectly reasonable. I've worked out however why I prefer more rather than less. I sit in front of my PC for about 8-10 hours in 24 and read most messages as they arrive. Hence whilst I will know what a thread is about I will have no context for an over-abbreviated reply. I therefore leave as much in the post as is necessary for it to be a coherent whole when read in isolation. >My not very convincing response was that it wasn't so much a flame as a good >point made badly. > yeah, that is about how I'd describe it. I'd still prefer more though :) john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 5 04:07:19 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 23:07:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/4/02, David Stevenson wrote: > Ian Muir asks me to point out he has had emails containing the virus >from Ed as well as Steve. If by Ed you mean me, that's very interesting, considering I'm running Mac OS 9.1, and not any version of Windows. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 5 04:33:36 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 04:33:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) (OOPS) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <004101c26bc5$2be2ac00$6501a8c0@irv> <005001c26bc6$d057b220$6501a8c0@irv> Message-ID: <00db01c26c20$c1bdf440$249868d5@default> Irv Kostal: Is this just the edge that better players have? Is that the way we want our game to be? Nigel: This the game that bridge lawyers seem to think that we want because it is certainly the game we are getting while we allow the explainer to withhold all inferences derived from his "General Bridge Knowledge & Experience". The law also encourages the explainer to refuse to answer questions by an expert at all on a self-serving and subjective suspicion about his motives; or, to give the expert sophisticated answers that the expert's less experienced partner can't possibly understand. A partial remedy may be to wait until partner has finished asking questions and then to ask all the same questions again, together with any necessary follow-ups. I fear however that, usually, a secretive opponent will still thwart you by rationalising his obfuscation as coming under that "General Bridge Knowledge & Experience" umbrella. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 5 06:40:33 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 06:40:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus - please don't ignore this References: Message-ID: <001501c26c31$b94fb080$549227d9@pbncomputer> On 10/4/02, David Stevenson wrote: > Ian Muir asks me to point out he has had emails containing the virus > from Ed as well as Steve. He hasn't. He has had emails containing the virus that appear to have come from someone called Ed Reppert, just as we have all had messages purporting to have come from Steve and from Marvin. But, as I have mentioned before, viruses of this kind almost always "spoof" the From field: that is, they select a name from the address book of the infected user. Please can we try not to point out that we have "had emails containing the virus from X" just because they appear to have come from X. In addition to spoofing the From field, Bugbear does something relatively unusual, which is to select a random subject line and even part of an actual message from the mailbox of the infected user. This makes its messages look even more plausible, because instead of being called the usual things like "update" or "Get a FREE gift!", they are called "flaw in L70?" or even "Virus - please don't ignore this". While messages containing the virus can of course be received by anyone, the virus can infect only machines running Internet Explorer version 5.01 or version 5.5 without the security patch that can be found at: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/secur ity/bulletin/MS01-027.asp If you are using either of these versions of Explorer, I suggest either that you upgrade to IE6, or that you install the above patch as a matter of some urgency. And, of course, please keep your anti-virus software up to date, and continue to take your usual care when opening email! David Burn London, England From jurgenr@t-online.de Sat Oct 5 11:32:10 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 12:32:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: Freitag, 4. Oktober 2002 14:31 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] L16 > > > Jürgen Rennenkampff writes > >Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > > >"...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > >one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > >by the extraneous information." (A) > > > >Suppose it were written thus: > > > >"...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > >by the extraneous information." (B) > > > >Are the two formulations equivalent? If not, what is the > >difference? > > Suppose I open 1S and partner responds a forcing 3S, saying "I have > the values for game". > > Now, any call except Pass is suggested by the UI. > However, Pass is > not an LA since 3S is forcing, so bidding 4S [eg] is not illegal. Yes, > it is suggested by the UI, but there is no LA that is not. That depends on the agreement, on responder's memory, and the hand. If the agreement is, say, 3S invitational, or if responder has forgotten the gf meaning, then Pass may be an LA, depending on the holding. But suppose both players remember the gf agreement, then responder wasn't told anything he didn't already know, hence no new Info, hence no UI. > > Using your wording, all actions except Pass are illegal, which is > clearly wrong when 3S is forcing. The point I am trying to make is that the formulation (A) can have this very effect, namely that no reasonable bid remains that might not have been suggested. On close reading (A) can be understood to mean that when, in the absence of UI, there is only one reasonable bid and that bid could be suggested by UI, then the bid is disallowed. - Apparently David Burn and others read (A) to exclude the case where there is only one reasonable bid ('over another', 'from among'). Of course, this is the intended meaning. The real weakness of the statement is that it implies nonsense when there are several alternatives, each of which 'could have been suggested'. I am not proposing (B) as the 'right' formulation. (A) is definitely muddy and open to unintended interpretation. The wording should be improved. Is it possible that you are so used to the statement and the reasonable interpretations that you no longer see how imprecise it really is? > > Take another even sillier case. As he bids 3S your partner says "I do > hope Jürgen calls again because any call he makes will lead to a good > board for us." Now your Law would make *every* call you could make > illegal! Why? There is no more UI in this statement than in the statement "I hope the Sun will rise tomorrow". > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Oct 5 12:00:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 13:00:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> Hello David, David Stevenson wrote: >>>(3) No 5 card major; also... >>> denies holding exactly 2 spades and 3 hearts. >>> >>I find it very remarkable that this would be added. I would not have >>problems with it not being added at that time but rather at some later >>stage. If no auction would happen in which this negative is not >>clear, then I would add it before the lead. >> > > It is part of the meaning of 3D, and not to say it is not acceptable. > I am surprised you are advocating hiding part of the agreed system, and > can only deduce that I have misunderstood. > Not really, David. I don't advocate hiding it, and I would perhaps also add it when it would be my system, but saying too much is also not very helpful. Which is why I would not mind if my opponents did not tell me this on the first round (it's hardly helpful, is it ?) but add it on the second, when it becomes a possibility. After all, if the bidding goes differently, and partner shows 4 of a suit somewhere, it's hardly necessary to add that it denied 2 of that suit in the previous round, is it. So I do not advocate omitting it, but I would not rule against someone who did. Always provided the inference is told explicitely when it becomes a real possibility. Do you understand what I mean ? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Oct 5 13:57:44 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 14:57:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 12:32:10 +0200, jurgenr@t-online.de (J=FCrgen Rennenkampff) wrote: >The point I am trying to make is that the formulation (A) can have this >very effect, namely that no reasonable bid remains that might not have >been suggested. On close reading (A) can be understood to mean >that when, in the absence of UI, there is only one reasonable bid and = that >bid could be suggested by UI, then the bid is disallowed. I don't understand that. (A) is, if I haven't misunderstood this thread, the current law. If there is only one logical action, then that action cannot be "demonstrably suggested over another", since there is no "other". And the one logical action is therefore legal. Also, if action X is demonstrably suggested over action Y, then obviously action Y cannot at the same be time be demonstrably suggested over action X. There is therefore always at least one legal action among the "logical alternative actions". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 4 05:18:28 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:18:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C48.001663BA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >It is hard to be sure what a player knows; If it is hard to determine whether an infraction has occurred, it does *not* mean that the only logical conclusion is that the WBF should therefore change the Laws to legalise the infraction. >and wrong to impugn his motives. Determining that a player has committed an infraction does *not* usually impugn the player's motives. (Except in some very rare situations such as determining that a partnership has used finger signals.) >As an ordinary punter, I always ask meanings >and even non-alerted calls usually have >hidden surprises; for example (Welsh Teams) >(P) P (1H) 2C; >(2S) End >I asked for an explanation of the auction; >Dummy told me I was not entitled to ask; >I called the director; >Dummy protested that he was not here to teach >me Bridge. The TD asked Dummy to humour me. >Dummy correctly said his partner had 10-11 HCP, >exactly 5 spades and precisely 3 hearts. >Robson and Segal might accept Dummy's logic >given that opponents played weak twos; and >I confess I did suspect some kind of FNJ but >it still came as a revelation to my partner. [snip] The defender on opening lead asking for an explanation of the entire auction just before selecting their choice of opening lead seems eminently proper. Similarly, after opening leader has selected a face down lead, but before the card is faced, the other defender asking for an explanation of the entire auction also seems eminently proper. *If* the WBF intends to incorporate its Lille interpretation in the 2005 Laws, perhaps the WBF could list the two situations described above as exceptions. Do I hear a *noted* from Grattan? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 5 14:18:30 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:18:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 References: Message-ID: <001101c26c71$b31901e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>The point I am trying to make is that the formulation (A) can have this >>very effect, namely that no reasonable bid remains that might not have >>been suggested. On close reading (A) can be understood to mean >>that when, in the absence of UI, there is only one reasonable bid and that >>bid could be suggested by UI, then the bid is disallowed. >I don't understand that. (A) is, if I haven't misunderstood this >thread, the current law. If there is only one logical action, >then that action cannot be "demonstrably suggested over another", >since there is no "other". And the one logical action is >therefore legal. This is correct >Also, if action X is demonstrably suggested over action Y, then >obviously action Y cannot at the same be time be demonstrably >suggested over action X. There is therefore always at least one >legal action among the "logical alternative actions". But this is not. The laws say "could have been suggested" As both alternatives X and Y in a particular situation "could have been suggested" there are (at least in theory) cases where both alternatives can be deemed illegal even if no alternative other than these two exists. In such cases the Director will have no choice but to rule (post mortem) as if the least successful (for the offending side) of X and Y should have been chosen. Note: I am talking (legal) theory here, I have no practical example to show. Sven From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Oct 5 17:13:21 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 18:13:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <001101c26c71$b31901e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <001101c26c71$b31901e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:18:30 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>Also, if action X is demonstrably suggested over action Y, then >>obviously action Y cannot at the same be time be demonstrably >>suggested over action X. There is therefore always at least one >>legal action among the "logical alternative actions". > >But this is not. The laws say "could have been suggested" >As both alternatives X and Y in a particular situation "could >have been suggested" there are (at least in theory) cases >where both alternatives can be deemed illegal even if no >alternative other than these two exists. I admit that I should not have used the word "obviously" ... but I still mean the rest of what I said: The law does not just say "could have been suggested". It also says "over another", and "demonstrably". X and Y can easily both be suggested, but not so easily over one another. I agree that the vagueness in the "could have" wording might lead to a situation where X and Y could be considered to "*could have* been suggested over one another". The WBFLC added the word "demonstrably" in 1997, possibly in order to prevent such interpretations. If L16A were only a matter of formal logic in isolation from the rest of the laws, then I think you would be right: the effect of "demonstrably" does not, in theory, necessarily quite eliminate the effect of "could have" - though I think it does in practice. But L16A exists in the context of the rest of the laws. If L16A in certain situations made _all_ calls illegal, then it would be in conflict with L17. Since the part of L17 that tells us to call in a clockwise rotation is a quite essential part of the laws that can hardly be interpreted in any other way, the correct interpretation of L16A must be one that always allows at least one legal call. >there are (at least in theory) cases >where both alternatives can be deemed illegal even if no >alternative other than these two exists. In such cases the >Director will have no choice but to rule (post mortem) as if >the least successful (for the offending side) of X and Y >should have been chosen. The primary purpose of L16A is not to say what the director should do afterwards, but to tell the players what they may do. If you only look at the matter afterwards, it might be easy, though IMO far from reasonable, to say "We'll adjust no matter what call he chose". But what would you do if a player called you and said "I have a problem: my RHO has just bid, but I don't think there any call that it would be legal for me to make now"? You can hardly insist that he must make a call even though any call is an illegal action. So an interpretation that makes all calls illegal does not make sense in the context of the rest of the laws. >Note: I am talking (legal) theory here, I have no practical >example to show. Exactly. I think that the L16A wording is correct in all practical circumstances, and that the requirement for consistency makes it clear that there must always be some legal call. If you did succeed in devising an example where both of the only logical actions X and Y seemed to be forbidden by L16A, my answer in practice would undoubtedly be "Since L17 requires the player to make some call, this means that in this case the requirements of the word 'demonstrably' must be interpreted so strictly that either X or Y (and probably both) are legal". But of course it might be a good idea to mention explicitly in a coming L16A that there is always at least one legal call. It is IMO always a good idea for a TD or AC to remember that there must be some legal call. I.e., if you find the actual call made illegal, then check that there is an alternative that you would not also find illegal; if that is not the case, then you should probably consider the actual call legal after all. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Oct 5 17:54:33 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 18:54:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:30:44 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > If you cancel the double and replace it by a pass then you have >penalised one side for their ignorance of the Law and given their >opponents the benefit. Would the player have bid 2S if he had known it >would silence pd? > > The failure to follow L9 is bad, sure, but we should not penalise one >side and give their opponents the benefit. How about L11A? I have just been asked (outside BLML) for an example where the last part of L11A is used. I think this is a perfect example. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 5 18:30:50 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:30:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C48.001663BA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <010801c26c94$fb505260$249868d5@default> Nigel: It is hard to be sure what a player knows; and wrong to impugn his motives. Richard Hills: Determining that a player has committed an infraction does *not* usually impugn the player's motives. (Except in some very rare situations such as determining that a partnership has used finger signals.) Nigel: Surely, here the infraction IS his motive? If your motive in asking for an explanation is your partner's benefit then you commit an infraction? If for your own benefit then not? Or is this yet another case where a law's interpretation differs from its normal English meaning? At the end of the auction, I always ask for BOTH partner's and my benefit. Have I been unwittingly flouting the law? Unless you are a telepath like Marvin French how can you tell what my motives are anyway? From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 5 18:28:38 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:28:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" >David Stevenson wrote: >> If you cancel the double and replace it by a pass then you have >>penalised one side for their ignorance of the Law and given their >>opponents the benefit. Would the player have bid 2S if he had known it >>would silence pd? >> >> The failure to follow L9 is bad, sure, but we should not penalise one >>side and give their opponents the benefit. How about L11A? >I have just been asked (outside BLML) for an example where the >last part of L11A is used. >I think this is a perfect example. I think the Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen has the best example: "The declarer is on lead, the dummy is good, but he has no entry to the dummy. Declarer leads a card from dummy (the wrong hand) and the next player carelessly follows. The side that carelessly condoned the lead from the wrong hand must keep its score. The side that committed the irregularity should have its score reduced because the declarer could have known at the time of the infraction that it was advantageous for his side to lead from the wrong hand." I am not quite convinced that this reasoning can reasonably and unconditionally be applied to the premature pass by non-offending side in the case we have been discussing. I still feel that I shall have more tolerance for inexperienced players than for experienced player in cases like this. And don't forget that Law11A includes the word "may" (be forfeited) in its first clause. This allows the Director to apply some judgement (except when the conditions in the second clause are also satisfied). Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 5 19:31:05 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:31:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <013701c26c9d$bb864780$249868d5@default> [David Burn] Suppose I made a tape recording of the opponents' system, and when they made a conventional bid, I pressed the "Play" button. Now I would be asking a tape recorder to communicate with partner, instead of doing it myself. Do you think this is legal? [Nigel] If the law entitles us to this information, I can see no possible logical or moral objection. [David ] ...severe frost overnight, heavy snow later, maximum temperature minus six degrees Celsius. That is the end of the weather forecast for Hell. Back to the studio. [Nigel] You Grattan, David Stevenson, Marvin et al often convince me that the law is as you say. "Fas est ab hoste doceri." Arrhh! the you have turned ghostly white and have started to splinter into crystal shards. [Nigel] If so, I believe [this law] should be changed. [David] "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam". [Nigel] I don't want to destroy all the laws, just rationalize, simpify, or remove some (such as this one). "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Oct 5 19:36:39 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 20:36:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:28:38 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal"=20 >>I have just been asked (outside BLML) for an example where the >>last part of L11A is used. > >I think the Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 >by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen=20 > >has the best example: > >"The declarer is on lead, the dummy is good, but he has no entry to the >dummy. Declarer leads a card from dummy (the wrong hand) and the >next player carelessly follows. The side that carelessly condoned the >lead from the wrong hand must keep its score. The side that committed >the irregularity should have its score reduced because the declarer = could >have known at the time of the infraction that it was advantageous for = his >side to lead from the wrong hand." But is this really a matter for L11? I don't think so. In the 1987 laws, there was a L11B that could probably cover this case. But in the 1997 laws, it seems to me that L11A is (only) about the situation where the TD is not called immediately after attention has been called to an irregularity (i.e., when there is a violation of L9B1a). This is not the case here, since attention has not been called to the lead from the wrong hand. Under the 1997 laws, the example from the Commentary can be handled by L72B1 (which, however, does not allow adjusting for one side only). >And don't forget that Law11A includes the word "may" (be forfeited) in >its first clause. This allows the Director to apply some judgement = (except >when the conditions in the second clause are also satisfied). Yes. But the case with the insufficient bid is precisely a case of the second clause, because, as David pointed out, "LHO" has bid 2S without knowing that his partner would be forced to pass. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 5 20:32:35 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:32:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <00c101c26a1f$8d1bb950$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" >"Sven Pran" wrote: >>I think the Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 >>by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen >> >>has the best example: >> >>"The declarer is on lead, the dummy is good, but he has no entry to the >>dummy. Declarer leads a card from dummy (the wrong hand) and the >>next player carelessly follows. The side that carelessly condoned the >>lead from the wrong hand must keep its score. The side that committed >>the irregularity should have its score reduced because the declarer could >>have known at the time of the infraction that it was advantageous for his >>side to lead from the wrong hand." >But is this really a matter for L11? I don't think so. That is where I found this example. >In the 1987 laws, there was a L11B that could probably cover this >case. True, but the old Law11B was more or less redundant after law11A. Incidently, the 1987 Law11B left the Director no option to use his judgement if the "action" by offender's LHO was a call or a play. I take the removal of this law a strong indication that under the current laws the Director is indeed supposed to use his judgement in such cases. >But in the 1997 laws, it seems to me that L11A is (only) about >the situation where the TD is not called immediately after >attention has been called to an irregularity (i.e., when there is >a violation of L9B1a). This is not the case here, since >attention has not been called to the lead from the wrong hand. Law 11A neither said nor says anything about calling attention to the irregularity, it applies just as much to ANY action by non- offending side after an irregularity has taken place (whether or not attention has been called to the irregularity). >Under the 1997 laws, the example from the Commentary can be >handled by L72B1 (which, however, does not allow adjusting for >one side only). Law72B1 need not allow for unbalanced adjustments, that is provided for in Law12C2 to which you proceed from Law72B1. >>And don't forget that Law11A includes the word "may" (be forfeited) in >>its first clause. This allows the Director to apply some judgement (except >>when the conditions in the second clause are also satisfied). >Yes. But the case with the insufficient bid is precisely a case >of the second clause, because, as David pointed out, "LHO" has >bid 2S without knowing that his partner would be forced to pass. How can you be sure he didn't know? And how can you tell that the non-offending side "may have gained" through the action (call) by offender's LHO after the premature corrective bid of 2S by the offender? This is the way I read Law11A the condition for disallowing the Director to use judgement. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 5 22:07:16 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:07:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 Message-ID: <014001c26cb3$4600d280$249868d5@default> Jesper Dybdal: It is IMO always a good idea for a TD or AC to remember that there must be some legal call. I.e., if you find the actual call made illegal, then check that there is an alternative that you would not also find illegal; if that is not the case, then you should probably consider the actual call legal after all. Nigel: 1H (4C) ...X (P); ? Partner makes a slow double. Your agreement is "Sputnik to 3S" and above that "Cards". Suppose that your only logical alternatives are "Pass" and "4D" and you choose the successful one (say 4D). Surely none can disagree with Jürgen Rennenkampff and Jesper Dybdal, that the TD should not judge your "4D" illegal, unless he would give you a clean bill of health for "Pass". That seems to make sense, especially as, at club level and above, hesitations are more likely to suggest a pass than a bid. But is that how the law is actually interpreted? From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Oct 5 22:11:17 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 23:11:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:32:35 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>But is this really a matter for L11? I don't think so. > >That is where I found this example. Yes, but that was in a commentary on the 1987 laws. At that time, there was no law like the current L72B1. And there was a L11B which was fortunately not followed literally, since it would have meant that practically no established revokes would ever be penalized - the NOS has quite often played a card after a revoke and before the TD has called. >Incidently, the 1987 Law11B left the Director no option to use his >judgement if the "action" by offender's LHO was a call or a play. >I take the removal of this law a strong indication that under the >current laws the Director is indeed supposed to use his judgement >in such cases. I see the removal of the old L11B as an indication that the WBFLC had realized that it was ridiculous. The new L72B1 handles situations like the example from the commentary just fine. >>But in the 1997 laws, it seems to me that L11A is (only) about >>the situation where the TD is not called immediately after >>attention has been called to an irregularity (i.e., when there is >>a violation of L9B1a). This is not the case here, since >>attention has not been called to the lead from the wrong hand. > >Law 11A neither said nor says anything about calling attention to >the irregularity, it applies just as much to ANY action by non- >offending side after an irregularity has taken place (whether or not >attention has been called to the irregularity). I wrote that too hastily. You're right, it is not limited to that case. On the other hand, it obviously makes no sense to use L11A in cases where the NOS haven't called the TD for an irregularity they haven't had a chance to discover (such as a revoke). By the way, it seems to me that the example from the Commentary was wrong even in 1987: there is (and was) a specific law, L53, dealing with the next hand playing a card after a lead out of turn, so a general law about not calling attention to irregularities should not be used in that case. L11 may have served as a (bad) excuse for dealing with that situation because there was no proper law to deal with it, but now we have the 1997 L72B1, which is perfect for this situation. >>Under the 1997 laws, the example from the Commentary can be >>handled by L72B1 (which, however, does not allow adjusting for >>one side only). > >Law72B1 need not allow for unbalanced adjustments, that is >provided for in Law12C2 to which you proceed from Law72B1. No. L12C2 says that the NOS should get the "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". That means that in the Commentary example, you cannot let the NOS keep their bad score while adjusting for the OS (which is what the Commentary suggested). (You can do it using L12C3, but only if L12C3 is in force.) >>>And don't forget that Law11A includes the word "may" (be forfeited) in >>>its first clause. This allows the Director to apply some judgement = (except >>>when the conditions in the second clause are also satisfied). > >>Yes. But the case with the insufficient bid is precisely a case >>of the second clause, because, as David pointed out, "LHO" has >>bid 2S without knowing that his partner would be forced to pass. > >How can you be sure he didn't know? I can't. But I can ask him. And if he says in a reasonably convincing way that he didn't know, then I can assume that it is true. Otherwise, the second clause of L11A would make no sense at all. >And how can you tell that the non-offending side "may have gained" >through the action (call) by offender's LHO after the premature >corrective bid of 2S by the offender? This is the way I read Law11A >the condition for disallowing the Director to use judgement. I can't be sure. But since I am obviously not going to analyze the hand before it has been played, I have to make a ruling immediately. And unless the 2S bidder says that he knew that his partner should pass, my ruling would be L11A: the right to penalize is forfeited, the double stands, play on. And call me earlier the next time this happens, please! --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 5 22:39:19 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:39:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <20021004134607.WKPI1315.lakemtao04.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Message-ID: <018c01c26cb7$aad9a340$249868d5@default> Jim Fox: Mighten I simply ask the "pro" to come with me a short distance away from the table and explain the bid if I am uncomfortable about the "client" overhearing? Nigel: Do I forfeit my right to know opponents' agreements just because I play with a "pro"? Please tell me that this suggestion is illegal. From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 5 23:35:04 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 00:35:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <003b01c26a24$82a232b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <012b01c26ab8$d0272bf0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>That is where I found this example. >Yes, but that was in a commentary on the 1987 laws. At that >time, there was no law like the current L72B1. The current Law72B1 introduced a very clarifying rule, but IMO the director already had all the powers he would need from the 1987 Laws 82B1 and 12A1 >And there was a L11B which was fortunately not followed >literally, since it would have meant that practically no >established revokes would ever be penalized - the NOS has quite >often played a card after a revoke and before the TD has called. >>Incidently, the 1987 Law11B left the Director no option to use his >>judgement if the "action" by offender's LHO was a call or a play. >>I take the removal of this law a strong indication that under the >>current laws the Director is indeed supposed to use his judgement >>in such cases. >I see the removal of the old L11B as an indication that the WBFLC >had realized that it was ridiculous. The new L72B1 handles >situations like the example from the commentary just fine. Let us agree upon that last stement at least. >>Law 11A neither said nor says anything about calling attention to >>the irregularity, it applies just as much to ANY action by non- >>offending side after an irregularity has taken place (whether or not >>attention has been called to the irregularity). >I wrote that too hastily. You're right, it is not limited to >that case. On the other hand, it obviously makes no sense to use >L11A in cases where the NOS haven't called the TD for an >irregularity they haven't had a chance to discover (such as a >revoke). I think that is where it comes very convenient to let the Director use his judgement. I doubt if any Director would rule sneezing an action within the meaning of law 11, but it is obviously an "action". >By the way, it seems to me that the example from the Commentary >was wrong even in 1987: there is (and was) a specific law, L53, >dealing with the next hand playing a card after a lead out of >turn, so a general law about not calling attention to >irregularities should not be used in that case. L11 may have >served as a (bad) excuse for dealing with that situation because >there was no proper law to deal with it, but now we have the 1997 >L72B1, which is perfect for this situation. I see no problem here. There is a well established rule (not only in Bridge) that specific rules take precedence over general rules. That leaves IMO no conflict between Law 53 and Law 11. >>>Under the 1997 laws, the example from the Commentary can be >>>handled by L72B1 (which, however, does not allow adjusting for >>>one side only). >> >>Law72B1 need not allow for unbalanced adjustments, that is >>provided for in Law12C2 to which you proceed from Law72B1. >No. L12C2 says that the NOS should get the "the most favourable >result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". That >means that in the Commentary example, you cannot let the NOS keep >their bad score while adjusting for the OS (which is what the >Commentary suggested). (You can do it using L12C3, but only if >L12C3 is in force.) I don't fancy "No you can't" "Yes you can" discussions, but IMO here: Yes you can. NOS is "guilty" of a break of Law 11 and can be penalized separatly for that. This is a technicality, but fully available. >>>And don't forget that Law11A includes the word "may" (be forfeited) in >>>its first clause. This allows the Director to apply some judgement (except >>>when the conditions in the second clause are also satisfied). > >>Yes. But the case with the insufficient bid is precisely a case >>of the second clause, because, as David pointed out, "LHO" has >>bid 2S without knowing that his partner would be forced to pass. > >How can you be sure he didn't know? I can't. But I can ask him. And if he says in a reasonably convincing way that he didn't know, then I can assume that it is true. Otherwise, the second clause of L11A would make no sense at all. No?????? >And how can you tell that the non-offending side "may have gained" >through the action (call) by offender's LHO after the premature >corrective bid of 2S by the offender? This is the way I read Law11A >the condition for disallowing the Director to use judgement. I can't be sure. But since I am obviously not going to analyze the hand before it has been played, I have to make a ruling immediately. And unless the 2S bidder says that he knew that his partner should pass, my ruling would be L11A: the right to penalize is forfeited, the double stands, play on. And call me earlier the next time this happens, please! As previously pointed out): I would use my judgement and depending upon various factors I might rule the same as you, or I might rule differently. (It does in fact happen when I make rulings in lower level tournaments that I tell the players "This is a case where I would have ruled differently had this tournament been at a higher level") Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Oct 6 03:39:01 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 03:39:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C48.001663BA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <02aa01c26ce1$94e87960$249868d5@default> Richard Hills If it is hard to determine whether an infraction has occurred, it does *not* mean that the only logical conclusion is that the WBF should therefore change the Laws to legalise the infraction. Nigel: Among other sensible conclusions are: (1) Change other conditions so infringement is more likely to be noticed e.g. speed-cameras (2) Legalise milder forms of infringement e.g. make marijuana legal (3) Record suspicious incidents and convictions e.g. national paedophile register. (4) Impose whopping penalties for conviction. e.g. 30 years for robbing a train. All these have obvious Bridge analogies. However I don't like laws that simply hurt the honest and protect the prevaricator. e.g. the only way you can establish a pro's motive for a question is if he says what it is. Such laws underestimate human-kind's propensity to rationalise undetectable wrong-doing. They turn would-be honest people into cheats. From jimfox00@cox.net Sun Oct 6 04:48:20 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 23:48:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <20021006034822.KRVU1315.lakemtao04.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Date: 2002/10/05 Sat PM 05:39:19 EDT > To: "BLML" > Subject: Re: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > > Jim Fox: > Mighten I simply ask the "pro" to come with > me a short distance away from the table and > explain the bid if I am uncomfortable about > the "client" overhearing? > Nigel: > Do I forfeit my right to know opponents' > agreements just because I play with a "pro"? > Please tell me that this suggestion is > illegal. Certainly, you (or whoever is the client) can ask the meaning of the bid when 'tis your turn to call. But, I'm sure my suggestion is illegal because it would cause the game to slow down too much. Mmbridge From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Oct 6 04:56:24 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 04:56:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Blackwood Strikes Back References: Message-ID: <02d101c26cec$d210e740$249868d5@default> Nigel: If there were previous answers to this posting, I missed them; so here is my amateur assessment: At what conclusion did the Bulletin panel arrive? The strangest bid is South's 2NT, given the partnership's explanation of each other's bids. Bobby Wolfe groupies would automatically rule against poor NS for landing on their feet in spite of their seeming to have no idea of what they were doing; after his earlier explanation, what logical alternative did South have? had he bid on and that been the successful action, surely he would have been in even more legal trouble? I would rule that the *result stands* The interesting aspect is the effect of the opponents' questions during the auction. Were they thinking of bidding? Whatever their motive, the effect was to turn an otherwise comic situation into a possible crime scene. Richard Hills: This problem appeared in the May 2002 issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, and has a published discussion by a panel in the subsequent August 2002 issue: Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. Bd. 2 / E / NS AJ AK Q9543 9852 K8632 104 J1085 9764 J2 106 A10 K7643 Q975 Q32 AK87 QJ West North East South - - Pass 1D 1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 4NT(3) All Pass 1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, less than 10 HCP). 2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump opening" (15-17) when West inquired. 3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. Result: N/S + 630 E/W are unhappy about South's decision to pass 4NT given the explanations and the huddle. South says that 4NT has no meaning in this sequence. He also says he believed it would have been wrong of him to bid on after the tempo break because he now knew that North must have a strong hand. How would you rule? From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Oct 6 13:20:49 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:20:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Forthwith Message-ID: <000501c26d32$d19328f0$982e37d2@Desktop> My partner received unauthorized information about a board to be played from the next tables loud discussion. The director privately consults with her and then instructs us to begin playing the hand. We bid uncontested: Me Partner 2d* 2h 2nt** p * multi ** 20-22 balanced The director then instructs us that she is awarding an adjusted score. I believe there is no lawful justification for this ruling. L16B3 only allows for an adjust score to be awarded "forthwith". If it is relevent the information received was that someone went down 3 (in an unknown contract) and that someone had a "yarborough". Partner held a queen and a jack - sorry don't have the exact hand here but no five-card major etc Comments please? Wayne From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 6 14:08:24 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:08:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Forthwith References: <000501c26d32$d19328f0$982e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <005401c26d39$74b81620$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Wayne Burrows" > My partner received unauthorized information about a board to be played > from the next tables loud discussion. > > The director privately consults with her and then instructs us to begin > playing the hand. > > We bid uncontested: > > Me Partner > 2d* 2h > 2nt** p > > * multi > ** 20-22 balanced > > The director then instructs us that she is awarding an adjusted score. > > I believe there is no lawful justification for this ruling. > > L16B3 only allows for an adjust score to be awarded "forthwith". The Director apparently mixed up her powers under Law16A2 ("....standing ready to assign an adjusted score if ....) and law16B3 which does not give her this option (i.e. to let the auction and play continue subject to a possible subsequent assignment of an artificial adjusted score). There is however one loophole available (but I am not happy in pointing that out): If the Director after assessing that the information received should not prevent normal play of the board and therefore lets you play it out, next finds that the information indeed did just that then she can return to Laws 82B and 12A or even 82C (Director's error), and still award an artificial score. Personally I frown over such solutions, I feel that they contain too much "law-bending", and I doubt if your director reasoned this way. > > If it is relevent the information received was that someone went down 3 > (in an unknown contract) and that someone had a "yarborough". not relevant > Partner held a queen and a jack - sorry don't have the exact hand here > but no five-card major etc > > Comments please? Multi is very precise here, you show 20-22 balanced and partner can hardly be accused of using any UI from her passing out 2NT with 3 lousy HCP and a not too promising distribution. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Oct 6 17:33:07 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 18:33:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Forthwith References: <000501c26d32$d19328f0$982e37d2@Desktop> <005401c26d39$74b81620$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DA065C3.7000808@skynet.be> I was waiting for the obvious answer that the director got it wrong. As it happens, I believe that this indeed seems to be what the laws say, and shouldn't say. Personally, I have already, a few times, as player, overpowered directors by insisting on a "forthwith" average plus for overhearing somethings. (I am not very proud about that) Also personally, I have refused the same to players trying to overpower me, when I was the director. I believe that the laws should not just give the TD these two options, either awarding Av+ forthwith or allowing play to continue without recourse later. Indeed, a prudent director will always award Av+, and another one will allow players to get away with UI. My personal loophole is the following: according to the law, the director can award an ArtAs "forthwith", but he does not have to do so. He can first investigate. What better way to investigate that to allow play to continue under his supervision, after having told the table that he is still investigating ? Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Wayne Burrows" > >>My partner received unauthorized information about a board to be played >>from the next tables loud discussion. >> >>The director privately consults with her and then instructs us to begin >>playing the hand. >> >>We bid uncontested: >> >>Me Partner >>2d* 2h >>2nt** p >> >>* multi >>** 20-22 balanced >> >>The director then instructs us that she is awarding an adjusted score. >> >>I believe there is no lawful justification for this ruling. >> >>L16B3 only allows for an adjust score to be awarded "forthwith". >> > > The Director apparently mixed up her powers under Law16A2 > ("....standing ready to assign an adjusted score if ....) and law16B3 > which does not give her this option (i.e. to let the auction and play > continue subject to a possible subsequent assignment of an artificial > adjusted score). > > There is however one loophole available (but I am not happy in > pointing that out): If the Director after assessing that the information > received should not prevent normal play of the board and therefore > lets you play it out, next finds that the information indeed did just > that then she can return to Laws 82B and 12A or even 82C > (Director's error), and still award an artificial score. > > Personally I frown over such solutions, I feel that they contain too > much "law-bending", and I doubt if your director reasoned this way. > > >>If it is relevent the information received was that someone went down 3 >>(in an unknown contract) and that someone had a "yarborough". >> > > not relevant > > >>Partner held a queen and a jack - sorry don't have the exact hand here >>but no five-card major etc >> >>Comments please? >> > > Multi is very precise here, you show 20-22 balanced and partner can > hardly be accused of using any UI from her passing out 2NT with > 3 lousy HCP and a not too promising distribution. > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Oct 6 17:53:32 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 18:53:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 00:35:04 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>By the way, it seems to me that the example from the Commentary >>was wrong even in 1987: there is (and was) a specific law, L53, >>dealing with the next hand playing a card after a lead out of >>turn, so a general law about not calling attention to >>irregularities should not be used in that case. L11 may have >>served as a (bad) excuse for dealing with that situation because >>there was no proper law to deal with it, but now we have the 1997 >>L72B1, which is perfect for this situation. > >I see no problem here. There is a well established rule (not only in >Bridge) that specific rules take precedence over general rules. That >leaves IMO no conflict between Law 53 and Law 11. Exactly. L53 is the specific rule that takes precedence over the general L11, so I don't see how L11 could be relevant. Anyway, I suggest that we stop the part of this discussion that is about the 1987 laws - it isn't really that interesting. >>>>Under the 1997 laws, the example from the Commentary can be >>>>handled by L72B1 (which, however, does not allow adjusting for >>>>one side only). >>> >>>Law72B1 need not allow for unbalanced adjustments, that is >>>provided for in Law12C2 to which you proceed from Law72B1. > >>No. L12C2 says that the NOS should get the "the most favourable >>result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". That >>means that in the Commentary example, you cannot let the NOS keep >>their bad score while adjusting for the OS (which is what the >>Commentary suggested). (You can do it using L12C3, but only if >>L12C3 is in force.) > >I don't fancy "No you can't" "Yes you can" discussions, but IMO here: Neither do I, but: :-) >Yes you can. NOS is "guilty" of a break of Law 11 and can be penalized >separatly for that. This is a technicality, but fully available. Are you seriously saying that you consider it a penalizable offense to accept a lead out of turn by playing to the trick? Law 11 does not say that it is illegal to take any action after the irregularity: it just says that the right to penalize may be forfeited. The duty to call the TD is defined in Law 9, which makes it clear that that duty is there only when attention has been called to the irregularity - which it hadn't here. Accepting a lead out of turn by playing to the trick is perfectly legal, even if done carelessly. >>>>And don't forget that Law11A includes the word "may" (be forfeited) = in >>>>its first clause. This allows the Director to apply some judgement >(except >>>>when the conditions in the second clause are also satisfied). >> >>>Yes. But the case with the insufficient bid is precisely a case >>>of the second clause, because, as David pointed out, "LHO" has >>>bid 2S without knowing that his partner would be forced to pass. >> >>How can you be sure he didn't know? > >I can't. But I can ask him. And if he says in a reasonably >convincing way that he didn't know, then I can assume that it is >true. Otherwise, the second clause of L11A would make no sense >at all. > >No?????? The second clause of L11 requires us to judge whether the opponent was ignorant of the penalty. Unless I happen to know the player beforehand, I know of no other way of determining that than by simply asking. >As previously pointed out): I would use my judgement and >depending upon various factors I might rule the same as you, >or I might rule differently. I have no problem with that. But I don't think you will find much useful information to base the judgement on, other than the information we already have and the player's reply to the question of whether he knew that partner should pass. Unless of course you look at the hands, which I would always consider wrong when the board has not been played to completion. >(It does in fact happen when I make rulings in lower level >tournaments that I tell the players "This is a case where I would >have ruled differently had this tournament been at a higher level") In situations where the TD's judgement is involved, I consider that very reasonable. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Oct 6 18:26:34 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 13:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? Message-ID: <200210061726.NAA26728@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > But all of you who comment on this ought to wait until you have played > one tournament with them. Rest assured, 30 boards is all you need > before they are familiar. Are there pictures of the WBF cards on the web somewhere? If not, could someone take a picture -- perhaps of the four five-spots -- and put it on a web site somewhere? I don't think we need to see the whole deck, but it would be nice if those of us who haven't seen the new cards could get an idea what they look like. I am told that a significant fraction of males have red/green color blindness, so if colors are used, it is important that they be selected with that fact in mind. I would think black, red, orange, blue might be suitable choices. From adam@tameware.com Sun Oct 6 18:43:52 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 13:43:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? In-Reply-To: <200210061726.NAA26728@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200210061726.NAA26728@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: At 1:26 PM -0400 10/6/02, Steve Willner wrote: >Are there pictures of the WBF cards on the web somewhere? I was just thinking the same. If Jose Damiani wants us to adopt these cards the least he could do is show them to us first. They ought to appear on the WBF web site and in any WBF publications. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 6 19:09:55 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:09:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>>By the way, it seems to me that the example from the Commentary >>>was wrong even in 1987: there is (and was) a specific law, L53, >>>dealing with the next hand playing a card after a lead out of >>>turn, so a general law about not calling attention to >>>irregularities should not be used in that case. L11 may have >>>served as a (bad) excuse for dealing with that situation because >>>there was no proper law to deal with it, but now we have the 1997 >>>L72B1, which is perfect for this situation. >> >>I see no problem here. There is a well established rule (not only in >>Bridge) that specific rules take precedence over general rules. That >>leaves IMO no conflict between Law 53 and Law 11. >Exactly. L53 is the specific rule that takes precedence over the >general L11, so I don't see how L11 could be relevant. But we are not discussing leads out of turn, we are discussing insufficient bid prematurely corrected, and followed by a subsequent call? The specific law could have been L25B1 had it not been that this law specifically directs us to law 27 which tells us "it ain't that simple". >Anyway, I suggest that we stop the part of this discussion that >is about the 1987 laws - it isn't really that interesting. Fair enough, except that the comments to the 1987 laws can still give a lot of guidance. ......... >>Yes you can. NOS is "guilty" of a break of Law 11 and can be penalized >>separatly for that. This is a technicality, but fully available. >Are you seriously saying that you consider it a penalizable >offense to accept a lead out of turn by playing to the trick? Yes, the "penalty" is losing your right to penalize opponents (including your right to redress) for their infraction. (But see also Law 11C) >Law 11 does not say that it is illegal to take any action after >the irregularity: it just says that the right to penalize may be >forfeited. The duty to call the TD is defined in Law 9, which >makes it clear that that duty is there only when attention has >been called to the irregularity - which it hadn't here. We've been through this already. The right can be forfeited even when attention has not yet been called to the irregularity. And forfeiting such rights _is_ a "penalty". >Accepting a lead out of turn by playing to the trick is perfectly >legal, even if done carelessly. It is not legal if it is done on purpose before the director has offered you this as one of the alternatives available to NOS. However, this irregularity will be a minor infraction with little or no (extra) consequences. >The second clause of L11 requires us to judge whether the >opponent was ignorant of the penalty. I understand Law 11A (partly because of the header) to concern actions by NOS being ignorant of the (possible) penalty. More directly: If NOS takes any premature action from which they may gain, ignoring the possible penalty that otherwise could be ruled, then the director is bound by the second clause of Law 11A to rule that they have forfeited their right to penalise. The premature actions by the offender is governed in Law 9C. Sven From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Oct 6 22:33:40 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 23:33:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language Message-ID: The first sentence of L11A is: (1) "The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director." The second sentence is: (2) "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." It seems to me that this can be read in two different ways: (A) (1) warns us that the players may forfeit a right, and (2) tells us exactly under which circumstances that is the case. I.e., the right is forfeited only in the circumstances specified by (2). and (B) (1) tells us that in some circumstances, players may forfeit a right, and (2) gives us one example of such circumstances. I.e., there may also be other circumstances, determined by the TD's judgement, where this right is lost. My original reading of it was (A), without having given it much thought; then, in the "When you don't call the TD" thread, Sven made it sound very convincing that (B) was right; but now I've read it a few more times and suspect that (A) may be right after all (I miss words like "for instance" in (2)). So I would appreciate it if someone would tell me what such a construct with "may" followed by "so rules when" actually means - in the English language and/or in bridge law. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Oct 6 22:33:46 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 23:33:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:09:55 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >But we are not discussing leads out of turn, we are discussing >insufficient bid prematurely corrected, and followed by a subsequent >call?=20 This part of the discussion was (from my side, at least) about a lead out of turn used as an example in the Commentary. If we've been discussing different cases, it is no wonder that we disagree. Let's drop that. >>Are you seriously saying that you consider it a penalizable >>offense to accept a lead out of turn by playing to the trick? > >Yes, the "penalty" is losing your right to penalize opponents >(including your right to redress) for their infraction. >(But see also Law 11C) But yesterday you were talking about imposing a (L90, I presume) penalty upon the NOS that would take away the advantage of the L12C2 adjustment. That is a very different matter indeed. (L11C is of course about a PP for the OS, not the NOS.) >We've been through this already. The right can be forfeited >even when attention has not yet been called to the irregularity. >And forfeiting such rights _is_ a "penalty". I disagree. You may forfeit the right to penalize, because there can be problems imposing the penalty when it cannot be done immediately. But which law says that it is an irregularity to choose to accept the LOOT by playing (accepting the risk - indeed normally the certainty - of forfeiting the right to penalize)? L9 says very clearly that it is an irregularity to not call the TD when attention has been called. If it were also an irregularity to not call the TD when attention has *not* been called, then L9 would undoubtedly have said so. There is no law that require you to call the TD for irregularities to which attention has not been called (with the two special exceptions of L75D and L62A). It it were illegal to not call the TD for an irregularity that you haven't even discovered, then many players would be guilty of that, particularly following revokes, where you have no way of knowing that there even was an irregularity. And the idea of imposing a penalty to take away the advantage of the adjusted score that L12C2 provides (coming from L72B1), using as excuse that the player had not called the TD for an irregularity that he had not yet discovered had taken place, seems absurd to me. >>Accepting a lead out of turn by playing to the trick is perfectly >>legal, even if done carelessly. > >It is not legal if it is done on purpose before the director has >offered you this as one of the alternatives available to NOS. I certainly believe it is (I sometimes do it). But anyway, in the actual case, it was not on purpose. >However, this irregularity will be a minor infraction with little >or no (extra) consequences. =46ine. I read this as saying that you now agree that a L90 penalty to the NOS is irrelevant to this situation. >I understand Law 11A (partly because of the header) to concern >actions by NOS being ignorant of the (possible) penalty. > >More directly: If NOS takes any premature action from which >they may gain, ignoring the possible penalty that otherwise could >be ruled, then the director is bound by the second clause of >Law 11A to rule that they have forfeited their right to penalise. > >The premature actions by the offender is governed in Law 9C. The actual words of the second clause are: "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." So it is about NOS not calling the TD, whereupon the OS take some action that they might not have taken with knowledge of the penalty. I.e., the OS being led to do something that may damage their score - such as bidding 2S without knowing that partner should pass. (Actually, partner _has_ no obligation to pass unless the TD has been there and has ruled so - but he has of course, like all the other players, an obligation to call the TD.) As you may have noticed, I have started a new thread, "L11A and the English language", because I would like somebody who really knows the English language to tell me what the words of L11A actually mean. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Oct 6 22:46:12 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 23:46:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Forthwith In-Reply-To: <3DA065C3.7000808@skynet.be> References: <000501c26d32$d19328f0$982e37d2@Desktop> <005401c26d39$74b81620$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DA065C3.7000808@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 18:33:07 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >My personal loophole is the following: according to the law, the=20 >director can award an ArtAs "forthwith", but he does not have to do=20 >so. He can first investigate. What better way to investigate that to=20 >allow play to continue under his supervision, after having told the=20 >table that he is still investigating ? That is also my loophole. The DBF has suggested making something like this an explicit option: see http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L16By. I use Herman's loophole to actually rule that way in practice. It allows many boards to be played completely without problems, even though a literal reading of the "forthwith" would lead to a cancelled board. In the specific case that is the subject of this thread, however, I would probably have adjusted "forthwith". The risk of that knowledge (somebody went down three, and somebody has a yarborough) being a problem is great. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Oct 6 23:11:47 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:11:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <014001c26cb3$4600d280$249868d5@default> References: <014001c26cb3$4600d280$249868d5@default> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:07:16 +0100, "Nigel Guthrie" wrote: > 1H (4C) ...X (P); > ? > Partner makes a slow double. Your agreement > is "Sputnik to 3S" and above that "Cards". > Suppose that your only logical alternatives > are "Pass" and "4D" and you choose the > successful one (say 4D). > Surely none can disagree with J=FCrgen > Rennenkampff and Jesper Dybdal, that the TD > should not judge your "4D" illegal, unless > he would give you a clean bill of health for > "Pass". Agreed. > That seems to make sense, especially as, at > club level and above, hesitations are more > likely to suggest a pass than a bid. If the TD judges that the hesitation is more likely to suggest pass than a bid, then he may find that pass "could demonstrably have been suggested over" 4D. In that case, pass is not legal, but 4D is. > But is that how the law is actually > interpreted? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking about. If you mean "do TD's in practice rule that one of the logical alternatives must be legal", then I should certainly hope so. The DBF has official guidelines about adjustments, and they explicitly mention that no matter how much UI you have, there must always be some legal call. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 6 23:44:45 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:44:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD References: <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <00cc01c26d89$f8344f00$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" ..... >>Are you seriously saying that you consider it a penalizable >>offense to accept a lead out of turn by playing to the trick? > >Yes, the "penalty" is losing your right to penalize opponents >(including your right to redress) for their infraction. >(But see also Law 11C) But yesterday you were talking about imposing a (L90, I presume) penalty upon the NOS that would take away the advantage of the L12C2 adjustment. That is a very different matter indeed. (L11C is of course about a PP for the OS, not the NOS.) SP: Let me put it this way: We are very careful (at least in Norway) when we have multiple irregularities, to secure against anybody gaining from their own irregularities. Law 9C talks about subsequent irregularities by offender, Law 11A talks about subsequent irregularities by the non-offending side. Once you have that in mind I have a feeling that all the pieces should drop in place? >We've been through this already. The right can be forfeited >even when attention has not yet been called to the irregularity. >And forfeiting such rights _is_ a "penalty". I disagree. You may forfeit the right to penalize, because there can be problems imposing the penalty when it cannot be done immediately. But which law says that it is an irregularity to choose to accept the LOOT by playing (accepting the risk - indeed normally the certainty - of forfeiting the right to penalize)? SP: It is a (minor) deviation from the prescribed (correct) procedure. L9 says very clearly that it is an irregularity to not call the TD when attention has been called. If it were also an irregularity to not call the TD when attention has *not* been called, then L9 would undoubtedly have said so. There is no law that require you to call the TD for irregularities to which attention has not been called (with the two special exceptions of L75D and L62A). SP: No it is perfectly legal not to call attention to your own inadvertent infraction of the laws (with the single exception in Law 75), but unless you notice opponents infraction and call attention to it before you take any other action, or before any time limit specially prescribed where this is applicable you _may_ forfeit your right to penalise opponents. The word may implies that this is upon judgement by the Director. The second clause in Law 11A does not give an example, it specifies the condition where such judgement is no longer an option. NOS will usually take it as a penalty when their right to penalise is forfeited. remainder snipped Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 7 01:31:42 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:31:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus Message-ID: <003b01c26d99$02237fe0$ad33e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <000801c26d9d$d99e2bb0$e89037d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jesper Dybdal > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2002 10:34 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws List > Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language > > > The first sentence of L11A is: > > (1) "The right to penalise an irregularity may be > forfeited if either member of the non-offending > side takes any action before summoning the > Director." > > The second sentence is: > > (2) "The Director so rules when the non-offending side > may have gained through subsequent action taken by > an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." > > It seems to me that this can be read in two different ways: > > (A) (1) warns us that the players may forfeit a right, and (2) > tells us exactly under which circumstances that is the case. > I.e., the right is forfeited only in the circumstances > specified by (2). > > and > > (B) (1) tells us that in some circumstances, players may forfeit > a right, and (2) gives us one example of such circumstances. > I.e., there may also be other circumstances, determined by > the TD's judgement, where this right is lost. > > My original reading of it was (A), without having given it much > thought; then, in the "When you don't call the TD" thread, Sven > made it sound very convincing that (B) was right; but now I've > read it a few more times and suspect that (A) may be right after > all (I miss words like "for instance" in (2)). > > So I would appreciate it if someone would tell me what such a > construct with "may" followed by "so rules when" actually means - > in the English language and/or in bridge law. I think the language means that in situation (2), (1) applies and it does not exclude (1) applying in situations (3), (4) etc which have not been specified. Wayne From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Oct 7 05:19:10 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language Message-ID: <200210070419.AAA06795@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Jesper Dybdal > It seems to me that this can be read in two different ways: > > (A) (1) warns us that the players may forfeit a right, and (2) > tells us exactly under which circumstances that is the case. > I.e., the right is forfeited only in the circumstances > specified by (2). > > and > > (B) (1) tells us that in some circumstances, players may forfeit > a right, and (2) gives us one example of such circumstances. > I.e., there may also be other circumstances, determined by > the TD's judgement, where this right is lost. It looks to me as though the language is very carefully chosen so either interpretation could apply. At least I cannot see anything that either forbids or requires the TD to deny a penalty except as specified by (2). Presumably this leaves it to the various cognizant bodies or even to individual TD's to supply their own interpretations. Grattan: another one for your notebook? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 7 05:58:38 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:58:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 10/6/02, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>Accepting a lead out of turn by playing to the trick is perfectly >>legal, even if done carelessly. > >It is not legal if it is done on purpose before the director has >offered you this as one of the alternatives available to NOS. Then why does Law 53A say what it does? The way that law is worded, it would seem that accepting the lead in one of the stated ways *is* legal. And what of 53C? That law says that if it's my lead, and somebody else leads instead, it's perfectly acceptable for me to plunk down a card *as my lead*, and there is no penalty for that (and also it negates any LOOT penalty, since the LOOT and cards played to it "may be withdrawn without penalty"). But I do not see how it can be illegal to do it, if attention had not been drawn to the LOOT before I played. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Oct 7 08:18:42 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:18:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language References: Message-ID: <001801c26dd1$c79b9590$83e0f1c3@LNV> **** I always have seen the second sentence as an example and not as the only case in which the first one applies. I am certainly not an expert in English but the wording is really awful if this is not what it means. Then L11 should say: If the non-offending side takes any action after ........and thereby gains, it forfeits the right to have the irregularity penalized. I have always had problems to find good examples for this law and to apply it. Because in most cases there is no possibility of penalizing at all any more after continuing and having arrived at the moment where the advantage is obtained. Please send in an example if you found a good one. ton **** From: "Jesper Dybdal" The first sentence of L11A is: (1) "The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director." The second sentence is: (2) "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." It seems to me that this can be read in two different ways: (A) (1) warns us that the players may forfeit a right, and (2) tells us exactly under which circumstances that is the case. I.e., the right is forfeited only in the circumstances specified by (2). and (B) (1) tells us that in some circumstances, players may forfeit a right, and (2) gives us one example of such circumstances. I.e., there may also be other circumstances, determined by the TD's judgement, where this right is lost. My original reading of it was (A), without having given it much thought; then, in the "When you don't call the TD" thread, Sven made it sound very convincing that (B) was right; but now I've read it a few more times and suspect that (A) may be right after all (I miss words like "for instance" in (2)). So I would appreciate it if someone would tell me what such a construct with "may" followed by "so rules when" actually means - in the English language and/or in bridge law. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 7 08:52:53 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:52:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language References: <200210070419.AAA06795@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005501c26dd6$c30f8b80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > It looks to me as though the language is very carefully chosen so > either interpretation could apply. At least I cannot see anything that > either forbids or requires the TD to deny a penalty except as specified > by (2). Presumably this leaves it to the various cognizant bodies or > even to individual TD's to supply their own interpretations. > "The Director so rules when..." means to me "The Director so rules if and only if..." When may the right to penalize be forfeited? Answer: When the NOS may have gained.... Any other intepretation strikes me as lawyerese. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 7 08:49:29 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:49:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language References: <200210070419.AAA06795@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00a601c26dd7$31e78d50$cb3ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L11A and the English language > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > > > (B) (1) tells us that in some circumstances, players may forfeit > > a right, and (2) gives us one example of such circumstances. > > I.e., there may also be other circumstances, determined by > > the TD's judgement, where this right is lost. > > It looks to me as though the language is very carefully chosen so > either interpretation could apply. At least I cannot see anything that > either forbids or requires the TD to deny a penalty except as specified > by (2). Presumably this leaves it to the various cognizant bodies or > even to individual TD's to supply their own interpretations. > > Grattan: another one for your notebook? > +=+ You never know what thoughts EK might have had. The intention was that (2) should not exclude other cases for the application of (1). I do not recall that the WBFLC has commented on this since Edgar departed. This is one that I noted previously for clarification of language in the Review. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Mon Oct 7 10:48:35 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:48:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Virus Message-ID: >From: Grattan Endicott: > >+=+ My virus protection is not detecting any virus >on my PC. It (F1-Secure) has warned me about >certain messages received.. I do not send attachments >with any mailings to blml ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ++++The e-mail containing the virus that I received used Grattan's ID in the 'from' field (from whose address book? We'll never know...), but somehow the 'blml' had been stripped from the subject line, which aroused my suspicions sufficiently. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <000701c26de8$3c050f40$ec33fc3e@annescomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Scorbie" To: Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > >From: Grattan Endicott: > > > >+=+ My virus protection is not detecting any virus > >on my PC. It (F1-Secure) has warned me about > >certain messages received.. I do not send attachments > >with any mailings to blml ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ++++The e-mail containing the virus that I received used Grattan's ID in the > 'from' field (from whose address book? We'll never know...), but somehow the > 'blml' had been stripped from the subject line, which aroused my suspicions > sufficiently. > The one I had that said it was from Grattan, has his e-mail address as gester@ve.net That ain't Grattan I thought , but my checker had zapped it anyway. Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 30/09/02 From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 01:39:42 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:39:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >> David Stevenson >> Using your wording, all actions except Pass are illegal, which is >> clearly wrong when 3S is forcing. > >The point I am trying to make is that the formulation (A) can have this >very effect, namely that no reasonable bid remains that might not have >been suggested. On close reading (A) can be understood to mean >that when, in the absence of UI, there is only one reasonable bid and that >bid could be suggested by UI, then the bid is disallowed. - > >Apparently David Burn and others read (A) to exclude the case where there >is only one reasonable bid ('over another', 'from among'). Of course, this >is the intended meaning. The real weakness of the statement is that it >implies nonsense when there are several alternatives, each of which >'could have been suggested'. > >I am not proposing (B) as the 'right' formulation. (A) is definitely >muddy and open to unintended interpretation. The wording should be improved. >Is it possible that you are so used to the statement and the reasonable >interpretations that you no longer see how imprecise it really is? Certainly I have no problems with it. And I do not see that producing a demonstrably poorer wording can help. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 01:32:16 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:32:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <005f01c26aba$7148e860$70d8fea9@WINXP> <017701c26ac3$fd7cd9a0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <008c01c26ac7$5ab47fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <9WjRF+AQYNo9Ewb5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran writes >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >>The second clause of L11 requires us to judge whether the >>opponent was ignorant of the penalty. > >I understand Law 11A (partly because of the header) to concern >actions by NOS being ignorant of the (possible) penalty. > >More directly: If NOS takes any premature action from which >they may gain, ignoring the possible penalty that otherwise could >be ruled, then the director is bound by the second clause of >Law 11A to rule that they have forfeited their right to penalise. Now, the situation that usually occurs and in my view leads to this Law is that there is an infraction, no TD is called, and some sort of ruling is made by the players to continue. *Then*, three tricks later, the NOs call the TD to get their extra rights, eg forcing lead penalties because of an MPC. I reckon that these are nearly always L11A cases. Sure, the TD should use judgement, but believe he should be properly sceptical of this type of position: if the defenders understood the Law would they not accept the lead penalties without calling the TD in view of their not calling the TD earlier? In other words, when the OS accepts a ruling, but later needs the TD for an extra part of the ruling, it seems likely they were ignorant of the Law. On the other hand, the NOS knew about the Law [otherwise why are they now calling the TD?] and such situations therefore normally satisfy the conditions of L11A. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 01:36:17 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:36:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >>>>(3) No 5 card major; also... >>>> denies holding exactly 2 spades and 3 hearts. >>>> >>>I find it very remarkable that this would be added. I would not have >>>problems with it not being added at that time but rather at some later >>>stage. If no auction would happen in which this negative is not >>>clear, then I would add it before the lead. >> It is part of the meaning of 3D, and not to say it is not acceptable. >> I am surprised you are advocating hiding part of the agreed system, and >> can only deduce that I have misunderstood. >Not really, David. >I don't advocate hiding it, and I would perhaps also add it when it >would be my system, but saying too much is also not very helpful. >Which is why I would not mind if my opponents did not tell me this on >the first round (it's hardly helpful, is it ?) but add it on the >second, when it becomes a possibility. After all, if the bidding goes >differently, and partner shows 4 of a suit somewhere, it's hardly >necessary to add that it denied 2 of that suit in the previous round, >is it. >So I do not advocate omitting it, but I would not rule against someone >who did. >Always provided the inference is told explicitely when it becomes a >real possibility. >Do you understand what I mean ? I do not like it. I have read what you say, and I cannot see it as any excuse for deliberately misleading opponents as to the meaning of a bid. It is like a response of 5C to Blackwood, which shows 0 or 4 aces. You are suggesting replying "0 aces" to a question, and later explain that it might be four if you feel it is relevant. It is just pure misinformation with no reason. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 01:21:02 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:21:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <004001c26c03$f20041c0$249868d5@default> References: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> <004001c26c03$f20041c0$249868d5@default> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie writes >[Nigel ] >> (P) P (1H) 2C; >> (2S) End >> Dummy protested that he was not here to teach >> me Bridge. The TD asked Dummy to humour me. >> Dummy correctly said his partner had 10-11 HCP, >> exactly 5 spades and precisely 3 hearts. >[David Stevenson] >If 2S shows three hearts then it was definitely alertable. If dummy >had said he was not there >to teach the opponents bridge when he had that >sort of information concealed then I would have >hit him with a PP of a full board. >[Nigel] >IMO, Robson and Segal would defend Dummy and say >that 2S was completely natural, in context. >Their only quibble might be that it should show >four rather than three hearts. Since when were Messrs Robson and Segal responsible for EBU alerting regulations? Anyway, I doubt whether either of those players are arrogant enough to feel their excellent methods are the only ones playable - and so their logic does not affect alerting. >Although I agree with you that it is a completely >wrong to expect opponents to be familiar with >your "general bridge knowledge and experience" >even if that is what the fabulous laws prescribe. The assumption that everyone plays the same way is silly. if it were true alerting would be necessary -and the game would lose a lot of its appeal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 01:42:26 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:42:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Forthwith In-Reply-To: <000501c26d32$d19328f0$982e37d2@Desktop> References: <000501c26d32$d19328f0$982e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows writes >My partner received unauthorized information about a board to be played >from the next tables loud discussion. > >The director privately consults with her and then instructs us to begin >playing the hand. > >We bid uncontested: > >Me Partner >2d* 2h >2nt** p > >* multi >** 20-22 balanced > >The director then instructs us that she is awarding an adjusted score. > >I believe there is no lawful justification for this ruling. > >L16B3 only allows for an adjust score to be awarded "forthwith". > >If it is relevent the information received was that someone went down 3 >(in an unknown contract) and that someone had a "yarborough". > >Partner held a queen and a jack - sorry don't have the exact hand here >but no five-card major etc > >Comments please? We have discussed this a number of times. I believe the conclusions each time are as follows: [1] Permitting the board to continue to see whether there is a problem later is completely illegal under the Law. [2] Permitting the board to continue to see whether there is a problem later is often done. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Oct 7 12:42:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:42:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language References: Message-ID: <002201c26df6$ae0d8820$779627d9@pbncomputer> Jesper wrote: >The first sentence of L11A is: >(1) "The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director." >The second sentence is: >(2) "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." >It seems to me that this can be read in two different ways: >(A) (1) warns us that the players may forfeit a right, and (2) tells us exactly under which circumstances that is the case. I.e., the right is forfeited only in the circumstances specified by (2). >and >(B) (1) tells us that in some circumstances, players may forfeit a right, and (2) gives us one example of such circumstances. I.e., there may also be other circumstances, determined by the TD's judgement, where this right is lost. >My original reading of it was (A), without having given it much thought; then, in the "When you don't call the TD" thread, Sven made it sound very convincing that (B) was right; but now I've read it a few more times and suspect that (A) may be right after all (I miss words like "for instance" in (2)). >So I would appreciate it if someone would tell me what such a construct with "may" followed by "so rules when" actually means - in the English language and/or in bridge law. The Law says that "X may happen". Reading this, you would wonder when exactly it was that X did happen, since apparently it either may or may not. Fortunately, there is another sentence that tells you when X does happen; the obvious inference is that in other circumstances, it does not. No reasonable human being could therefore put any construction on the wording of Law 11 other than Jesper's option (A) above. But it is a huge error to imagine that the Laws of anything are written (a) by and (b) for reasonable human beings; they are written in order to ensure that lawyers make vast amounts of money and that nobody else has a hope of understanding what is actually going on. As the words stand on the page, they mean this: that the right to penalise may be forfeited; that it is always forfeited in a particular case; and whether or not it is forfeited in some other case is at the whim of a particular individual at a particular time. Dura lex, sed lex. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Oct 7 12:46:36 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:46:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> <004001c26c03$f20041c0$249868d5@default> Message-ID: <002701c26df7$312bd0e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> DWS wrote: > The assumption that everyone plays the same way is silly. if it were > true alerting would be necessary -and the game would lose a lot of its > appeal. I think that should be "would not be necessary". I also think that the majority of bridge players believe that the game would in fact be more appealing if there were not a vast number of different methods to confuse and bewilder. And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 7 13:03:23 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:03:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language References: <002201c26df6$ae0d8820$779627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <010e01c26df9$89688d50$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Burn" > The Law says that "X may happen". Reading this, you would wonder when > exactly it was that X did happen, since apparently it either may or may > not. Fortunately, there is another sentence that tells you when X does > happen; the obvious inference is that in other circumstances, it does > not. Running the danger of trying to teach an Englishman how to use his own language (Professor Higgins???) I dare say the above surprises me. What is wrong with the following interpretation of Law 11A: Certain actions by NOS as specified in the second clause unconditionally results in their rights to penalise being forfeited, other actions MAY lead to such rights being forfeited (at the judgement of the Director). Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Oct 7 13:11:04 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:11:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language References: <002201c26df6$ae0d8820$779627d9@pbncomputer> <010e01c26df9$89688d50$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <004801c26dfa$9c4340e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: > Running the danger of trying to teach an Englishman how to use his own > language (Professor Higgins???) I dare say the above surprises me. > > What is wrong with the following interpretation of Law 11A: > > Certain actions by NOS as specified in the second clause unconditionally > results in their rights to penalise being forfeited, other actions MAY lead > to such rights being forfeited (at the judgement of the Director). Nothing. That is why I wrote at the end of my message: As the words stand on the page, they mean this: that the right to penalise may be forfeited; that it is always forfeited in a particular case; and whether or not it is forfeited in some other case is at the whim of a particular individual at a particular time. It is, as I have mentioned before, a good idea to do what I was taught to do at school: read the whole of the question before starting to compose an answer. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 7 14:14:44 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:14:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <001101c26c71$b31901e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007085038.00b38620@pop.starpower.net> At 09:18 AM 10/5/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > > >Also, if action X is demonstrably suggested over action Y, then > >obviously action Y cannot at the same be time be demonstrably > >suggested over action X. There is therefore always at least one > >legal action among the "logical alternative actions". > >But this is not. The laws say "could have been suggested" >As both alternatives X and Y in a particular situation "could >have been suggested" there are (at least in theory) cases >where both alternatives can be deemed illegal even if no >alternative other than these two exists. In such cases the >Director will have no choice but to rule (post mortem) as if >the least successful (for the offending side) of X and Y >should have been chosen. I think it is. Indeed, it is my understanding that it is precisely Sven's interpretation here -- with the consequence of ruling "as if the least successful... of X and Y should have been chosen" -- that the WBF was hoping to eradicate by changing the wording of L16A from "could reasonably have been suggested" to "could demonstrably have been suggested". The change reinforces the legal requirement that we need more than simply finding that a player had UI and made a winning decision before we can adjust; we must also find that the UI suggested the decision. IOW, as Jesper says, given the current wording and interpretation (as I understand it) of L16A, there must be at least one choice from among the available LAs which the player with the UI can take without being subject to the possibility of an adjusted score. As a corollary, there can be no adjustment when the player with the UI had only one logical action available. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 7 14:24:35 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:24:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <002701c26df7$312bd0e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> References: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> <004001c26c03$f20041c0$249868d5@default> <002701c26df7$312bd0e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <002701c26df7$312bd0e0$779627d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> The assumption that everyone plays the same way is silly. if it >were >> true alerting would be necessary -and the game would lose a lot of its >> appeal. > >I think that should be "would not be necessary". I also think that the >majority of bridge players believe that the game would in fact be more >appealing if there were not a vast number of different methods to >confuse and bewilder. I've just watched 112 boards of totally bewildering bridge. THAT is what makes the game fascinating. Lord, it would be boring if everyone played the same methods. > And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be >destroyed. > ~fires up 24 elephants. cheers john >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 7 14:33:48 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language In-Reply-To: <004801c26dfa$9c4340e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> References: <002201c26df6$ae0d8820$779627d9@pbncomputer> <010e01c26df9$89688d50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004801c26dfa$9c4340e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <004801c26dfa$9c4340e0$779627d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Sven wrote: > >> Running the danger of trying to teach an Englishman how to use his own >> language (Professor Higgins???) I dare say the above surprises me. >> >> What is wrong with the following interpretation of Law 11A: >> >> Certain actions by NOS as specified in the second clause >unconditionally >> results in their rights to penalise being forfeited, other actions MAY >lead >> to such rights being forfeited (at the judgement of the Director). > >Nothing. That is why I wrote at the end of my message: > >As the words stand on the page, they mean this: that the right to >penalise may be forfeited; that it is >always forfeited in a particular case; and whether or not it is >forfeited in some other case is at the whim of a particular individual >at a particular time. > I think that practical TDs generally only apply this law when they are obligated to do so, and very seldom do so otherwise. If I'm really stretched at finding a Law to cover some ludicrous actions by the players following an infraction I may fall back here, but can think of very few occasions when I have done so. Generally I take the view that the players have decided to play a game which is closely related to duplicate contract bridge for a few seconds, and now want to come back into the fold. This I am more than happy to permit, but those actions taken while the laws have been suspended are no concern of mine. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 7 14:50:49 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:50:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DA19139.1080006@skynet.be> David, again, you simply refuse to read what I write. David Stevenson wrote: > >>Not really, David. >>I don't advocate hiding it, and I would perhaps also add it when it >>would be my system, but saying too much is also not very helpful. >>Which is why I would not mind if my opponents did not tell me this on >>the first round (it's hardly helpful, is it ?) but add it on the >>second, when it becomes a possibility. After all, if the bidding goes >>differently, and partner shows 4 of a suit somewhere, it's hardly >>necessary to add that it denied 2 of that suit in the previous round, >>is it. >>So I do not advocate omitting it, but I would not rule against someone >>who did. >>Always provided the inference is told explicitely when it becomes a >>real possibility. >>Do you understand what I mean ? >> > > I do not like it. I have read what you say, and I cannot see it as > any excuse for deliberately misleading opponents as to the meaning of a > bid. > Who said anything about "deliberate" ? I'm talking about ruling, not advice - not this time. I said I would probably add it. I also said that I would not rule against someone who had not added it. Not the same thing, is it ? > It is like a response of 5C to Blackwood, which shows 0 or 4 aces. > You are suggesting replying "0 aces" to a question, and later explain > that it might be four if you feel it is relevant. It is just pure > misinformation with no reason. > I don't see what this example brings to the discussion. It is nothing of the sort. The example I was commenting upon had a very obscure secondary meaning. No 5 card major AND not exactly 3-2 hearts-spades, or something like that. Omitting that second bit would probably not hurt, and adding it just confuses opponents. Well, maybe it does help, but that was not the point. The point was that, if it was added, and through some deep reasoning, it becomes apparent that 4 hearts are shown. The question that was asked was whether that inference has to be told. I believe that it is more important to say after the bidding that 4 hearts have been shown, than to say during the bidding that 2Sp-3He is a possibility. Some people have the opposite point of view. It is against those that I argue, not against you David, who most probably thinks both ought to be told. I'm just a bit more lenient, that's all. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 7 15:16:02 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:16:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language In-Reply-To: <000801c26d9d$d99e2bb0$e89037d2@Desktop> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007100824.00b2ac20@pop.starpower.net> At 09:06 PM 10/6/02, wayne.burrows wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jesper Dybdal > > > > The first sentence of L11A is: > > > > (1) "The right to penalise an irregularity may be > > forfeited if either member of the non-offending > > side takes any action before summoning the > > Director." > > > > The second sentence is: > > > > (2) "The Director so rules when the non-offending side > > may have gained through subsequent action taken by > > an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." > > > > It seems to me that this can be read in two different ways: > > > > (A) (1) warns us that the players may forfeit a right, and (2) > > tells us exactly under which circumstances that is the case. > > I.e., the right is forfeited only in the circumstances > > specified by (2). > > > > and > > > > (B) (1) tells us that in some circumstances, players may forfeit > > a right, and (2) gives us one example of such circumstances. > > I.e., there may also be other circumstances, determined by > > the TD's judgement, where this right is lost. > > > > My original reading of it was (A), without having given it much > > thought; then, in the "When you don't call the TD" thread, Sven > > made it sound very convincing that (B) was right; but now I've > > read it a few more times and suspect that (A) may be right after > > all (I miss words like "for instance" in (2)). > > > > So I would appreciate it if someone would tell me what such a > > construct with "may" followed by "so rules when" actually means - > > in the English language and/or in bridge law. > >I think the language means that in situation (2), (1) applies and >it does not exclude (1) applying in situations (3), (4) etc which >have not been specified. Correct. (1) allows the TD to rule that the right to penalize has been forfeited when the stated conditions have been met and, in his discretion, he chooses to do so. (2), however, gives further conditions under which he cannot exercise the discretion implied by the "may" in (1), but *must* "so rule". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 7 15:32:15 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:32:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language In-Reply-To: <005501c26dd6$c30f8b80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200210070419.AAA06795@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007102450.00ab0660@pop.starpower.net> At 03:52 AM 10/7/02, Marvin wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > It looks to me as though the language is very carefully chosen so > > either interpretation could apply. At least I cannot see anything >that > > either forbids or requires the TD to deny a penalty except as >specified > > by (2). Presumably this leaves it to the various cognizant bodies or > > even to individual TD's to supply their own interpretations. > > >"The Director so rules when..." means to me "The Director so rules if >and only if..." > >When may the right to penalize be forfeited? > >Answer: When the NOS may have gained.... > >Any other intepretation strikes me as lawyerese. But if L11A was intended to leave the TD with no possible discretion as to when to apply it, it surely would not have used the word "may"; it would say something like, "The right to penalize an irregularity shall be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director and may have have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." ISTM that all those extra words in L11A as written must be there for a reason. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Oct 7 15:42:03 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:42:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Board cancelled Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, N-S being very slow on the first board (2 boards per round), the TD decides that the second board will not be played, nor at the current round, nor as a late play. What is the best ruling: 1) Apply Law 12C1, taking into account that the slow play of the first board is the "irregularity" (Law 12C1 can be apply "owing to an irregularity"). Then N-S gets an A- and E-W and A+. 2) Just eliminate this board for both pairs (entering N as Non-Played in ACBLScore does the job). In fact, this is like changing the movement. Then the TD can apply Law 90 and give a procedural penalty to N-S. Does the TD may suggest players not to have a late play and apply 2) if all agree ? Can the TD decides himself that the late play is cancelled ? Using which Law (81C3?) Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From gester@lineone.net Mon Oct 7 15:42:44 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:42:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: address References: <10f.18417429.2ace3526@aol.com> Message-ID: <002701c26e0f$f0da5340$5e182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 1:04 AM Subject: address > What is "gester@vd.nl" > > =Kojak= > +=+ ATTENTION> Beware. It is not I but some virus (Bugbear, maybe) faking messages from me. Delete and destroy. I have checked my PCs and they are clean.~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 7 16:13:00 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:13:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Board cancelled In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021007170535.00aa7ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:42 7/10/2002 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >N-S being very slow on the first board (2 boards per round), >the TD decides that the second board will not be played, nor >at the current round, nor as a late play. What is the best ruling: > >1) Apply Law 12C1, taking into account that the slow play of the > first board is the "irregularity" (Law 12C1 can be apply "owing > to an irregularity"). Then N-S gets an A- and E-W and A+. > >2) Just eliminate this board for both pairs (entering N as Non-Played > in ACBLScore does the job). In fact, this is like changing the > movement. Then the TD can apply Law 90 and give a procedural > penalty to N-S. AG : I would do 1) because the NOS should be treated as such. They have lost an opportunity to score well. >Does the TD may suggest players not to have a late play and apply >2) if all agree ? AG : I've done it in club tournaments, but 1) is right at any level where you won't let any irregularity go unnoticed From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Oct 7 16:13:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > The problem with allowing the Kaplan question is that people assume it > was OK because Kaplan did it, judging correctly that neither opponent > would mind, and also judging correctly that it would do more good than > harm in this particular case. > > But the moment you allow it people will do it without Kaplan's > judgement, and will tell partner what to do - legally. A Kaplan question, by definition, does more good than harm. If a question, intended as a Kaplan question, creates UI then an adjustment may be needed. The same adjustment as would be needed had the question created UI when asked for the players own benefit. It just seems a bad idea that players can ask "Kaplan questions" if 99% sure about opps agreements but not when 100% sure. We can all live with the fact that legitimate, and necessary, questions may create UI - why do we need to try and examine the motive of a question that doesn't? Tim From gester@lineone.net Mon Oct 7 15:58:56 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:58:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Virus References: <000701c26de8$3c050f40$ec33fc3e@annescomputer> Message-ID: <003301c26e17$505758c0$58182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Scorbie" > To: > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > > > >From: Grattan Endicott: > > > > > >+=+ My virus protection is not detecting any virus > > >on my PC. It (F1-Secure) has warned me about > > >certain messages received.. I do not send attachments > > >with any mailings to blml ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > ++++The e-mail containing the virus that I received used Grattan's ID > in the > > 'from' field (from whose address book? We'll never know...), but > somehow the > > 'blml' had been stripped from the subject line, which aroused my > suspicions > > sufficiently. > > > The one I had that said it was from Grattan, has his e-mail address as > gester@ve.net > > That ain't Grattan I thought , but my checker had zapped it anyway. > > Anne > +=+ I have updated and checked the machine. clear. I do not send attachments to blml. I try to forewarn of anything sent with an attachment away from blml. I have this 'signature' +=+ at the start and end of messages which a virus may not be sophisticated enough to copy. And if one begins to do so I will change it. ~ G ~ +=+ From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Oct 7 17:00:11 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:00:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Virus References: <000701c26de8$3c050f40$ec33fc3e@annescomputer> <003301c26e17$505758c0$58182850@pacific> Message-ID: I have not been reading much of this thread. I did send Henk a note that about 6 hours after he said he had stopped the attachments that I did receive an attachment that smelled dirty. Told him I did away with it. Anyway, to me it suggests that these emails are not going to blml but straight to people. regards roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Anne Jones" ; Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > Grattan Endicott .......................................................... > "Behold I make all things new" > ~ Revelation of St. John > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:59 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Norman Scorbie" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:48 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Virus > > > > > > > >From: Grattan Endicott: > > > > > > > >+=+ My virus protection is not detecting any virus > > > >on my PC. It (F1-Secure) has warned me about > > > >certain messages received.. I do not send attachments > > > >with any mailings to blml ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > ++++The e-mail containing the virus that I received used Grattan's ID > > in the > > > 'from' field (from whose address book? We'll never know...), but > > somehow the > > > 'blml' had been stripped from the subject line, which aroused my > > suspicions > > > sufficiently. > > > > > The one I had that said it was from Grattan, has his e-mail address as > > gester@ve.net > > > > That ain't Grattan I thought , but my checker had zapped it anyway. > > > > Anne > > > +=+ I have updated and checked the machine. clear. > I do not send attachments to blml. I try to forewarn > of anything sent with an attachment away from blml. > I have this 'signature' +=+ at the start and end of messages > which a virus may not be sophisticated enough to copy. > And if one begins to do so I will change it. > ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 7 17:03:33 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:03:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language References: <200210070419.AAA06795@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20021007102450.00ab0660@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005901c26e1b$a19a1fc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > > But if L11A was intended to leave the TD with no possible discretion as > to when to apply it, it surely would not have used the word "may"; it > would say something like, "The right to penalize an irregularity shall > be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any > action before summoning the Director and may have have gained through > subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the > penalty." ISTM that all those extra words in L11A as written must be > there for a reason. > The Laws have lots of superfluous words. Your suggestion is a better wording of the meaning I have always ascribed to L11A. This looks to me like the familiar declarations of some that if a TD or player action is not explicitly prohibited, it is allowed. The right to penalize *may* be forfeited. When? When the NOS takes any action before summoning the TD, and may have gained from an OS action.taken in ignorance of the penalty. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 7 17:32:04 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:32:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> [snip] >Another example : > >1NT 2C >2H 2NT > >Requesting that 2C be alerted because one will not always have some major >isn't clever ; how can this influence the ensuing bidding ? [Whow there - I normally agree with most of what you say on Blm, Alain but this example is not so good. 2C as classic stayman garuntees a 4CM (this I know because I'll be teaching it tonight in my class and then suggesting otherwise using transfers etc etc). The sequence 1NT 2C 2H 2NT shows 4 spades. Now I myself play 2C as not garunteeing a 4CM (ie) invitational hands are bid via 2C and 2NT direct is a TX to D's. I do not play "Stayman" per say anymore and do not have stayman listed as a convention. I alert 2C everytime. As for not influencing the bidding - we had a thread on this forum before involving exactly this sequence 1NT P 2C ?? I got a non sympathetic vote to the notion that 2C possibly no major or 2C definitely a major COULD influence a person here. I still stick with my guns that 2C as some sort of relay is hugely different to 2C garunteeing a 4CM and BOTH should be alerted. ] >However, when the 2NT rebid is made, I know that partner will quite often >have no major, and it may affect the lead against what will nearly always >be a 2NT or 3NT contract. [Agree but then I alert 2C and depending on the sequence will also alert 2NT (ie) 1NT 2C 2H 2NT denies 4 spades or 4 hearts in my system and is alertable. ] -- http://www.iol.ie From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Oct 7 17:39:24 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:39:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] OLOOT folowed by proper lead Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, North being the declarer in a S contract, West makes a faced up OLOOT with HA. North says "it is not your lead" and calls the TD, but East afterwards puts HJ on table. First part of the ruling is routine: an OLOOT followed by a card prematurely exposed by a defender (Law 50). Must be played to the first legal opportunity. Lead penalty to offender's partner as long as such a card remains on table. The TD offers the 5 classic choices to the declarer: 1) accept the OLOOT (HA by W) and play the contract; 2) accept the HA by W and let S play (in both cases, E must play the exposed card (HJ)); 3) forbid H lead by E (HA returns in hand but HJ stays as a penalty card); 4) require H lead by E (HJ must be played but HA returns in hand); 5) let E choose any lead. HA remains a penalty card and HJ must be led. If 5 is chosen, HA must also be played to the first trick. Is there a real difference between 1) and 5)? In both cases, HA and HQ must be played to the first trick. How do you explain such a case to declarer to make sure he can get a choice having all pertinent information ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Oct 7 18:05:30 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?us-ascii?Q?Jurgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:05:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007085038.00b38620@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > Sent: Montag, 7. Oktober 2002 15:15 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] L16 > > > At 09:18 AM 10/5/02, Sven wrote: > > >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > > > > >Also, if action X is demonstrably suggested over action Y, then > > >obviously action Y cannot at the same be time be demonstrably > > >suggested over action X. There is therefore always at least one > > >legal action among the "logical alternative actions". > > > >But this is not. The laws say "could have been suggested" > >As both alternatives X and Y in a particular situation "could > >have been suggested" there are (at least in theory) cases > >where both alternatives can be deemed illegal even if no > >alternative other than these two exists. In such cases the > >Director will have no choice but to rule (post mortem) as if > >the least successful (for the offending side) of X and Y > >should have been chosen. > > I think it is. Indeed, it is my understanding that it is precisely > Sven's interpretation here -- with the consequence of ruling "as if the > least successful... of X and Y should have been chosen" -- that the WBF > was hoping to eradicate by changing the wording of L16A from "could > reasonably have been suggested" to "could demonstrably have been > suggested". The change reinforces the legal requirement that we need > more than simply finding that a player had UI and made a winning > decision before we can adjust; we must also find that the UI suggested > the decision. > This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three alternative actions X, Y, Z, it is perfectly possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands for "could demonstably have been suggested over another". It is perfectly possible, without logical contradiction, for an Appeals committee to vote accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and is known as Arrow's paradox (after Clarence Arrow) or the "voting paradox". - Not all binary relations are transitive. In our case the problem is more immediate: Of two competent TD's one may well decide X < Z, the other Z < X. Further, as I pointed out before, there is never anything resembling a "demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the use of UI appears obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI turns the intended meaning of the law on its head. Jurgen > IOW, as Jesper says, given the current wording and interpretation (as I > understand it) of L16A, there must be at least one choice from among > the available LAs which the player with the UI can take without being > subject to the possibility of an adjusted score. > > As a corollary, there can be no adjustment when the player with the UI > had only one logical action available. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Oct 7 17:30:56 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:30:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > In-Reply-To: > DWS wrote: > > > The problem with allowing the Kaplan question is that people assume it > > was OK because Kaplan did it, judging correctly that neither opponent > > would mind, and also judging correctly that it would do more good than > > harm in this particular case. > > > > But the moment you allow it people will do it without Kaplan's > > judgement, and will tell partner what to do - legally. > > A Kaplan question, by definition, does more good than harm. Interesting. A Kaplan question does one ton of good and 1999 lb of harm. 1999 lb of harm is still a lot of harm. And just who decides how many lbs of harm is too much? regards roger pewick > Tim > From toddz@worldnet.att.com Mon Oct 7 18:14:14 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:14:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jurgen Rennenkampff > > Further, as I pointed out before, there is never > anything resembling a > "demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the > use of UI appears > obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI > turns the intended meaning of the law on its head. It's not the use of UI that needs to be demonstrated. The demonstration is of the UI suggesting one action over another. The thought process of the player in the hot seat is almost entirely irrelevant, much to the ire of the person who hears from the AC "you aren't good enough to eliminate action X as a LA" or "you're too good not to have considered action Y." -Todd From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Oct 7 18:23:17 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?us-ascii?Q?Jurgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:23:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] L11A and the English language In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007100824.00b2ac20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > Sent: Montag, 7. Oktober 2002 16:16 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] L11A and the English language > > > At 09:06 PM 10/6/02, wayne.burrows wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Jesper Dybdal > > > > > > The first sentence of L11A is: > > > > > > (1) "The right to penalise an irregularity may be > > > forfeited if either member of the non-offending > > > side takes any action before summoning the > > > Director." > > > > > > The second sentence is: > > > > > > (2) "The Director so rules when the non-offending side > > > may have gained through subsequent action taken by > > > an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." > > > This is another disgustingly sloppy formulation: Who has to be ignorant of the penalty, the NOS or the opponent? Ignorant of what exactly? And the director will nor "so rule" in the absence of such ignorance? Jurgen {...] > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Oct 7 18:36:28 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:36:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Todd Zimnoch > Sent: Montag, 7. Oktober 2002 19:14 > To: BLML > Subject: RE: [blml] L16 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jurgen Rennenkampff > > > > Further, as I pointed out before, there is never > > anything resembling a > > "demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the > > use of UI appears > > obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI > > turns the intended meaning of the law on its head. > > It's not the use of UI that needs to be demonstrated. By 'use of UI' I mean choice of an action that "could demonstrably have been suggested etc"; of course any demonstration would concern the suggestion. Jürgen > The > demonstration is of the UI suggesting one action over another. > The thought process of the player in the hot seat is almost > entirely irrelevant, much to the ire of the person who hears from > the AC "you aren't good enough to eliminate action X as a LA" or > "you're too good not to have considered action Y." > > -Todd > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 7 18:46:35 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:46:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <006a01c26e29$9abeb860$d49868d5@default> Karel: I still stick with my guns that 2C as some sort of relay is hugely different to 2C garunteeing a 4CM and BOTH should be alerted. Nigel: I agree with Karel; If we must bear with alerts then BOTh these are alertible; but even if you want to bias the law to give local players and their favourite method an edge -- ONE of these options must be designated as alertible. In the area of disclosure it is remarkable that some legal experts seem to advocate a secretive approach that even if legal seems to me immoral. From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 14:46:24 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:46:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passed out boards Message-ID: <+CbRAQBwAZo9EwbC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> We all know how to score these, don't we? Of course we do! But where does it say how to score them in the Laws? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Oct 7 19:34:21 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:34:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Passed out boards In-Reply-To: <+CbRAQBwAZo9EwbC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: David wrote: We all know how to score these, don't we? Of course we do! But where does it say how to score them in the Laws? ________________________________________________________________ Funny... I know you know that that it is written nowhere... Law 77 indirectly says what to do: no trick and no undertrick = no score. But it would be usefull to have a note to that effect. Laval Du Breuil uebec City From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Oct 7 19:29:36 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 20:29:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: <00cc01c26d89$f8344f00$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <00cc01c26d89$f8344f00$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:44:45 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >Law 9C talks about subsequent >irregularities by offender, Law 11A talks about subsequent = irregularities >by the non-offending side. L9C does not seem to be relevant. L9B says that it is an irregularity (for all 4 players) not to call the TD when an irregularity has occurred. >>We've been through this already. The right can be forfeited >>even when attention has not yet been called to the irregularity. Agreed. >>And forfeiting such rights _is_ a "penalty". And this is where we disagree. As I see it, this risk of forfeiting a penalty is there for purely practical reasons, not in order to penalize anybody. Such a rule is a practical necessity, because the action taken may have made it impossible to penalize the irregularity in the normal way. L11A says that "the right to penalize ... may be forfeited if ...". It does not say "it is illegal to summon the director before ...". I read the sentence in L11A as stating a practical fact. If you do X, then Y may happen. With no indication at all that X is illegal, or that Y is a penalty for X. I cannot find any law that says that this forfeiting of rights is a penalty for an offense. And I cannot find any law that says that it is an offense to not call the TD for an irregularity that nobody has called attention to. And I am really glad that I cannot find a law that says that it is an offense to not call the TD for an irregularity that you haven't even discovered has occurred! If that were the case, which seems to be your opinion, then it would be by far the most absurd law in the book. JD: >I disagree. You may forfeit the right to penalize, because there >can be problems imposing the penalty when it cannot be done >immediately. But which law says that it is an irregularity to >choose to accept the LOOT by playing (accepting the risk - indeed >normally the certainty - of forfeiting the right to penalize)? >SP: It is a (minor) deviation from the prescribed (correct) procedure. I don't think so. Which law describes a procedure that requires calling attention to such an irregularity, or calling the TD for an irregularity that nobody has called attention to? We are talking about a player who plays a card to a trick after his RHO has led to that trick. This is not incorrect procedure, even though RHO's lead was out of turn. >SP: No it is perfectly legal not to call attention to your own >inadvertent infraction of the laws (with the single exception in >Law 75),=20 (and the other exception in L62A, which they forgot to mention in L72B3) >but unless you notice opponents infraction and call >attention to it before you take any other action, or before any >time limit specially prescribed where this is applicable you _may_=20 >forfeit your right to penalise opponents. Yes, indeed. But that does not imply that it is illegal to take other action - it just means that it may have as a consequence that the penalty will not be applied. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Oct 7 19:31:49 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 20:31:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] When you don't call the TD In-Reply-To: References: <004201c26c94$a4b7e530$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5kbupu43509qvpetojkr299r79mv1rdlc8@nuser.dybdal.dk> <006b01c26ca5$f508e640$70d8fea9@WINXP> <70kupuodc6sj5hsv409qghtvfd6b5j7upe@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000901c26cbf$732a71b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009501c26d63$93675d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <00cc01c26d89$f8344f00$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: I just wrote: >L11A says that "the right to penalize ... may be forfeited if >...". > >It does not say "it is illegal to summon the director before >...". That should of course be "... to NOT summon the director ..." - sorry. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Oct 7 19:46:27 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 20:46:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Forthwith In-Reply-To: References: <000501c26d32$d19328f0$982e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:42:26 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >[1] Permitting the board to continue to see whether there is a problem >later is completely illegal under the Law. > >[2] Permitting the board to continue to see whether there is a problem >later is often done. Assuming that L16B is taken to mean exactly what it says, I agree. I would, however, like to add as my personal opinion: [3] Permitting the board to continue to see whether there is a problem later is often the sensible thing to do, regardless of [1]. The L16B case I most often encounter is the one where one card of one hand is shown to everybody because somebody at the previous table put his hand back in the board with a card face-up. If L16B is taken literally, then such a board will always have to be cancelled, even though we all know that if it is a small card, then there is a large probability that the board can be played with no problems at all. My experience is that players want to play bridge, and that they are generally happy to be allowed to play the board. If it is a serious event, I tell them that this ruling is of doubtful legality and give them a chance to protest - I've never seen them protest. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From adam@irvine.com Mon Oct 7 19:46:56 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 11:46:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Passed out boards In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:46:24 BST." <+CbRAQBwAZo9EwbC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <200210071846.LAA01942@mailhub.irvine.com> David Stevenson wrote: > We all know how to score these, don't we? Of course we do! > > But where does it say how to score them in the Laws? Yep, looks like that needs to be fixed. Also interesting is that when declarer makes a contract, Law 77 tells you what score to give the declarer's side, but it does not say anything explicitly about what score to give the other side. We "know" that the other side is supposed to get the negative of the score the declaring side gets, but this isn't explicitly stated. Similarly, when declarer goes down, L77 tells us what score to give declarer's opponents, but doesn't explicitly say what score to give the declaring side. This probably really matters only in matchpoint scoring (L78A); when IMP or total points is used, I don't think it matters whether we consider just one side or both sides to get a score; and at rubber, only one side should get a score (I realize that the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge don't apply here anyway). I suppose one could probably say the same about passouts---for example, when scoring at total points, it doesn't matter whether you give each side a 0 score or just don't score the board at all. So perhaps any rectification, both on the issue of negative scores and for passouts, should go into L78 rather than L77. Some months ago, _The Bridge World_ ran an article by someone who noticed that the Laws didn't say you had to assign negative scores, and proposed that when one side gets a plus score according to L77, we should give the other side a zero score instead of a negative score since L77 didn't disallow this. It was a pretty ridiculous article IMHO, and it was printed as a "paid advertisement", which I presume was the only way TBW could have been persuaded to print something so ridiculous. (Why the author thought the loophole in L77 made an iota of difference is beyond me, especially since L78D pretty much lets you run tournaments with any type of scoring that suits your fancy.) -- Adam From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 19:32:44 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:32:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger Pewick writes >From: "Tim West-meads" >> In-Reply-To: >> DWS wrote: >> >> > The problem with allowing the Kaplan question is that people >assume it >> > was OK because Kaplan did it, judging correctly that neither >opponent >> > would mind, and also judging correctly that it would do more good >than >> > harm in this particular case. >> > >> > But the moment you allow it people will do it without Kaplan's >> > judgement, and will tell partner what to do - legally. >> >> A Kaplan question, by definition, does more good than harm. > >Interesting. A Kaplan question does one ton of good and 1999 lb of >harm. 1999 lb of harm is still a lot of harm. And just who decides how >many lbs of harm is too much? A Kaplan question does one ton of good *at the time* and about a million tons of harm over the ensuing years because of its effect. Who are we to say that we should disallow it? Let's have a clever new idea: let us only allow people to communicate with partners via calls and plays. Not a bad idea, eh? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 19:18:40 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:18:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <002701c26df7$312bd0e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> References: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> <004001c26c03$f20041c0$249868d5@default> <002701c26df7$312bd0e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> The assumption that everyone plays the same way is silly. if it >were >> true alerting would be necessary -and the game would lose a lot of its >> appeal. > >I think that should be "would not be necessary". Correct. > I also think that the >majority of bridge players believe that the game would in fact be more >appealing if there were not a vast number of different methods to >confuse and bewilder. A lot of them would allow one, and only one, set of agreements, namely the one they play. > And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be >destroyed. Is that a bidding convention? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 19:30:04 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:30:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> The problem with allowing the Kaplan question is that people assume it >> was OK because Kaplan did it, judging correctly that neither opponent >> would mind, and also judging correctly that it would do more good than >> harm in this particular case. >> >> But the moment you allow it people will do it without Kaplan's >> judgement, and will tell partner what to do - legally. > >A Kaplan question, by definition, does more good than harm. If a >question, intended as a Kaplan question, creates UI then an adjustment may >be needed. The same adjustment as would be needed had the question >created UI when asked for the players own benefit. A Kaplan question does more good than harm in the view of the player. Of course, he may be wrong, but since any player who knows the principles is either God or just thinks he is it hardly matters to him? I think it was a bad idea that Kaplan did it because now others think they can - and they do not have Kaplan's judgement. Why cannot people just play to the rules of bridge? Some of the rules are not too hard to grasp. "It is not permitted to send a message to partner as to what he should be doing by asking a question of opponents." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 19:39:03 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:39:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel writes >[snip] >>Another example : >> >>1NT 2C >>2H 2NT >> >>Requesting that 2C be alerted because one will not always have some major >>isn't clever ; how can this influence the ensuing bidding ? >[Whow there - I normally agree with most of what you say on Blm, Alain but this >example is not so good. 2C as classic stayman garuntees a 4CM (this I know >because I'll be teaching it tonight in my class and then suggesting otherwise >using transfers etc etc). In the original Stayman as invented by Jack Marx 2C did not guarantee a major because it was used as a signoff in clubs. There is no agreement on whether Stayman guarantees a major, even amongst people teaching beginners. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 19:44:53 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:44:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Board cancelled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil writes >N-S being very slow on the first board (2 boards per round), >the TD decides that the second board will not be played, nor >at the current round, nor as a late play. What is the best ruling: > >1) Apply Law 12C1, taking into account that the slow play of the > first board is the "irregularity" (Law 12C1 can be apply "owing > to an irregularity"). Then N-S gets an A- and E-W and A+. This seems normal. >2) Just eliminate this board for both pairs (entering N as Non-Played > in ACBLScore does the job). In fact, this is like changing the > movement. Then the TD can apply Law 90 and give a procedural > penalty to N-S. This seems pretty unfair, and is psychologically bad. If a pair has lost a board, and it is not their fault, they will be upset enough: not to give them the sop of A+ will really rub salt in the wounds. Of course, someone will come up with a mathematical argument that thye are no worse off under 2), and I do not dispute it, but it is what the players think that is important. They are the customers: give them A+. >Does the TD may suggest players not to have a late play and apply >2) if all agree ? >Can the TD decides himself that the late play is cancelled ? >Using which Law (81C3?) Late plays are quite abnormal in many places, and are certainly only at the discretion of the TD. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 19:36:32 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:36:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007085038.00b38620@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Jurgen Rennenkampff writes >> Eric Landau >> I think it is. Indeed, it is my understanding that it is precisely >> Sven's interpretation here -- with the consequence of ruling "as if the >> least successful... of X and Y should have been chosen" -- that the WBF >> was hoping to eradicate by changing the wording of L16A from "could >> reasonably have been suggested" to "could demonstrably have been >> suggested". The change reinforces the legal requirement that we need >> more than simply finding that a player had UI and made a winning >> decision before we can adjust; we must also find that the UI suggested >> the decision. >This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three alternative actions X, Y, >Z, >it is perfectly possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands for >"could demonstably have been suggested over another". It is perfectly >possible, without logical contradiction, for an Appeals committee to vote >accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and is known as Arrow's >paradox (after Clarence Arrow) or the "voting paradox". - Not all binary >relations are transitive. >In our case the problem is more immediate: Of two competent TD's one may >well >decide X < Z, the other Z < X. That is not a problem of the Laws, but just a minor difficulty in their application. Since judgement decisions are not taken by one person it is not a particular problem. As for your paradox, it may be true, I would not know, but I do not accept any problem in the laws because of it until you show me a bridge example. >Further, as I pointed out before, there is never anything resembling a >"demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the use of UI appears >obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI turns the intended >meaning of the law on its head. Yes, but that was because you do not use the word demonstrate the way the rest of us do. Fortunately, the majority of people use it in a way that it is useful. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 7 19:26:20 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:26:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: <3DA19139.1080006@skynet.be> References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> <3DA19139.1080006@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >Who said anything about "deliberate" ? >I'm talking about ruling, not advice - not this time. >I said I would probably add it. >I also said that I would not rule against someone who had not added it. >Not the same thing, is it ? OK, you allow people to play methods, describe them incorrectly, and not rule against them. Now do I have your position clear? >> It is like a response of 5C to Blackwood, which shows 0 or 4 aces. >> You are suggesting replying "0 aces" to a question, and later explain >> that it might be four if you feel it is relevant. It is just pure >> misinformation with no reason. >I don't see what this example brings to the discussion. >It is nothing of the sort. >The example I was commenting upon had a very obscure secondary >meaning. No 5 card major AND not exactly 3-2 hearts-spades, or >something like that. It is not obscure, it is simple, quite common, and for you to say htat it is acceptable for people to misdescribe their agreements worries me. My example was exactly similar: an easy example of an uncommon occurrence [how often in response to Blackwood is the 0 or 4 response really 4?]. In fact the case we are talking about is more common. >Omitting that second bit would probably not hurt, and adding it just >confuses opponents. Of course it does not confuse opponents. What confuses opponents is when the player later says he was lying in his first description. >Well, maybe it does help, but that was not the point. >The point was that, if it was added, and through some deep reasoning, >it becomes apparent that 4 hearts are shown. >The question that was asked was whether that inference has to be told. > >I believe that it is more important to say after the bidding that 4 >hearts have been shown, than to say during the bidding that 2Sp-3He is >a possibility. > >Some people have the opposite point of view. It is against those that >I argue, not against you David, who most probably thinks both ought to >be told. >I'm just a bit more lenient, that's all. Ok, you are more lenient. I like people to describe their methods accurately, you do not care. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Oct 7 20:14:33 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 21:14:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007085038.00b38620@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:05:30 +0200, jurgenr@t-online.de (Jurgen Rennenkampff) wrote: >This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three alternative actions = X, Y, >Z, >it is perfectly possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands for >"could demonstably have been suggested over another".=20 In theory, yes. In practice, I think it would be difficult to find an example. But as I wrote in more detail a few days ago, it is very clear from other laws that it cannot be illegal to call at all - stopping the game in mid-auction because there is no legal call is quite obviously not the intention of the laws. The "correct" way to interpret L16A in a real bridge situation must therefore always be one that allows some call to be legal. I think that this can always be achieved by a suitable interpreation of the word "demonstrably". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 7 19:43:57 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:43:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c26e36$323ad140$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Karel wrote: >> [Whow there - I normally agree with most of what you say on Blm, Alain but this > example is not so good. 2C as classic stayman garuntees a 4CM (this I know > because I'll be teaching it tonight in my class and then suggesting otherwise > using transfers etc etc). You know it guarantees a four-card major because you are teaching it? Is your real name Sam Stayman? The Sam Stayman I know from his books says that 2C asks about a four-card major and says nothing about responder's holdings. I love this "promises a major" principle. Just last night I was on lead during a Swiss team match with S-J9xxx H-Qx D-xx C-98xx and RHO opened 1NT. Then 2C=2H=3NT. Knowing that responder had four spades, I led a club, hitting partner with AKxxx and opposing holding 2-2, down one. If an auction of mine went like that, dummy might put down a doubleton spade. Yes 3NT is then Alertable, but the explanation "May not have spades" leaves the opening leader in the dark. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Oct 7 20:21:15 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Forthwith Message-ID: <200210071921.PAA24825@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Jesper Dybdal > The L16B case I most often encounter is the one where one card of > one hand is shown to everybody because somebody at the previous > table put his hand back in the board with a card face-up. ... > My experience is that players want to play bridge, and that they > are generally happy to be allowed to play the board. What about allowing an _assigned_ adjusted score in some cases? It would handle the "exposed spot card" in most cases. The card is unlikely to affect the auction and many times won't affect the play, but some of the time it will make a huge difference: proving that someone is not void or clarifying a defender's signal. In such cases, the TD can assign scores starting from the position where the exposed card became important and considering both sides non-offending thereafter. This lets the players play as far as possible but no further. An assigned score also handles the case where the information only becomes available or only is noticed after play of the board has begun. Grattan: if the LC considers this idea, I am not sure a minor change in wording will suffice. You will probably have to think through just what you want to happen in different cases. On the other hand, maybe you could leave it to TD discretion. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 7 20:17:04 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:17:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/7/02, Jurgen Rennenkampff wrote: >This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three alternative actions >X, Y, Z, it is perfectly possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" >stands for "could demonstably have been suggested over another". It is >perfectly possible, without logical contradiction, for an Appeals >committee to vote accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and is >known as Arrow's paradox (after Clarence Arrow) or the "voting >paradox". - Not all binary relations are transitive. In our case the >problem is more immediate: Of two competent TD's one may well decide X >< Z, the other Z < X. Arrow's paradox speaks to voter preferences, and says that it is not possible to strictly order a set of possible preferences because not everyone will order them the same way. What you're saying here is that whether a given call "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" is strictly a matter of opinion, that different people with the same level of expertise in bridge might well have different opinions on the question. Perhaps that's so, but I think the *intent* of the word "demonstrably" in this law was to try to make the ordering a matter of fact, rather than a matter of opinion. I'm not so sure the attempt is a failure. >Further, as I pointed out before, there is never anything resembling a >"demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the use of UI >appears obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI turns >the intended meaning of the law on its head. The law does not require the demonstration of the use of UI. What it requires is that one who claims that alternative X is "demonstrably suggested" over alernative Y by UI be able to state how the UI suggests it. IOW, it is not sufficient simply to say "X is suggested over Y", or even "IMO X is suggested over Y", but instead one must say "the UI implies this and that, and from those we infer that X is likely to prove a better choice than Y". And the chain of logic which leads to that conclusion must be valid. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 7 20:24:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:24:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <006a01c26e29$9abeb860$d49868d5@default> Message-ID: On 10/7/02, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Karel: > I still stick with my guns that 2C as some sort > of relay is hugely different to 2C garunteeing > a 4CM and BOTH should be alerted. >Nigel: > I agree with Karel; If we must bear with alerts > then BOTh these are alertible; but even if you > want to bias the law to give local players and > their favourite method an edge -- ONE of these > options must be designated as alertible. > In the area of disclosure it is remarkable that > some legal experts seem to advocate a secretive > approach that even if legal seems to me immoral. You go too far. The ACBL, much as I think their alert regs may be too complicated, does make it clear that full disclosure is required. However, in this particular case, the regulation specifically states "No Alert is required for any bid of 2C over partner's 1NT opening or 3C over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major. Likewise, a 2C response to Stayman (or a 3C response after 2NT-P-3C ) is not Alterable if it denies a four-card major. EXAMPLE: 1NT-P-2C and 2NT-P-3C Partnerships do not need to Alert their Stayman bids in order to differentiate between those that promise a four-card major and those that don't. Opponents may assume that an immediate bid of clubs over a natural notrump opening is conventional, asking opener to bid a four-card major, with no guarantee that responder has a four-card major suit. However, when it becomes evident that the two-club bidder either does not have or tends not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time. EXAMPLE: 1NT - P - 2 - P - 2(x) - P - 2NT If the 2NT is or is most likely a raise in notrump without a four-card major, an Alert is required at the time of the 2NT bid." You may not agree with them, but to call this approach "immoral" is over the top. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 7 20:55:15 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:55:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: Message-ID: <006901c26e3b$fe1e0020$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" (quoting ACBL Alert Regulations) > > "No Alert is required for any bid of 2C over partner's 1NT opening or 3C > over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, > regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major. > Likewise, a 2C response to Stayman (or a 3C response after 2NT-P-3C ) is > not Alterable if it denies a four-card major. > EXAMPLE: 1NT-P-2C and 2NT-P-3C Partnerships do not need to Alert their > Stayman bids in order to differentiate between those that promise a > four-card major and those that don't. Opponents may assume that an > immediate bid of clubs over a natural notrump opening is conventional, > asking opener to bid a four-card major, with no guarantee that responder > has a four-card major suit. > > However, when it becomes evident that the two-club bidder either does > not have or tends not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at > that time. > > EXAMPLE: 1NT - P - 2 - P - 2(x) - P - 2NT If the 2NT is or is most > likely a raise in notrump without a four-card major, an Alert is > required at the time of the 2NT bid." And what if responder "tends to have" a four-card major, but may not? No Alert? What percentage probability is "tends to have"? Is that really the same as "most likely"? When the reponse to 2C is 2D, the likelihood of a four-card major in responder's hand is greater (perhaps "most likely") than when the response is in a major and responder bids notrump. Does that mean I don't have to Alert the possible absence of a major after 1N=2C=2D=2NT but must Alert after 1N=2C=2M=2NT? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 7 21:10:44 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:10:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <00eb01c26a4f$134a6b00$779468d5@default> <004001c26c03$f20041c0$249868d5@default> <002701c26df7$312bd0e0$779627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006a01c26e3d$a0724920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > David Burn writes > > > I also think that the > >majority of bridge players believe that the game would in fact be more > >appealing if there were not a vast number of different methods to > >confuse and bewilder. > > A lot of them would allow one, and only one, set of agreements, namely > the one they play. > > > And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be > >destroyed. > > Is that a bidding convention? > As DWS is no doubt aware, the allusion is to Cato the Elder's practice of ending every Roman Senate speech, on whatever subject, with the words: "Ceterum censeo delandam esse Carthaginem." Which means something like: Moreover, it is my firm belief that Carthage must be destroyed. And it eventually was, so keep repeating your belief, Mr. Burn. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From david-martin@talk21.com Mon Oct 7 22:29:19 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:29:19 +0100 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: <01b901c26e4f$17ffb160$93fc7ad5@davicaltd> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "David Martin" > > In practice, arrow-switching rounds in a complex way may give > > the optimum solution but may give rise to other problems, eg. if players > > move before they should, don't hear the instruction to switch because they > > are not paying attention or are in the bar, etc. Quite often the error > > introduced by simply switching the last X rounds is not huge and can be > > safely ignored. > > As readers may know, arrow-switches are unheard of in ACBL events. > From my position of ignorance, though, it strikes me that switching the > _first_ round (or maybe two) might be best from a compliance > perspective. People need to listen to the TD's instructions for > starting the movement, and then after the first round (or second), the > arrow goes back to its normal direction and everything proceeds as > usual. > > Is arrow switching the first round OK, or does it have problems, either > theoretical or practical? > ##### As far as movement quality is concerned, it does not matter whether you switch the first X rounds or the last X rounds or, indeed, any block of X rounds in the middle. They will all have exactly the same amount of error. I do not believe that there are any practical problems with switching either the early rounds or the latter ones as I have seen both practices successfully adopted. ##### From david-martin@talk21.com Mon Oct 7 22:24:10 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:24:10 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: <01b801c26e4f$0d7469c0$93fc7ad5@davicaltd> Marvin wrote: SNIP > > ### For any given degree of arrow-switching, there is a preferential set of > > rounds to switch that will give optimum balance because this will minimise > > the degree to which later arrow-switches will cancel out the effects of > > earlier ones. In practice, arrow-switching rounds in a complex way may give > > the optimum solution but may give rise to other problems, eg. if players > > move before they should, don't hear the instruction to switch because they > > are not paying attention or are in the bar, etc. Quite often the error > > introduced by simply switching the last X rounds is not huge and can be > > safely ignored. > > That seems sensible, but how do you get the value for X? ##### I have derived a formula based on the nCr combinations formula that applies to multi-section events but it is rather complicated to explain it in brief here. Perhaps a simple example will outline the general approach. Consider a single 9 table section. If no arrow-switching occurs then the stationary pairs will have 9C2 = 36 comparisons between themselves. If one round is arrow-switched then they will have 8C2 = 28 comparisons. If two rounds are switched then they will have 7C2 + 2C2 = 21 + 1 = 22 comparisons. If three rounds are switched then they will have 6C2 + 3C2 = 15 + 3 = 18 comparisons, ie. exactly half of the maximum possible number. Thus, if we wish to balance *comparisons* rather than competition then we should switch exactly three rounds in this case. I have developed a spreadsheet for multi-section events that uses a more complex equation to show the comparisons for each number of arrow-switched rounds. One interesting result is that the limiting case for an infinite number of sections is arrow-switch exactly half of the rounds. However, because we normally only switch entire rounds and this is therefore an integer quantity, the nearest approximation that requires exactly half the rounds to be switched occurs with a surprisingly low number of sections. Also, sections with odd numbers of tables reach this limit more quickly than ones with even numbers of tables. For example, we only need TWO 9 table sections playing the same boards before we should arrow-switch half of the rounds, ie four or five rounds but with 13 table sections we need THREE sections to reach the same limit of arrow-switching 6 or 7 rounds. FIVE 10 table sections would be required to allow us to switch four, five or six rounds with equal effect whilst SIX 12 table sections would require five, six or seven rounds of arrow-switching. ##### > > > > The effect that I have previously referred to as 'movement dynamics' still > > exists even when arrow-switches are adopted. Thus, to ensure fair > > competition, it is still necessary to ensure that the strongest and weakest > > players are evenly distributed throughout all lines and sections and, > > furthermore, that they are evenly distributed amongst the tables in a > > section and not all at table 1 etc. ### > > > Yes, so the ACBL practice of putting seeds at tables 3, 6, 9, and sometimes 12 > in all sections should be modified how with arrow switches? ###### The seeds should be equally spread amongst the table numbers and sections and, ideally, with a range of prime number separations within any particular section. Thus, you might put seeds at tables 1,2, 4, 7 and 12 in one section and at tables 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 in the next section, etc. ###### From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 7 23:56:27 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:56:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> >Karel writes >>[snip] >>>Another example : >>> >>>1NT 2C >>>2H 2NT >>> > > In the original Stayman as invented by Jack Marx 2C did not guarantee >a major because it was used as a signoff in clubs. > > There is no agreement on whether Stayman guarantees a major, even >amongst people teaching beginners. [I have no idea what Mr Marx's 2C meant but anyone playing it should probably alert it as the Marx 2C bid. You mention stayman to any player and they will automatically associate it with 4 card majors. I'd go so far as to say (and this was verified in my class) that they would never bid stayman without a 4CM. 2C is played by the vast majority as either definitively having or denying a 4CM. This is information you are entitled to know BEFORE the rebid shows which it is. Therefore it should be alertable in either case. If one of these becomes a globally agreed default treatment for 2C then the other becomes alertable. It is my opinion that true or not players expect stayman bidders to have a 4CM and a simple effortless alert is all that is required to "alert" them that this may not be the case. ] -- http://www.iol.ie From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 8 00:07:08 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 00:07:08 +0100 Subject: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <002301c26e56$af84bd30$0542e150@endicott> Subject: Re: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) ================================= This is very long because it quotes in text what I will not attach. ================================= > > Grattan Endicott .......................................................... "In civilized life, law floats on a sea of ethics" [Earl Warren] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Some people have the opposite point of view. It is > > against those that I argue, not against you David, > > who most probably thinks both ought to be told. > > I'm just a bit more lenient, that's all. > > > +=+ You may think provocative the text of the paper > I have just presented to the EBL Seminar for Presidents > and Officers. On the day it might have had one or more > thoughts added (this is the original text). > > > EUROPEAN BRIDGE LEAGUE > > > SEMINAR > For > Presidents and Officers of NBOs. > > Torino, 3 to 5 October, 2002. > > ____________________________________________________________________ _______ > > Questions for discussion groups moderated by Grattan Endicott. > > 'ETHICS' > > 1. Are ethics an outmoded concept in a game environment? > > The first papers distributed for this discussion are quotations of the > standards of earlier years. With them there are copies of some recent > EBL statements on ethics. > > Do we see a difference? > Should we hope to maintain the standards of earlier years? > Could we hope to develop standards to fresh levels? > > > Bridge in the highly social atmosphere of the home. Many a child > learns that father and mother happily and innocently communicate as > much by the tempo and mannerisms that accompany their game as > they do by the calls in the auction and the play of the cards. > > 2. The young player's first experience of a bridge club. > > Even if they do not bring with them what they have learnt about the > game at their mother's knee, young players entering a bridge club for > the first time will frequently encounter a socially relaxed game. There is > often (but not always) a tolerance of ethical standards that will not > stand scrutiny if they move upwards to the regional, national and > international levels of bridge. > > > 3. What should be the role of the NBO before, during, and immediately > after, the transition from social player to competition level? > > Does the NBO have a duty to do anything at all? > Does the NBO have an interest to help the players to understand the > ethical requirements of the game? > What does your NBO do about it? > Do you issue free pamphlets and/or posters to clubs on ethics in > bridge? > Do you include the subject in teaching programmes? - as a > mainstream subject? > Do you include it in seminars for club tournament directors? > > 4. What are the chief problems? > > Tempo > About half (at least) of the appeals in tournaments > are to do with action by the partner of a player who > breaks tempo (allegedly) before calling. > > We must not overlook the less frequent, but at times highly > significant, occasions when a player is slow to play a card to a trick. > > Mannerisms > Players are human beings and have mannerisms in the way > they do things. The laws require us not to take advantage of > what we can 'read' in partner's actions. > > The unthinking remark > With a friendly approach to the game and a little good humour > at the table, people sometimes get 'caught out' by saying > something that can be misread and immediately regretting it. > > Disclosure > Law and Regulation normally requires that our methods be 'fully > disclosed'. > > The pressure for full disclosure should increase at each higher level > of the game. It is suggested that a high standard of ethics calls for a > high level of consideration for opponents. In turn this means care in > giving a full and fair explanation of any understanding that > opponents may not readily anticipate and understand. > > Consider this proposition: "" On the first occasion that something > happens you may draw an inference; maybe the second time it is still > a matter of evidence and reasoning. The third time it happens you > are on solid ground and it is a matter of partnership agreement. > Further, if you say to partner 'so in this situation I cannot have four > Spades' a conversation that began with an inference has > transmuted it into an agreement."" Think about advanced > partnerships in your NBO - those with well developed system files. Do > they measure up to these standards of disclosure when asked to > explain a call? Do they mention relevant 'agreed' inferences? > > > Misinformation > > As with disclosure, there is an issue under this heading if it is > considered a matter of bridge ethics to be considerate of > opponents. The higher we go in bridge, is there not a corresponding > increase in our responsibility for preparing ourselves for > tournaments? > > How ethical can we consider ourselves once we rise to the levels of > national tournaments, or of regional tournaments in larger countries, > if we are unable to give our opponents an accurate account of our > system agreements and our special understandings? Is it > acceptable if we go to such major tournaments inadequately > prepared? - using methods that we have not fully grasped? > > 5. How do we see these problems varied when screens are in use? > > Tempo > During the auction it is the return of the tray that matters. The > screenmate of a player who hesitates has no reason to call the > Director if players on the other side of the screen have noticed no > untoward delay. > > Misinformation > Players in doubt are expected to alert. Do we then support the WBF > view that an alert one side of the screen but not the other does not > necessarily imply an infraction? Players should not make > assumptions about reasons for an alert? > > 6. Suspicion > > Another problem is that some players are more gifted than others. > When we see a highly successful partnership are we too ready to > suspect them of cheating? Do we think too easily that they must have > some way of communicating, some way of 'finding out', that is denied > to mortals? > > When we see the introduction of screens, bidding boxes, symmetrical > playing cards, do we feel nostalgia for the 'innocence' of the past? Or > do we share the feeling that "nostalgia isn't what it used to be"? > > Is it our belief that such measures are essential safeguards for the > probity of the game, the honesty of its players? Or do we see in them a > response to the perceptions of those envious of success? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- > Moderator's footnote: > > The question reveals the man. But it is not what I think that is important. > The need is for the group to consider, and for each individual to find > his/her own answers to, questions that ought to be asked, at least, in > every NBO. ================================================ ================================================ ~ G ~ +=+ From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Oct 8 00:26:29 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:26:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 26 Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Reading Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Penalties), I think a third note should be added, similar to note (1) in Law 50 and 51: (3) If the player is unable to lead as required, see Law 59. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Oct 8 00:35:57 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 00:35:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <3da21a5d.2a2b.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ] >I love this "promises a major" principle. Just last night I was on lead >during a Swiss team match with S-J9xxx H-Qx D-xx C-98xx and RHO opened >1NT. Then 2C=2H=3NT. Knowing that responder had four spades, I led a >club, hitting partner with AKxxx and opposing holding 2-2, down one. If >an auction of mine went like that, dummy might put down a doubleton >spade. Yes 3NT is then Alertable, but the explanation "May not have >spades" leaves the opening leader in the dark. 1NT 2C 2H 3NT in my system this sequence denies 4 spades (with 4S's bid 2S 1RF) and 4 hearts. Infact this auction would be unusual (possibly short in hearts with a decent 3 card spade stop checking if pd can stop the hearts is one explanation). I would alert this sequence at the table (both at 2C and 3NT). This example is a good one for proper clear alerting. You were alerted that 3NT shows 4S's and this information enabled you to find the killing defence. At least you were fully and appropriately informed. Forget about stayman and whatever that means. 1NT 2C is not natural to play. It is a conventional bid which normally enquires about a 4CM. Some play it that you must have a 4CM others not. Its meaning is not internationallly or even locally agreed. It should therefore be alerted and the onus should not be on the opponents to discover its meaning. To alert it as stayman is misleading as there is no agreement as to its definitive meaning. I cant understand why this "2C" has been apparently ear marked for special non alert staus. Its a convention and ergo alertable. Is it going to kill us to alert it ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 8 01:56:58 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 01:56:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <006301c26e65$a87223c0$929468d5@default> David Stevenson: Let's have a clever new idea: let us only allow people to communicate with partners via calls and plays. Not a bad idea, eh? Nigel: At last! a convert! Who else agrees with David and me that alerts should be banned? "Kaplan" questions are small fry compared with alerts! From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 8 02:14:59 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:14:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Hands from Two Boards Message-ID: <009c01c26e68$61905be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Swiss team, 8-board matches. A table is playing boards 1-4 in order, after playing boards 5-8 first, with the other table playing 1-4 first. Having played board 1, they progress to board 2 (East dealer), North and East quickly removing their hands from the board. Unnoticed by them, one of the others flips the board over to expose board 3 (South dealer), with the result that South and West take hands from board 3. South and West pass, North opens 3C, all pass. Now it is noticed that two hands remain in the pockets, and the TD is called. TD says, "I think you have to play three clubs, but wait and I'll check on that." Instead of waiting, North suggests they go ahead and play 3C, believing that if the TD was wrong the result won't count. South and West take out their correct hands from Board 2, West leads, and declarer takes 12 tricks. TD returns after play is completed and rules that since North did not wait for a final ruling the 3C contract stands (making six). Had he waited, some (unstated) TD action would have been taken. Score it up. Board 3 is unaffected, as three passes go around to a normal 1NT opening, all pass. Just as well, as the TD had left by the time the auction started on Board 3. Opinions, please. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 8 03:35:53 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:35:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <006901c26e3b$fe1e0020$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/7/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >And what if responder "tends to have" a four-card major, but may not? >No Alert? > >What percentage probability is "tends to have"? Is that really the >same as "most likely"? > >When the reponse to 2C is 2D, the likelihood of a four-card major in >responder's hand is greater (perhaps "most likely") than when the >response is in a major and responder bids notrump. Does that mean I >don't have to Alert the possible absence of a major after 1N=2C=2D=2NT >but must Alert after 1N=2C=2M=2NT? Jeezus, Marv. :-( Okay, if you want to pick the regulation apart, it should probably say something like "if responder's rebid of 2NT or 3NT might be made on a hand containing no four card major, an alert is required". If that suits you, feel free to pass it on to whoever at ACBL is in charge of the alert regs. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 8 04:00:40 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:00:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3da21a5d.2a2b.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: On 10/8/02, Karel wrote: >Forget about stayman and whatever that means. 1NT 2C is not natural >to play. It is a conventional bid which normally enquires about a 4CM. > Some play it that you must have a 4CM others not. Its meaning is not >internationallly or even locally agreed. It should therefore be >alerted and the onus should not be on the opponents to discover its >meaning. To alert it as stayman is misleading as there is no >agreement as to its definitive meaning. Pfui. There are several ways to classify bids. One is to divide them into two groups: "asking" bids - which ask a question of partner, and "telling" bids, which tell partner something about one's hand. While it is certainly possible to play a given bid, including 2C over 1NT or 3C over 2NT, as having elements of both, the essential characteristic of this bid is that it *asks* partner to describe his hand further, with particular attention to possible four card major holdings. At that point in the bidding, the only thing opener knows is that he is supposed to show a four card major if he has one, or bid minimum diamonds if he does not. It is only when responder makes his rebid that opener may be able to infer more about responder's hand. That later inference being made on the basis of a partnership agreement, the agreement is fully disclosable *at that time*. There is also usually a requirement to list this kind of agreement on the CC. If pairs examine their opponents' CCs at the beginning of a round, it's then there for them to see. (This is required in the EBU, although not in at least some other jurisdictions.) By "alerting as Stayman" I presume you mean alerting, and then explaining if asked with the word "Stayman". That is indeed misleading, which is why the ACBL, at least, prohibits "explaining" a call by naming a convention. That applies to *any* conventional call, not just "Stayman". >I cant understand why this "2C" has been apparently ear marked for >special non alert staus. Its a convention and ergo alertable. Is it >going to kill us to alert it ?? That something is a convention does not mean that it is automatically alertable. The approach to that question is left to the discretion of SOs, who do approach it differently in different parts of the world. In the ACBL, some conventions are alertable, some are not. Some non-conventional calls are alertable, and some not. One could argue against this approach (and many have) but it's perfectly legal. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 8 04:02:29 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:02:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hands from Two Boards In-Reply-To: <009c01c26e68$61905be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/7/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Opinions, please. I think I want to throw up. :-) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 8 06:26:10 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:26:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: Message-ID: <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > > By "alerting as Stayman" I presume you mean alerting, and then > explaining if asked with the word "Stayman". That is indeed misleading, > which is why the ACBL, at least, prohibits "explaining" a call by naming > a convention. That applies to *any* conventional call, not just > "Stayman". > And yet has the words Stayman, Jacoby, Texas, Drury, splinter, Smolen Lebensohl, Michaels, and other convention names on the ACBL convention card. Isn't that explaining a call by naming a convention? What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally by naming a convention. An oral explanation must state what a bid means, not what it is called. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 8 07:02:39 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:02:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: Message-ID: <00e101c26e90$6d053900$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Marvin L. French" > On 10/7/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >And what if responder "tends to have" a four-card major, but may not? > >No Alert? > > > >What percentage probability is "tends to have"? Is that really the > >same as "most likely"? > > > >When the reponse to 2C is 2D, the likelihood of a four-card major in > >responder's hand is greater (perhaps "most likely") than when the > >response is in a major and responder bids notrump. Does that mean I > >don't have to Alert the possible absence of a major after 1N=2C=2D=2NT > >but must Alert after 1N=2C=2M=2NT? > > Jeezus, Marv. :-( > > Okay, if you want to pick the regulation apart, Jeezus to you ED. I like to pick apart Laws and regs that do not convey the meaning that the writer seems to have intended. Is that bad? > it should probably say > something like "if responder's rebid of 2NT or 3NT might be made on a > hand containing no four card major, an alert is required". > To use your word again, Pfui! It should say something like "if responder's rebid does not identify a major suit holding, and he may not have one, it is Alertable." >If that suits > you, feel free to pass it on to whoever at ACBL is in charge of the > alert regs. :-) Well, thanks for your kind permission, Ed. The only time the ACBL adopted a suggestion of mine for rewording a regulation, they got it wrong. The entire BoD is in charge of the Alert regs. A committee comes up with the wording of for them, and we know only too well how committees write. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 8 07:12:23 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:12:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: Message-ID: <00ed01c26e91$d8d75860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> I've been getting a lot of double postings lately, like this one. Please, everyone who is doing it, don't do it. I read everything on BLML via my one e-mail address, I won't miss anything meant for my eyes. And also, why do some people address blml by putting blml@rtflb.org on the Cc line? It requires that I delete it and put it on the To line when replying. That's a pain. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 8 07:48:24 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 07:48:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002101c26e96$d3b6af70$5501e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally > by naming a convention. An oral explanation must > state what a bid means, not what it is called. > +=+ But isn't this exactly what Law 75C requires? I think the ACBL is simply underlining what the law requires. A name is not an explanation - if I tell you that I have just had an email from David how much do you know? Well, it wasn't Marv or Ed, probably. ~ G ~ +=+ From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Oct 8 08:40:32 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:40:32 +0200 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Jürgen Rennenkampff [mailto:jurgenr@t-online.de] Sent: Montag, 7. Oktober 2002 21:58 To: David Stevenson Subject: RE: [blml] L16 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: Montag, 7. Oktober 2002 20:37 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] L16 > > > Jurgen Rennenkampff writes > >> Eric Landau > > >> I think it is. Indeed, it is my understanding that it is precisely > >> Sven's interpretation here -- with the consequence of ruling "as if the > >> least successful... of X and Y should have been chosen" -- that the WBF > >> was hoping to eradicate by changing the wording of L16A from "could > >> reasonably have been suggested" to "could demonstrably have been > >> suggested". The change reinforces the legal requirement that we need > >> more than simply finding that a player had UI and made a winning > >> decision before we can adjust; we must also find that the UI suggested > >> the decision. > > >This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three alternative > actions X, Y, > >Z, > >it is perfectly possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands for > >"could demonstably have been suggested over another". It is perfectly > >possible, without logical contradiction, for an Appeals committee to vote > >accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and is known as Arrow's > >paradox (after Clarence Arrow) or the "voting paradox". - Not all binary > >relations are transitive. > >In our case the problem is more immediate: Of two competent TD's one may > >well > >decide X < Z, the other Z < X. > > That is not a problem of the Laws, but just a minor difficulty in > their application. Since judgement decisions are not taken by one > person it is not a particular problem. What you seem to forget, as you often do, are the players. The player has the problem of how to find an admissible bid in the face of UI. You are looking at the problem from the TD's point of view, which is very different. > > As for your paradox, it may be true, I would not know, but I do not > accept any problem in the laws because of it until you show me a bridge > example. Not my paradox, not very difficult to understand, though surprising. Examples are ubiquitous. Here is one: IMPS Q1097 | W N O S Dlr: W 5 | 1H - 1NT -* Vul: None 105 | - 2C X 2D A98543 | - - 2H X AKx Jxx | - - - Axxxx Kx | * Clear Hesitation agreed xxx Jxx | 10x KQJxx | E complains about the 2C bid. xxx | QJ1092 Result: | AKQ10x 2HX-3 | - 500 | 9 IMPs > > >Further, as I pointed out before, there is never anything resembling a > >"demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the use of UI appears > >obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI turns the intended > >meaning of the law on its head. > > Yes, but that was because you do not use the word demonstrate the way > the rest of us do. Fortunately, the majority of people use it in a way > that it is useful. This is possible - tell me then how I am misusing the word. Jürgen > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Oct 8 08:41:07 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:41:07 +0200 Subject: FW: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Jürgen Rennenkampff [mailto:jurgenr@t-online.de] Sent: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2002 08:26 To: David Stevenson Subject: RE: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: Montag, 7. Oktober 2002 20:33 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > > [...] > > Let's have a clever new idea: let us only allow people to communicate > with partners via calls and plays. Not a bad idea, eh? That's it: No alerts, no questions, no answers. The Brave New World is possible today: Each player has a computer, a keyboard and a display. Screens crosswise, or partners far away from each other. No physical cards. Opp's complete system notes queried via computer. No UI, no revoke, no LOOT, ... and very soon no players. Thank god, we would still have MI (bad system notes), hence laws, bridge criminals, bridge police, judges and juries, popes and emperors, hierarchies of officials, and lackeys. Jürgen PS Serious questions: How long until organized bridge disappears? Can anything be done on the level of the laws to delay its demise? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 8 08:47:31 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 09:47:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> <3DA19139.1080006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DA28D93.2070508@skynet.be> David, you do want to have the last word. David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > > It is not obscure, it is simple, quite common, and for you to say htat > it is acceptable for people to misdescribe their agreements worries me. > Don't you understand David, that it is all a question of quantity ? Have you ever received a full explanation ? No you have not, because that is simply impossible. All the negative inferences ? Every single possibility ? - impossible. > My example was exactly similar: an easy example of an uncommon > occurrence [how often in response to Blackwood is the 0 or 4 response > really 4?]. In fact the case we are talking about is more common. > But you are talking of an extra meaning that costs just two words "or 4". We were talking of an extra meaning that took three sentences. Of course that should have been added. But I would not really blame someone who did not add it. > >>Omitting that second bit would probably not hurt, and adding it just >>confuses opponents. >> > > Of course it does not confuse opponents. What confuses opponents is > when the player later says he was lying in his first description. > But he was not lying - he was not telling all. The bid denied five cards in either major. It also denied one specific further combination. To add that at this stage is confusing. > >>Well, maybe it does help, but that was not the point. >>The point was that, if it was added, and through some deep reasoning, >>it becomes apparent that 4 hearts are shown. >>The question that was asked was whether that inference has to be told. >> >>I believe that it is more important to say after the bidding that 4 >>hearts have been shown, than to say during the bidding that 2Sp-3He is >>a possibility. >> >>Some people have the opposite point of view. It is against those that >>I argue, not against you David, who most probably thinks both ought to >>be told. >>I'm just a bit more lenient, that's all. >> > > Ok, you are more lenient. I like people to describe their methods > accurately, you do not care. > But you don't care either - you don't expect them to tell everything either - or rather, you do, you just have a different level of "everything" in mind. And you just want to criticize everything I say, possibly out of principle. Remember again what the example was about : should the player later say his that partner had now promised four hearts or not ? THAT is the important question. Not the one you keep yapping on. What is your point of view regarding the four hearts ? Do you believe that it is OK to obfuscate this by saying : "no five card majors, nor 3-2 in hearts-spades, no five-four in any suits, no singletons (*), no four card spades" (*) infact these two are not said but "implied" from a non-alert on 1NT or some such. I have not followed the bidding well enough to put everything right here so that it indeed leads to an inference of four cards in hearts, but you see what I mean. Is it all right to just sum up a number of negative agreements and expect opponents to work out that it leads to a positive inference ? I don't believe it is. What do you say, David ? Let's agree on something for a change ! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 8 02:11:37 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:11:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Arrow's paradox (was L16) Message-ID: <4A256C4C.0005453F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Jurgen Rennenkampff wrote: >>This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three >>alternative actions X, Y, Z, it is perfectly >>possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands >>for "could demonstably have been suggested over >>another". It is perfectly possible, without logical >>contradiction, for an Appeals committee to vote >>accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and >>is known as Arrow's paradox (after Clarence Arrow) >>or the "voting paradox". - Not all binary relations >>are transitive. In our case the problem is more >>immediate: Of two competent TD's one may well >>decide X < Z, the other Z < X. Ed Reppert replied: >Arrow's paradox speaks to voter preferences, and >says that it is not possible to strictly order a set >of possible preferences because not everyone will >order them the same way. What you're saying here is >that whether a given call "could demonstrably have >been suggested over another" is strictly a matter of >opinion, that different people with the same level >of expertise in bridge might well have different >opinions on the question. [snip] No, for a true Arrow's paradox to operate in L16, a *single* TD would rule that: 1) X is demonstrably suggested by UI over Y 2) Y is demonstrably suggested by UI over Z 3) Z is demonstrably suggested by UI over X 4) X, Y, and Z are all logical alternatives 5) There is not a fourth logical alternative A variant of the Arrow's paradox can occur when a player has a high-level decision, where the three logical alternatives after two passes are: a) Take a cheap save b) Make a penalty double c) Pass and defend undoubled Option c) can never be the *correct* choice, since if the opposing contract will fail, it is correct to double; while if the opposing contract will fail, it is correct to save. But option c) is demonstrably better than option a), if option a) results in a phantom; while option c) is demonstrably better than option b), if option b) is the Hills Double convention. [Hills Double = A penalty double where, on a good day, the opponents score only one overtrick.] Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 8 09:25:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 8 Oct 2002 01:25:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Arrow's paradox (was L16) Message-ID: <081002281.5156@webbox.com> Richard wrote: >Option c) can never be the *correct* choice, since if >the opposing contract will fail, it is correct to >double; while if the opposing contract will fail, it >is correct to save. Press any key to continue, or any other key to quit. Kenneth, not Clarence, by the way. David Burn London, England From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Oct 8 09:36:39 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:36:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Arrow's paradox (was L16) In-Reply-To: <081002281.5156@webbox.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Burn > Sent: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2002 10:26 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Arrow's paradox (was L16) > > > > Richard wrote: > > >Option c) can never be the *correct* choice, since if > >the opposing contract will fail, it is correct to > >double; while if the opposing contract will fail, it > >is correct to save. > > Press any key to continue, or any other key to quit. Kenneth, > not Clarence, by the way. Right, of course - don't know where I got Clarence. Jürgen > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Tue Oct 8 10:43:27 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 05:43:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] List address (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <00ed01c26e91$d8d75860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <00ed01c26e91$d8d75860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:12:23 -0700, Marv French wrote: >I've been getting a lot of double postings lately, like this one. >Please, everyone who is doing it, don't do it. I read everything on BLML >via my one e-mail address, I won't miss anything meant for my eyes. > You're bringing up a near-religious debate that afflicts all mailing lists at one time or another, Marv. >And also, why do some people address blml by putting blml@rtflb.org on >the Cc line? It requires that I delete it and put it on the To line when >replying. That's a pain. > The question is whether the default reply-to address on a mailing list should be the list address or the sender's address (it's been raised on BLML at least twice in my memory during Markus's tenure). If you set the reply-to address to the list, then you periodically get people embarrassing themselves by sending what they intend to be private replies to the list. If you set the reply-to to the sender, as is the current situation with BLML, that solves the private message problem, but it means that people must do a "Reply to all' to reply to the list as well, and then you get the current situation - that your address is the one to which a reply is sent, with a CC to the list. The ones you don't see doing this are the ones who have done just as you find it a pain to do, and changed the address themselves. This second option also causes some replies to unintentionally be sent privately when they're meant to go to the list. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 8 11:03:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > Why cannot people > just play to the rules of bridge? Some of the rules are not too hard to > grasp. People can, Kaplan did, then the rules changed. I don't think he would ask now (not sure if the afterlife is subject to WBF rules tho). > "It is not permitted to send a message to partner as to what he should > be doing by asking a question of opponents." Fine. But the "message" sent to partner is independent of whether the person asking the question knows the answer. Had Kaplan been unsure about the exact Italian method and asked his question then *exactly* the same message would have been transmitted in the answer. The game becomes unplayable (without screens) if questions are not permitted when partner may also benefit from the answers. It is because identifying a Kaplan question relies purely on motive that I consider the change a bad one. Tim From caseyk@es.co.nz Tue Oct 8 11:25:37 2002 From: caseyk@es.co.nz (B Kelly) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 23:25:37 +1300 Subject: [blml] re-stayman Message-ID: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> My partner and I have occasionally used a 2C bid to remove partner from a NT contract, only when weak (we use 12-14 NT)so is a sequence like 1NT pass 2C pass 2D pass pass alertable? by passing 2D I am not denying or confirming any hand shape,(but will normally have a shortage in clubs),but saying we have a lack of points and I think NT is not a good place to play. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 8 11:59:20 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:59:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Arrow's paradox (was L16) In-Reply-To: <4A256C4C.0005453F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008125356.02baac50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:11 8/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Jurgen Rennenkampff wrote: > > >>This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three > >>alternative actions X, Y, Z, it is perfectly > >>possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands > >>for "could demonstably have been suggested over > >>another". It is perfectly possible, without logical > >>contradiction, for an Appeals committee to vote > >>accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and > >>is known as Arrow's paradox (after Clarence Arrow) > >>or the "voting paradox". - Not all binary relations > >>are transitive. In our case the problem is more > >>immediate: Of two competent TD's one may well > >>decide X < Z, the other Z < X. AG : this is *not* Arrow's paradox, it is Condorcet's paradox, after the French politician, philosoph and mathematitcian Antoine Marie Caritat de Condorcet (XVIII century). Arrow's paradox deals with aggregating rankings : you cannot avoid the fact that the global ranking of A and B can depend on partial rankings of C. See for example the last World Cup of athletics, where the disqualification of the Spanish relay put the British behind the German in the aggregate ranking. If the Spanish had kept their place, the British would have ended ahead of the German. From mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au Tue Oct 8 11:51:52 2002 From: mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:51:52 +1000 (EST) Subject: [blml] re-stayman In-Reply-To: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> Message-ID: Hi, A quick effort at RTFLB shows that it hardly mentions them. The form and requirements for alerting are devolved to the sponsoring organisation. In your case, your club or the NZCBA are presumably your SO. Mark On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, B Kelly wrote: > My partner and I have occasionally used a 2C bid to remove partner from > a NT contract, > only when weak (we use 12-14 NT)so is a sequence like > 1NT pass 2C pass 2D pass pass alertable? > by passing 2D I am not denying or confirming any hand shape,(but will > normally have a shortage in clubs),but saying we have a lack of points > and I think NT is not a good place to play. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 8 12:30:42 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:30:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <006a01c26e29$9abeb860$d49868d5@default> References: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008132930.02baa4d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:46 7/10/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Karel: > I still stick with my guns that 2C as some sort > of relay is hugely different to 2C garunteeing > a 4CM and BOTH should be alerted. >Nigel: > I agree with Karel; If we must bear with alerts > then BOTh these are alertible; but even if you > want to bias the law to give local players and > their favourite method an edge -- ONE of these > options must be designated as alertible. AG : let's be direct. If *every* sense of the 2C bid is alertable, then the alert achieves nothing. The bid is self-alertable and oppos are expected to protect themselves. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 8 12:35:20 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:35:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: References: <006a01c26e29$9abeb860$d49868d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008133228.02bac0e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:24 7/10/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >You go too far. The ACBL, much as I think their alert regs may be too >complicated, does make it clear that full disclosure is required. >However, in this particular case, the regulation specifically states > >"No Alert is required for any bid of 2C over partner's 1NT opening or 3C >over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, >regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major. >Likewise, a 2C response to Stayman (or a 3C response after 2NT-P-3C ) is >not Alterable if it denies a four-card major. AG : I guess it is 2D and 3D. >EXAMPLE: 1NT-P-2C and 2NT-P-3C Partnerships do not need to Alert their >Stayman bids in order to differentiate between those that promise a >four-card major and those that don't. Opponents may assume that an >immediate bid of clubs over a natural notrump opening is conventional, >asking opener to bid a four-card major, with no guarantee that responder >has a four-card major suit. > >However, when it becomes evident that the two-club bidder either does >not have or tends not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at >that time. > >EXAMPLE: 1NT - P - 2 - P - 2(x) - P - 2NT If the 2NT is or is most >likely a raise in notrump without a four-card major, an Alert is >required at the time of the 2NT bid." AG : this is exactly what I said. Agreeing with the ABCL alert regulations means I'm at odds with myself -<%-P Okay, SMOn, this regulation is logical, because is requests an alert when you know what happens, not when all you have to say is "I don't know what he has". Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 8 12:38:43 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:38:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008133602.00aabc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:56 7/10/2002 +0100, Karel wrote: > >Karel writes > >>[snip] > >>>Another example : > >>> > >>>1NT 2C > >>>2H 2NT > >>> > > > > In the original Stayman as invented by Jack Marx 2C did not guarantee > >a major because it was used as a signoff in clubs. > > > > There is no agreement on whether Stayman guarantees a major, even > >amongst people teaching beginners. > >[I have no idea what Mr Marx's 2C meant but anyone playing it should probably >alert it as the Marx 2C bid. You mention stayman to any player and they will >automatically associate it with 4 card majors. I'd go so far as to say (and >this was verified in my class) that they would never bid stayman without a >4CM. > 2C is played by the vast majority as either definitively having or denying >a 4CM. AG : vast overbid. In many European countries, one third to one half of the players use 2C as guaranteeing a major, most of the others guarantee it unless they intend to bid 2NT next or they have a slam hand and intend to relay. People who play it as denying a 4C major ... well, I don't know any. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 8 12:42:51 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:42:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3da21a5d.2a2b.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008133932.00a3bb40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:35 8/10/2002 +0100, Karel wrote: >I cant understand why this "2C" has been apparently ear marked for special non >alert staus. Its a convention and ergo alertable. Is it going to kill us to >alert it ?? AG : do you alert 1C X as a convention ? Do snakes make pushups ? The rule is not 'thou shall alert every convention', but 'thou shall alert when it is possible that the opponents need to be informed' If you alert when unnecessary, you are basically shouting 'wolf'. When an alert *is* needed, opponents won't care of it and it will have missed its purpose. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 8 12:45:58 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:45:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008134431.02bab4e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:26 7/10/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally by naming a >convention. An oral explanation must state what a bid means, not what it >is called. AG : absurd. It means that I have no way of explaining marionette-type bids, since they don't mean anything. They only ask partner to do something specific. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 8 12:47:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > > A Kaplan question, by definition, does more good than harm. > > Interesting. A Kaplan question does one ton of good and 1999 lb of > harm. 1999 lb of harm is still a lot of harm. And just who decides how > many lbs of harm is too much? The TD/AC - just as with any other question. If the question itself generates UI then adjustment may be necessary (and it wasn't a Kaplan question after all). Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 8 12:47:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002301c26e56$af84bd30$0542e150@endicott> Grattan provided some thought-provoking material. This bit, although phrased as a question, disturbed me (perhaps something about the question revealing the man!). > > How ethical can we consider ourselves once we rise to the levels > > of national tournaments, or of regional tournaments in larger > > countries,if we are unable to give our opponents an accurate account > > of our system agreements and our special understandings? Is it > > acceptable if we go to such major tournaments inadequately > > prepared? - using methods that we have not fully grasped? National tournaments are for everybody - not just expert partnerships. Less experienced players can explain their understanding of their methods but will never fully grasp them. Even experienced players are seldom sufficiently au fait with bidding theory to realise that inferences not previously drawn may be available. Our responsibility to disclose is limited by our ability, not by our choice of where we play. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 8 13:06:43 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:06:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 26 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008140058.00aabec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:26 7/10/2002 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >Reading Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Penalties), I think a third >note should be added, similar to note (1) in Law 50 and 51: > >(3) If the player is unable to lead as required, see Law 59. AG : it would indeed be useful. When I referred to L59 to understand Laval's argument, another problem came to my mind. Say that West is compelled to lead a club. He hasn't any. He is allowe dto lead any other card. Two questions remain : 1) should he call the TD ? If he doesn't, and leads something else, surely the opponents will call anyway. 2) Is the fact that West has no more clubs UI to his partner ? Two opposite considerations arise here : a) were it not for East's infraction, he would not have known that his partner had no more. L72B1 may thus be used. b) take L72A5 literally. What do you think thereof ? Best regards, Alain. >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 8 13:29:55 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:29:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021007085038.00b38620@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008081420.00b415b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:05 PM 10/7/02, jurgenr wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > > Eric Landau > > > > At 09:18 AM 10/5/02, Sven wrote: > > > > >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > > > > > > >Also, if action X is demonstrably suggested over action Y, then > > > >obviously action Y cannot at the same be time be demonstrably > > > >suggested over action X. There is therefore always at least one > > > >legal action among the "logical alternative actions". > > > > > >But this is not. The laws say "could have been suggested" > > >As both alternatives X and Y in a particular situation "could > > >have been suggested" there are (at least in theory) cases > > >where both alternatives can be deemed illegal even if no > > >alternative other than these two exists. In such cases the > > >Director will have no choice but to rule (post mortem) as if > > >the least successful (for the offending side) of X and Y > > >should have been chosen. > > > > I think it is. Indeed, it is my understanding that it is precisely > > Sven's interpretation here -- with the consequence of ruling "as if the > > least successful... of X and Y should have been chosen" -- that the WBF > > was hoping to eradicate by changing the wording of L16A from "could > > reasonably have been suggested" to "could demonstrably have been > > suggested". The change reinforces the legal requirement that we need > > more than simply finding that a player had UI and made a winning > > decision before we can adjust; we must also find that the UI suggested > > the decision. > > > >This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three alternative actions >X, Y, >Z, >it is perfectly possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands for >"could demonstably have been suggested over another". It is perfectly >possible, without logical contradiction, for an Appeals committee to vote >accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and is known as Arrow's >paradox (after Clarence Arrow) or the "voting paradox". - Not all binary >relations are transitive. >In our case the problem is more immediate: Of two competent TD's one may >well >decide X < Z, the other Z < X. > >Further, as I pointed out before, there is never anything resembling a >"demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the use of UI appears >obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI turns the intended >meaning of the law on its head. If a bunch of "competent TDs" all agreed that, say, X Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > Sent: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2002 14:30 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] L16 > > > At 01:05 PM 10/7/02, jurgenr wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > > > Eric Landau > > > > > > At 09:18 AM 10/5/02, Sven wrote: > > > > > > >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > > > > > > > > >Also, if action X is demonstrably suggested over action Y, then > > > > >obviously action Y cannot at the same be time be demonstrably > > > > >suggested over action X. There is therefore always at least one > > > > >legal action among the "logical alternative actions". > > > > > > > >But this is not. The laws say "could have been suggested" > > > >As both alternatives X and Y in a particular situation "could > > > >have been suggested" there are (at least in theory) cases > > > >where both alternatives can be deemed illegal even if no > > > >alternative other than these two exists. In such cases the > > > >Director will have no choice but to rule (post mortem) as if > > > >the least successful (for the offending side) of X and Y > > > >should have been chosen. > > > > > > I think it is. Indeed, it is my understanding that it is precisely > > > Sven's interpretation here -- with the consequence of ruling > "as if the > > > least successful... of X and Y should have been chosen" -- > that the WBF > > > was hoping to eradicate by changing the wording of L16A from "could > > > reasonably have been suggested" to "could demonstrably have been > > > suggested". The change reinforces the legal requirement that we need > > > more than simply finding that a player had UI and made a winning > > > decision before we can adjust; we must also find that the UI suggested > > > the decision. > > > > > > >This is definitely a misunderstanding. Given three alternative actions > >X, Y, > >Z, > >it is perfectly possible that X < Y < Z and Z < X, where "<" stands for > >"could demonstably have been suggested over another". It is perfectly > >possible, without logical contradiction, for an Appeals committee to vote > >accordingly. - The phenomenon even has a name and is known as Arrow's > >paradox (after Clarence Arrow) or the "voting paradox". - Not all binary > >relations are transitive. > >In our case the problem is more immediate: Of two competent TD's one may > >well > >decide X < Z, the other Z < X. > > > >Further, as I pointed out before, there is never anything resembling a > >"demonstration" possible, even in those cases where the use of UI appears > >obvious. The impossibility of demonstrating use of UI turns the intended > >meaning of the law on its head. > > If a bunch of "competent TDs" all agreed that, say, X consititue the "demonstation" required by L16A. If there is > disagreement, some saying that X would "demonstrate" the opposite. If a hypothetical panel (or pair) of > competent TDs can't tell which is suggested over the other by the UI, > the player presumably can't either, and should be allowed to act freely. > > L16A does not require you to "demonstrate" that the player used the UI, > which might well be impossible, as Jurgen suggests, only that he chose > an action that was suggested by the UI, which is not hard if true. > > Jurgen's two competent but disagreeing TDs illustrate precisely the > situation in which both X "demonstrable", which was exactly the point of rewording L16A in 1997. Ok - this gives a clear definition of what "demonstrably" can reasonably be understood to mean. But if you need a committee to decide, how is the poor player to know what he is allowed to bid? It is enough that an action *could* demonstrably be suggested, it is not necessary that it *must* be demonstrably suggested. Jurgen > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 8 15:58:07 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:58:07 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <000401c26edb$48fe1720$f69468d5@default> David Stevenson: Ok, you are more lenient. I like people to describe their methods accurately, you do not care. Nigel: Spoilsport! If players were suddenly to start describing their methods accuratley, poor TDs will get no "Kaplan" questions to rule against. Actually, David IMO you are absolutely right. From gester@lineone.net Tue Oct 8 16:00:01 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <006301c26e65$a87223c0$929468d5@default> Message-ID: <001701c26edb$8c44af80$422a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > David Stevenson: > Let's have a clever new idea: let us only > allow people to communicate with partners > via calls and plays. Not a bad idea, eh? > Nigel: > At last! a convert! Who else agrees with > David and me that alerts should be banned? > "Kaplan" questions are small fry compared > with alerts! > +=+ It is very simple to overcome the problem. Just have two or more alertable meanings for each call. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Oct 8 16:16:29 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:16:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hands from Two Boards In-Reply-To: <009c01c26e68$61905be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin writes: Swiss team, 8-board matches. A table is playing boards 1-4 in order, after playing boards 5-8 first, with the other table playing 1-4 first. Having played board 1, they progress to board 2 (East dealer), North and East quickly removing their hands from the board. Unnoticed by them, one of the others flips the board over to expose board 3 (South dealer), with the result that South and West take hands from board 3. South and West pass, North opens 3C, all pass. Now it is noticed that two hands remain in the pockets, and the TD is called. TD says, "I think you have to play three clubs, but wait and I'll check on that." Instead of waiting, North suggests they go ahead and play 3C, believing that if the TD was wrong the result won't count. South and West take out their correct hands from Board 2, West leads, and declarer takes 12 tricks. TD returns after play is completed and rules that since North did not wait for a final ruling the 3C contract stands (making six). Had he waited, some (unstated) TD action would have been taken. Score it up. Board 3 is unaffected, as three passes go around to a normal 1NT opening, all pass. Just as well, as the TD had left by the time the auction started on Board 3. Opinions, please. ____________________________________________________________________ Are they first playing board 2, with card from board 3 as the wrong board, or playing board 3, with cards form board 2? Or both... Anyway, Law 17D tells that if a player makes a call (only one call...) with wrong cards, this call is cancelled. Then, if LHO has already called (only one call after the cancelled call), the board is cancelled when offender's call with right cards differs form original call. If the second call is the same, LHO must repeat his call and auction proceeds. The second board is also cancelled (if not yet played) when offender's call differs from his original call. Let first rule on board 2. East being dealer, there was an OOT calls with wrong cards by South and West and an OOT call by North (3C) with right cards. As all Pass before error was noticed, South and West made TWO calls with wrong cards. IMHO, board 2 must be cancelled. What about board 3 ? North made only on call with wrong cards (3C) but East made the same. IMHO, such a mess has no provision in Law 17D. East has not really called (with right) cards over offender's cancelled call (3C). I would also cancelled board 3. Law 12C1 applies. Both sides partially at fault. Most of you already know that Law 17D must be clarified..... letting more place to TD judgment. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From gester@lineone.net Tue Oct 8 16:13:56 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:13:56 +0100 Subject: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card References: Message-ID: <002301c26edd$7d5d75e0$422a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card > In-Reply-To: <002301c26e56$af84bd30$0542e150@endicott> > Grattan provided some thought-provoking material. > > This bit, although phrased as a question, disturbed me > (perhaps something about the question revealing the man!). > +=+ The revelation here is that the man believes the question should be asked. I am aware of the views of some that an advanced degree of preparation should be demanded of those who present themselves at advanced levels of play. I am equally aware of counterarguments. With me the jury is still out - I sit back and listen; I am open to persuasion and will reach a judgment in my own time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 8 17:49:57 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:49:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <002101c26e96$d3b6af70$5501e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000a01c26eea$e36d7800$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > Marvin French wrote: > > What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally > > by naming a convention. An oral explanation must > > state what a bid means, not what it is called. > > > +=+ But isn't this exactly what Law 75C requires? Indeed, but most of our players don't know that and have to be told the requirement in the form of a regulation. Even with one, we often hear "Drury," "New Minor Forcing," "Smolen", and such as "explanations" of Alerted bids. That works okay for experienced opponents, but sometimes a player won't be familiar with the convention and will be reluctant to say so. > I think the ACBL is simply underlining what the > law requires. Yes, a good idea. We could use more of that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 8 16:47:17 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:47:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> <3DA19139.1080006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c26eef$e49e1680$e69868d5@default> Marvin L. French: (1H) X (1S) P; (2S) P (P) 2NT; (3C) Now, pro knew what 2NT meant, yet insisted that I explain it, even after I said (truthfully) that the meaning I inferred came only from general knowledge and experience, not from a special partnership agreement. The TD backed her [the pro] up. I forget what happened next, except that I took the name of the TD and never did explain the bid. Nigel: A new angle on this: Marv, how would you have explained the auction, if BOTH your opponents had been novices (or foreigners who, perhaps, rarely play 2N for minors -- I don't myself). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 8 17:03:41 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 17:03:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> <3DA19139.1080006@skynet.be> <3DA28D93.2070508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c26eef$ed74f760$e69868d5@default> Herman DE WAEL: You don't expect them to tell everything either Nigel: IMO you should tell opponents everything that might be relevant in context. For example, I play this version of Puppet Stayman and I do tell opponents that 2D denies a holding of exactly two hearts and three spade... Herman: Is it all right to just sum up a number of negative agreements and expect opponents to work out that it leads to a positive inference ? I don't believe it is. What do you say, David? Let's agree on something for a change ! Nigel: I agree with you. I do tell opponents about the four heart inference. I am sure David will agree too. Most players, however, conceal inferences less logical than this (after all, in this case, opponents were given ALL the facts needed to make that inference -- they did not even have to rely on "General Knowledge and Experience" the usual reason given for resisting full disclosure). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 8 18:34:49 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Law 26 Message-ID: <200210081734.NAA16502@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Say that West is compelled to lead a club. He hasn't any. He is allowe to > lead any other card. > Two questions remain : > 1) should he call the TD ? If he doesn't, and leads something else, surely > the opponents will call anyway. Probably the TD is already there. If not, there is no requirement to call that I can see, but of course any player has the right to call if there is any question about the rules. > 2) Is the fact that West has no more clubs UI to his partner ? It is AI to everyone: operation of law is AI. If this happens to benefit the OS, that's just normal playing luck (unless L72B1 apples, which will be very rare). The OS is not guaranteed to get a bad score after an infraction. That will be the usual result, of course, but it isn't inevitable. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 8 18:43:00 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <200210081743.NAA16635@cfa183.harvard.edu> > At 22:26 7/10/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally by naming a > >convention. An oral explanation must state what a bid means, not what it > >is called. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : absurd. It means that I have no way of explaining marionette-type > bids, since they don't mean anything. They only ask partner to do something > specific. Not absurd at all! Arguably mandatory, in fact, even if there is no regulation. One way to explain a marionette-type bid is to say what it asks partner to do. A much better way is to say the hand types that are possible. At the very least, you can start with "Artificial and forcing, ...." But merely saying the name is almost surely inadequate. Let's try the common version of lebensohl, where it is a puppet to 3C: "Artificial and forcing, shows either a weak hand wishing to sign off in three of some suit or a variety of invitational or better hands all of which include a stopper in your suit." Was that so hard? Notice also that there is no need to explain partner's followup bidding. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 8 20:59:37 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 15:59:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <006a01c26e29$9abeb860$d49868d5@default> References: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008083909.00b41930@pop.starpower.net> At 01:46 PM 10/7/02, Nigel wrote: >Karel: > I still stick with my guns that 2C as some sort > of relay is hugely different to 2C garunteeing > a 4CM and BOTH should be alerted. >Nigel: > I agree with Karel; If we must bear with alerts > then BOTh these are alertible; but even if you > want to bias the law to give local players and > their favourite method an edge -- ONE of these > options must be designated as alertible. > In the area of disclosure it is remarkable that > some legal experts seem to advocate a secretive > approach that even if legal seems to me immoral. This discussion reflects the level of silliness that has been reached when we talk about alerts. I don't know where Karel got the idea that "normal" Stayman guarantees a 4CM. This is certainly not true of "classic" Stayman as originallly described by Mr. Stayman, in which, for example, a response of 2C followed by a rebid of 3C was the only way to play 3C. Variants of Stayman in which the 2C response guaranteed a 4CM didn't come into existence until long after the use of Stayman was widespread, when players began using artificial responses to 1NT other than 2C. Today the vast majority of players use structures over 1NT that involve multiple artificial responses. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such structures. The exact set of hands that start by responding with 2C is similar but slightly different in each of these. None of these come close to being a majority usage (although I suspect the ones in which there are no hands in the set that don't have a 4CM are in a distinct minority). So this is one of those cases where there is no common agreement; *everybody's* agreement about 2C is a bit different from almost everyone else's. So which ones should we alert? There are three fundamental schools of thought; two of them are sensible: (1) Base alert rules on simple and consistent principles that don't vary by sequence. In England, for example, you must alert all forms of Stayman, because they're all conventional. Simple, and sensible. (2) Alert deviations from the commonly expected meaning of a sequence. This is what alerts are supposed to be for, but requires some common sense to apply. In the case of 2C, calling it "Stayman" implies certain commonly expected elements: 2D response denies a 4CM; 2H or 2S responses show four cards in the bid suit; rebids over 2H or 2S unambiguously either promise or deny four-card support for responder's bid suit. As to further refinements beyond that base, the only thing that is "commonly expected" is that yours will be a bit different from mine, and mine will be a bit different from the next pair's, IOW there is no "commonly expected meaning" to deviate from, hence no reason to alert. In this school of thought, an action which doesn't have a commonly expected meaning is often called "self-alerting". Not as simple, but (arguably) more sensible. (3) Pick an arbitrary "standard" meaning for every call, and alert deviations from it, which means defining exactly one fully specified non-alertable meaning for every possible sequence. The flaw in this school of thought is clearly revealed by this example, because no matter what exact meaning we pick, less than 2% or so of the field will be playing it the so-called "standard" way. And because no two players, or clubs, or jurisdictions, will agree on what those meanings should be, and we will be overwhelmed with silly arguments like this one. Complicated to the point of being untenable, and silly to the point of leading down the road to madness. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 8 21:23:24 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:23:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008161525.00a9a790@pop.starpower.net> At 03:17 PM 10/7/02, Ed wrote: >The law does not require the demonstration of the use of UI. What it >requires is that one who claims that alternative X is "demonstrably >suggested" over alernative Y by UI be able to state how the UI suggests >it. IOW, it is not sufficient simply to say "X is suggested over Y", or >even "IMO X is suggested over Y", but instead one must say "the UI >implies this and that, and from those we infer that X is likely to prove >a better choice than Y". And the chain of logic which leads to that >conclusion must be valid. More precisely, it is not sufficient simply to say "X might reasonably have been suggested over Y". Because without the requirement that the suggestion be "demonstrable", it could easily be the case that X might "reasonably" have been suggested over Y *and* Y might have "reasonably" been suggested over X. Prior to the 1997 rewording, ACs were not infrequently deciding that both were true, and then finding that the tempo break "suggested" whatever matched the hand -- or even whatever would lead to the better result. Such rulings were what the rewording was intended to preclude, by making it clear that a player who has UI *must* be able to make *some* call which will not subject him to a potential score adjustment regardless of partner's hand or the result of the deal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 8 06:53:05 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:53:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) Message-ID: <4A256C4C.001F09C1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Stevenson wrote: >> In the original Stayman as invented by Jack >>Marx 2C did not guarantee a major because it >>was used as a signoff in clubs. >> >> There is no agreement on whether Stayman >>guarantees a major, even amongst people >>teaching beginners. Karel replied: [snip] >If one of these becomes a globally agreed default >treatment for 2C then the other becomes alertable. > It is my opinion that true or not players expect >Stayman bidders to have a 4CM and a simple >effortless alert is all that is required to "alert" >them that this may not be the case. Karel is confusing his local bridge culture with a global default. Even as recently as 1980, when I was a beginner in Tasmania, I was taught the Jack Marx style of Stayman. In those days, beginners were not confused by teaching them transfers. Furthermore, beginners were taught the simple rule that a 1NT opening and a 3-of-a-suit response was natural and game-forcing. Ergo, the sequence: 1NT 2C 2 any 3C was needed for a signoff in clubs. Unlike Karel, I believe that *local* alerting rules should have defaults based on the *local* bridge culture. Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 8 22:00:31 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:00:31 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008164538.00aac9a0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:40 AM 10/8/02, jurgenr wrote: >Not my paradox, not very difficult to understand, though surprising. >Examples are ubiquitous. Here is one: > >IMPS Q1097 | W N O S >Dlr: W 5 | 1H - 1NT -* >Vul: None 105 | - 2C X 2D > A98543 | - - 2H X > AKx Jxx | - - - > Axxxx Kx | * Clear Hesitation agreed > xxx Jxx | > 10x KQJxx | E complains about the 2C bid. > xxx | > QJ1092 Result: | > AKQ10x 2HX-3 | > - 500 | > 9 IMPs This is a simple ruling question, not an example of the paradox we're talking about. The paradox occurs when there are two possible actions available each of which is "suggested over" the other. To give an example, Jurgen would need to: (1) Assert that in the above example, he would adjust the score from N-S +500 to N-S -90 (the presumptive result if N had passed at his second turn). (2) Construct a second example deal in which (a) N holds the same hand, (b) the auction goes 1H-P-1NT-(huddle)P-P-P, and (c) the N-S result defending 1NT is better than the result that would presumptively (as determined by L12C2) have occurred had N bid 2C at his second turn. (3) Manifest the paradox by asserting that he would adjust the N-S score in the second example as well. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From schuster@eduhi.at Tue Oct 8 22:17:49 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 23:17:49 +0200 Subject: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 08.10.2002 13:47:00, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West- meads) wrote: > >National tournaments are for everybody - not just expert partnerships. >Less experienced players can explain their understanding of their methods >but will never fully grasp them. Even experienced players are seldom >sufficiently au fait with bidding theory to realise that inferences not >previously drawn may be available. > >Our responsibility to disclose is limited by our ability, not by our >choice of where we play. I strongly agree with Tim, for a reason possibly not immediately obvious to members of large NBOs: In Austria, most national tournaments are organized by clubs or local federations who depend, to a large extent, on the income from the event. It is hard enough to encourage less experienced players to attend these events at all. Any regulations to scare them off would risk killing the event. Therefore, a general guideline to fit all NBOs seems to me counterproductive. It is certainly different with zonal championships, but I cannot see anything unethical in being ill prepared: you have an obligation to the NBO you represent (and which pays at least part of your expenses), but not to other contestants to be able to play to the best of your ability. ___ Regards, Petrus From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 8 22:20:26 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:20:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008170527.00b47890@pop.starpower.net> At 06:03 AM 10/8/02, twm wrote: >DWS wrote: > > > Why cannot people > > just play to the rules of bridge? Some of the rules are not too > hard to > > grasp. > >People can, Kaplan did, then the rules changed. I don't think he would >ask now (not sure if the afterlife is subject to WBF rules tho). Either he has no need to, or it would be futile. If he was good in life, he is spending eternity up above playing in foursomes in which his partner and opponents all play his preferred methods and understand them perfectly. If he was bad in life, he is spending eternity down below playing in foursomes in which his partner and opponents all play methods unfamilar to him, all bids carry totally artificial meanings that change with every deal, and any disclosure whatsoever is strictly forbidden. But at least he isn't worrying about the alert rules in either place. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 8 22:38:29 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:38:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008133932.00a3bb40@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3da21a5d.2a2b.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008172457.00ab18a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:42 AM 10/8/02, Alain wrote: >The rule is not 'thou shall alert every convention', but 'thou shall >alert when it is possible that the opponents need to be informed' The "rule" is neither of the above. The *law* is that regulations regarding disclosure, including what must be alerted, are up to individual SOs. The only operative "rule" is "thou shalt alert whatever your NCBO tells you to". >If you alert when unnecessary, you are basically shouting 'wolf'. When >an alert *is* needed, opponents won't care of it and it will have >missed its purpose. That makes sense, but all it does is change the question to when is it needed. For some of my thoughts on the subject, see my post earlier today. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 8 22:47:39 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:47:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008134431.02bab4e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008174111.00aae8b0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:45 AM 10/8/02, Alain wrote: >At 22:26 7/10/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally by naming a >>convention. An oral explanation must state what a bid means, not what it >>is called. > >AG : absurd. It means that I have no way of explaining marionette-type >bids, since they don't mean anything. They only ask partner to do >something specific. Surely "that says nothing about partner's hand; it just asks me to bid X" is better disclosure than "that's the Wampus convention". The ACBL's insistence on the former over the latter strikes me as quite reasonable, not in the least absurd. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 8 22:45:39 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:45:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: Message-ID: <002501c26f14$772779a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-meads" < > It is because identifying a Kaplan question relies purely on motive that I > consider the change a bad one. > I guess you mean that motive is difficult to establish. Does the questioner perhaps have a need to know? What other motive can there be when the questioner is known to possess the answer already? Linda Trent, who plays top-and-bottom cue bids, says that some pros will ask the meaning of a cue bid when she knows they know the meaning (plainly shown on her CC). They just want to make sure that the client doesn't take it for Michaels. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 8 06:36:02 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:36:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C4C.001D79C7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >It just seems a bad idea that players can >ask "Kaplan questions" if 99% sure about >opps agreements but not when 100% sure. We >can all live with the fact that legitimate, >and necessary, questions may create UI - why >do we need to try and examine the motive of >a question that doesn't? > >Tim I believe that some SOs have a "don't ask, don't tell" regulation. In those SOs, even if you are 0% sure of the meaning of an opponent's call, it is an irregularity to ask a question unless you have a demonstrable need to know. This regulation changes the mix of UI; reducing the frequency of some types of UI, but increasing the frequency of other types. In practice, the regulation probably reduces the overall amount of UI generated by the asking or absence of questions. But is the regulation an illegal modification to L75? Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 8 23:09:53 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:09:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] re-stayman References: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> Message-ID: <002601c26f17$6fcafc60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "B Kelly" > My partner and I have occasionally used a 2C bid to remove partner from > a NT contract, > only when weak (we use 12-14 NT)so is a sequence like > 1NT pass 2C pass 2D pass pass alertable? > by passing 2D I am not denying or confirming any hand shape,(but will > normally have a shortage in clubs),but saying we have a lack of points > and I think NT is not a good place to play. That all seeems pretty standard, no Alert at first glance. However, your agreement is that 2C can be bid with any distribution. I am not sure if that makes 2C Alertable, but it would seem to make the pass to 2D Alertable if responder would not "tend to have" a major. Of course if opener would respond 2D with any minimum, that would make both 2C and 2D Alertable. My defense against your agreement is to double 2C to show clubs (as usual), and to pass a hand that would have doubled 1NT. Then, when any response is passed around, a double is more penalty-oriented than takeout, and a bid in the next higher denomination is for takeout. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 8 06:12:55 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:12:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C4C.001B5BA2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [big snip] >Let's have a clever new idea: let us only >allow people to communicate with partners >via calls and plays. Not a bad idea, eh? > >-- >David Stevenson An excellent idea. However, some might say that the idea implies the banning of all questions, contrary to L75. The best idea is for players to give immediate full disclosure of their methods. This would remove any excuse for a further MI-revealing question from a "Kaplan" opponent. The second best idea is for TDs and ACs to give uniformly equitable adjustments to NOS damaged by MI; as opposed to the real-life situation of occasional TD and AC error. The third best idea is the WBF Lille declaration. This occasionally rewards OS who have generated MI, in order to prevent the NOS from *possibly* generating UI. Best wishes Richard From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Oct 9 00:40:27 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?us-ascii?Q?Jurgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:40:27 +0200 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008164538.00aac9a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > Sent: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2002 23:01 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: FW: [blml] L16 > > > At 03:40 AM 10/8/02, jurgenr wrote: > > >Not my paradox, not very difficult to understand, though surprising. > >Examples are ubiquitous. Here is one: > > > >IMPS Q1097 | W N O S > >Dlr: W 5 | 1H - 1NT -* > >Vul: None 105 | - 2C X 2D > > A98543 | - - 2H X > > AKx Jxx | - - - > > Axxxx Kx | * Clear Hesitation agreed > > xxx Jxx | > > 10x KQJxx | E complains about the 2C bid. > > xxx | > > QJ1092 Result: | > > AKQ10x 2HX-3 | > > - 500 | > > 9 IMPs > > This is a simple ruling question, not an example of the paradox we're > talking about. > > The paradox occurs when there are two possible actions available each > of which is "suggested over" the other. To give an example, Jurgen > would need to: > > (1) Assert that in the above example, he would adjust the score from > N-S +500 to N-S -90 (the presumptive result if N had passed at his > second turn). > > (2) Construct a second example deal in which (a) N holds the same hand, > (b) the auction goes 1H-P-1NT-(huddle)P-P-P, and (c) the N-S result > defending 1NT is better than the result that would presumptively (as > determined by L12C2) have occurred had N bid 2C at his second turn. The result ought to be completely irrelevant. N does not know the result at his turn to bid. It goes without saying that there are various possible layouts and various possible results. > > (3) Manifest the paradox by asserting that he would adjust the N-S > score in the second example as well. Odd that you would think that the director has the big problem. The director, with the benefit of hindsight, always has it easier than the player, who has to make a decision according to the L16 seeing 13 cards. Now, must he think that Pass is suggested over 2C - or that 2C is suggested over Pass? The hand was discussed among strong players and there was no agreement. The director did not adjust. Quite a few directors would adjust. Jurgen > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From David Stevenson Tue Oct 8 02:25:41 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 02:25:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel writes >>Karel writes >>>[snip] >>>>Another example : >>>> >>>>1NT 2C >>>>2H 2NT >>>> >> >> In the original Stayman as invented by Jack Marx 2C did not guarantee >>a major because it was used as a signoff in clubs. >> >> There is no agreement on whether Stayman guarantees a major, even >>amongst people teaching beginners. > >[I have no idea what Mr Marx's 2C meant but anyone playing it should probably >alert it as the Marx 2C bid. Not at all. The convention invented by Jack Marx is universally known as "Stayman". > You mention stayman to any player and they will >automatically associate it with 4 card majors. I'd go so far as to say (and >this was verified in my class) that they would never bid stayman without a 4CM. You seem to have failed to grasp the effect of geography and teachers. I do not doubt that where you are everyone plays Stayman to show a major, but you will also find lots of places where no-one does. The fact that you teach it as promissory, and others teach it as non- promissory in other parts of the world, affects what people think the meaning of Stayman is in different places. > 2C is played by the vast majority as either definitively having or denying >a 4CM. No, not the vast majority. These days I would say it is probably a large minority, but would accept that it might be a very small majority. > This is information you are entitled to know BEFORE the rebid shows >which it is. Therefore it should be alertable in either case. > >If one of these becomes a globally agreed default treatment for 2C then the >other becomes alertable. It is my opinion that true or not players expect >stayman >bidders to have a 4CM and a simple effortless alert is all that is required >to "alert" them that this may not be the case. ] Alerts are based on what the sponsoring organisation says should be alerted, which in most jurisdictions is not the same as relying on whether there is a globally agreed treatment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 9 01:05:58 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 20:05:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] re-stayman In-Reply-To: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021008200141.01c352c8@mail.comcast.net> At 06:25 AM 10/8/2002, B Kelly wrote: >My partner and I have occasionally used a 2C bid to remove partner from a >NT contract, >only when weak (we use 12-14 NT)so is a sequence like >1NT pass 2C pass 2D pass pass alertable? >by passing 2D I am not denying or confirming any hand shape,(but will >normally have a shortage in clubs),but saying we have a lack of points and >I think NT is not a good place to play. I don't think this is alertable unless Stayman is alertable in general in your jurisdiction. It is clear from your pass what the hand is; Qxx Qxx xxxxx xx is possible. The reason for the ACBL's rule on 1NT-2C-2H-2NT is that this sequence often has an unexpected meaning. If you are on lead with KJT32, you will lead the jack or ten if dummy has denied four spades, but the 3 (or not lead the suit at all) if dummy has promised four spades. Without the alert, opening leader would have to ask, creating a UI problem if he finds that dummy promises four spades and leader then leads a diamond. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 9 00:55:03 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:55:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <00ed01c26e91$d8d75860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/7/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >I've been getting a lot of double postings lately, like this one. >Please, everyone who is doing it, don't do it. I read everything on >BLML via my one e-mail address, I won't miss anything meant for my >eyes. > >And also, why do some people address blml by putting blml@rtflb.org on >the Cc line? It requires that I delete it and put it on the To line >when replying. That's a pain. The list is set up so that by default, if you select "reply to sender" in the message menu of most mail clients, the original writer, not the list, is placed in the "to" field. To send a reply to blml, then, one must select "reply to sender", and then delete the original writer's address, and put blml's in. That's a pain. OTOH, one can select "reply to all", which puts the original writer in the to line, and blml in the cc line. As that's easiest, that's often what happens. Every once in a while, somebody complains, and the list admin has to think about whether to change it, but most people seem to like it the way it is. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 9 01:02:07 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:02:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008133228.02bac0e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 10/8/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : I guess it is 2D and 3D. Yes. My bad, sorry. From adam@irvine.com Wed Oct 9 01:06:48 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:06:48 -0700 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Oct 2002 01:40:27 +0200." Message-ID: <200210090006.RAA13135@mailhub.irvine.com> Jurgen wrote: > Odd that you would think that the director has the big problem. The > director, with the benefit of hindsight, always has it easier > than the player, who has to make a decision according to the L16 > seeing 13 cards. The director also has to make a decision (about whether the disputed call is legal or not) based on the same 13 cards. If he takes the other 39 into account, he's not applying the law properly. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 9 01:57:57 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:57:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <3da1b704.1a95.0@esatclear.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20021008132930.02baa4d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002801c26f2f$46332c20$e69868d5@default> [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : let's be direct. If *every* sense of the 2C bid is alertable, then the alert achieves nothing. The bid is self-alertable and oppos are expected to protect themselves. [Nigel] To me there are two forms of law on this topic, that meet common-sense tests of fairness. I prefer the second formulation but would settle for the first: A Alert 2C unless it shows your longest suit and is non-forcing. For a long time, in Scotland, we played "Strong-notrump no weakness takeouts" Some probably still do. For us 2C was natural constructive but non-forcing. B Designate some fairly natural universal system any departure from which is alertible. So, for example, if the system specifed Gladiator over notrump then you would not alert 2C Gladiator; but any form of Stayman would be alertible. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 9 06:35:46 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 06:35:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] CC error Message-ID: <00e201c26f55$da71f580$e69868d5@default> At the end of the auction, even if there has been no alert, I ask for an explanation. I also ask for an explanations of any convention used in the auction that is described on their card. Finally, as declarer, even when opponents leads and signals are clearly specified I ask their meaning. Is any of this illegal? At County and National level, in 20-40% of encounters, I find a discrepancy between an opponent's card and his explanation. Typical example: On the second day of a Swiss teams competition, you are winning the penultimate match. You are declarer on the penultimate board. Their card says they lead Jack from KJT but you notice that they led Ten, so ask them if they play "Strong tens" and they reluctantly admit it. You ask them to confess this on their card and they stare at you as if you are mad. When you start to call the director, one smirks that he will do so before their next match. You suspect that they will not jeopardise their chance of winning the "Booker" prize. Should you insist on calling the TD even although your team will suffer as a result? The point is that you are winning the match and if the TD forces opponents belatedly to correct their card, the next team to meet them will have a novel advantage over you and the rest of the field. If you do call the TD, should he adjust the results of all previously affected boards and matches? From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 9 06:43:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 06:43:54 +0100 Subject: Reply to All (was Re: [blml] Pausitis) References: Message-ID: <000e01c26f56$dac04720$e43223d9@pbncomputer> Ed wrote: > The list is set up so that by default, if you select "reply to sender" > in the message menu of most mail clients, the original writer, not the > list, is placed in the "to" field. To send a reply to blml, then, one > must select "reply to sender", and then delete the original writer's > address, and put blml's in. That's a pain. No. Having a bag of flour dropped on your foot, or contracting toothache, is a pain. Deleting everything but the BLML address from the To field of an email is the work of approximately half a second, and can be done without feeling any physical discomfort at all. > OTOH, one can select "reply > to all", which puts the original writer in the to line, and blml in the > cc line. As that's easiest, that's often what happens. Every once in a > while, somebody complains, and the list admin has to think about whether > to change it, but most people seem to like it the way it is. The list administrator doesn't have to think about anything at all. People who hit the "reply to all" button and then do nothing else beyond typing their messages, thus sending a duplicate of their reply to the original poster, might like to consider not doing so, since this is a source of some vexation to others. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 9 06:45:31 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:45:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Hands from Two Boards References: Message-ID: <005701c26f57$40c845e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Laval Dubreuil" > Marvin writes: > > Swiss team, 8-board matches. > > A table is playing boards 1-4 in order, after playing boards 5-8 first, > with the other table playing 1-4 first. > > Having played board 1, they progress to board 2 (East dealer), North and > East quickly removing their hands from the board. Unnoticed by them, one > of the others flips the board over to expose board 3 (South dealer), > with the result that South and West take hands from board 3. > > South and West pass, North opens 3C, all pass. Now it is noticed that > two hands remain in the pockets, and the TD is called. > > TD says, "I think you have to play three clubs, but wait and I'll check > on that." Instead of waiting, North suggests they go ahead and play 3C, > believing that if the TD was wrong the result won't count. South and > West take out their correct hands from Board 2, West leads, and > declarer takes 12 tricks. > > TD returns after play is completed and rules that since North did not > wait for a final ruling the 3C contract stands (making six). Had he > waited, some (unstated) TD action would have been taken. Score it up. > > Board 3 is unaffected, as three passes go around to a normal 1NT > opening, all pass. Just as well, as the TD had left by the time the > auction started on Board 3. > > Opinions, please. > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Are they first playing board 2, with card from board 3 as the wrong > board, or playing board 3, with cards form board 2? Or both... Board 2 was due to be played. North and East had the right cards, but South and West had hands from the wrong board (3). > > Anyway, Law 17D tells that if a player makes a call (only one call...) > with wrong cards, this call is cancelled. Then, if LHO has already > called (only one call after the cancelled call), the board is > cancelled when offender's call with right cards differs form original > call. If the second call is the same, LHO must repeat his call and > auction proceeds. The second board is also cancelled (if not yet played) > when offender's call differs from his original call. Let's see if I can understand this. North opened 3C, East passed. Now South passed with the wrong cards, as did West. When South and West took out the right cards, the auction was over. Okay, South's call is cancelled. South's LHO has called. South was not given the chance to change call with the right cards , but would have bid. > > Let first rule on board 2. East being dealer, there was an OOT > calls with wrong cards by South and West and an OOT call by North (3C) > with right cards. As all Pass before error was noticed, South and > West made TWO calls with wrong cards. IMHO, board 2 must be cancelled. > > What about board 3 ? North made only one call with wrong cards (3C) > but East made the same. IMHO, such a mess has no provision in Law 17D. > East has not really called (with right) cards over offender's cancelled > call (3C). I would also cancelled board 3. Not quite right. We all had the right cards for the auction on board 3, cards with which South and East had passed 3C previously. The bidding on board 3 went pass by South, pass, pass, 1NT all pass. Whatever UI was around from the fact that South and East had passed out 3C on board 2 was not informative enough to have an effect, so it seems to me that board 3 is okay (1NT with an overtrick, scored that way). > > Law 12C1 applies. Both sides partially at fault. I have since found out that South was the one who switched the board erroneously, so maybe N/S directly at fault, -3 imps, E/W partially at fault, 0 imps? So the VPs won't add to 20? Whoops, L86 doesn't allow for anything but avg+ and avg-, no avg. Is that right? > Most of you already know that Law 17D must be clarified..... > letting more place to TD judgment. I would agree with that. Why does L17D give L90 as the reference for an artificial adjusted score? I guess because the artificial score may be at another table than the one where the offense occurred. In that case the OS gets a PP. So I guess the upshot is cancel Board 2, offenders lose 3 imps on the board, not accruing to the NOS, Board 3 is okay. Thank you very much for the reply, Laval. It's much more informative than "pfui." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 9 07:43:14 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 07:43:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <001701c26f5f$24e726e0$e43223d9@pbncomputer> DWS wrote: > Not at all. The convention invented by Jack Marx is universally known > as "Stayman". Well, let us say only that the convention in which 2C asks opener to bid a four-card major, or to bid 2D without one, is universally known as Stayman. Nobody actually knows who invented it; probably, it was discovered independently by (among others) Jack Marx of England and George Rapee of the USA, and almost certainly it was not discovered by Samuel Stayman. > > 2C is played by the vast majority as either definitively having or denying > >a 4CM. > > No, not the vast majority. These days I would say it is probably a > large minority, but would accept that it might be a very small majority. I would say that there is almost nobody who would bid something other than 2C holding a balanced hand worth at least 2NT with a four-card major. There are many more people than there used to be who would also bid 2C on some other hand type. If I were to give a full explanation of Callaghan's 2C bid, it would be: "That asks for a four-card major. He may not have one himself, since he may have any of: A weak hand with short clubs, intending to pass my response; or A balanced hand worth at least 2NT containing at least one four-card major; or An invitational hand with at least five spades and another suit of at least four cards; or A hand worth at least a game force with at least five spades and exactly four hearts; or A hand worth at least a game force with a four-card major and a longer minor; or A strong single-suited hand worth at least a game force, but certainly worth a slam try if his suit is a major." Now, I have never given this explanation at the table, nor do I ever expect to have to. The simplest form of convention card that Callaghan and I use describes 2C as "Asks for four-card majors, but does not promise a major or any values". The question arises: which of my responses and his rebids am I supposed to alert under English regulations? The Book says this (relevant parts only quoted below): ****************************************************** 5.2 Basic Rules 5.2.1 You must alert a call if (a) it is not 'natural' (see 5.3). (b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. (c) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. 5.2.2 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but you must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which may not be expected by your opponents. 5.3 'Natural' calls 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes: (a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener rebids but may be on three cards from then on (b) a bid of no trumps which you are prepared to play at that level, which is not forcing and which conveys no information about your suit holdings. 5.4.1 Because it is not natural, you must alert: (a) a Stayman response to 1NT, and a rebid of 2D. ****************************************************** So, we alert 2C (and a fat lot of good that is to man or beast). We alert a 2D response. Do we alert a 2H response? I do not think so, for it says nothing about any suit other than hearts, of which it shows four or five cards. Do we alert a 2S response? We should, for it says something about another suit (it denies four hearts), and thus it is not natural per 5.3.1(a) above. But in practice, we don't alert 2S, and I don't know of anyone who does, nor have I ever heard of anyone who has claimed damage because of a failure to alert 2S in methods similar to ours. Do we alert a 2H rebid after 1N-2C-2D? We should, for although it is natural, it says something about two other suits (it promises at least three spades and at least four diamonds, though it will almost always have four spades). We do actually alert this, but not for the reason above; we alert it because some opponents might not expect that opener can pass it, though most English opponents do in fact expect this. We alert a 2S rebid, for this (although promising spades) shows that we have another suit, and is forcing; some opponents might not expect it to be. A question to which I do not know the answer, though, is this: does a bid that shows (say) five spades and another four-card suit say something about another suit? If so, which suit? Should we alert a 2NT rebid? It is not forcing, and we are prepared to play in 2NT, so according to the above regulations, we do not alert it. In practice, we usually alert it, because some opponents might not expect that it guarantees a four-card major; we do not always remember to do this, however. Should we alert a 3C rebid? It is natural and forcing to game; for this reason, we do alert it, because some opponents might expect it to be a weak hand with long clubs. Should we alert a 3D rebid? It is also natural and forcing to game; we do not alert it, because we believe that this is the meaning most opponents would expect. Should we alert a rebid of three of a major? This shows explicitly a single-suited slam try; it is natural, forcing to game, and "says nothing about any other suit" - except that it actually denies holding four or more cards in any other suit; is this in fact to say "something" about other suits? We do in fact alert it, because some opponents might expect us to have both majors for the sequence. Apologies for the elaborate detail above, but I include it to make this specific point. Two international players, one of whom is a long-time member of his country's Laws commission, simply do not know whether or not they should be alerting bids in a number of common bidding sequences. Others may judge whether this is the fault of the players or the regulations; I make no comment in that regard. It is indicative, perhaps, of the fact that alerting regulations are very difficult to frame in such manner as to be understood by, or the slightest use to, anyone at all. What we do, since we do not in fact know what we ought to do, is to alert those bids of which we think that some opponents might not know, or reasonably infer, the meaning. We have probably broken an awful lot of alerting regulations in our time because of this approach, in other sequences as well as those starting with Stayman. We do not care about this, and strangely enough, our opponents do not seem particularly worried either. As I have said elsewhere, the purpose of alerting is not to conform to some regulation. The purpose of alerting is to tell the opponents what they need to know. For this reason, I do not agree entirely with DWS when he says: > Alerts are based on what the sponsoring organisation says should be alerted Alerts are based on the opponents' need for information. If I know that my opponents know what my partner's bids mean, I do not alert them unless I am positive that the regulations compel me to do so (and even then I don't always bother). If I know that my opponents might not know what my partner's bids mean, then I do alert them, regardless of whether the regulations tell me not to. David Burn London, England From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 9 07:55:23 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 07:55:23 +0100 Subject: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card References: Message-ID: <002701c26f61$0c5800c0$426f87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card . > It is certainly different with zonal championships, but I > cannot see anything unethical in being ill prepared: you > have an obligation to the NBO you represent (and which pays > at least part of your expenses), but not to other > contestants to be able to play to the best of your ability. > +=+ The obligation to other contestants is to inform them correctly of your agreed methods. You omit to comment on this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 9 08:07:22 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:07:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] re-stayman References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021008200141.01c352c8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <00c001c26f62$8db93ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "David J. Grabiner" < > The reason for the ACBL's rule on 1NT-2C-2H-2NT is that this sequence often > has an unexpected meaning. If you are on lead with KJT32, you will lead > the jack or ten if dummy has denied four spades, but the 3 (or not lead the > suit at all) if dummy has promised four spades. Without the alert, opening > leader would have to ask, creating a UI problem if he finds that dummy > promises four spades and leader then leads a diamond. > Without the Alert, he could do one of two things that are unlikely to create a UI problem: (1) Look at the opposing CC and see if a 2NT response to 1NT is a natural NT invitation. If it isn't, responder may not have a major when rebidding 2NT, invitational. (2) Ask for an explanation of the opposing auction, which should include the information needed. Not that I disagree with this Alert. I don't like it, but I guess it's necessary. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 9 08:47:33 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:47:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> <001701c26f5f$24e726e0$e43223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DA3DF15.4080706@skynet.be> David, thank you for giving me a perfect example to convince David in our previous discussion: David Burn wrote: > > If I were to give a full explanation of Callaghan's 2C bid, it would be: > > "That asks for a four-card major. He may not have one himself, since he > may have any of: > A weak hand with short clubs, intending to pass my response; or > A balanced hand worth at least 2NT containing at least one four-card > major; or > An invitational hand with at least five spades and another suit of at > least four cards; or > A hand worth at least a game force with at least five spades and exactly > four hearts; or > A hand worth at least a game force with a four-card major and a longer > minor; or > A strong single-suited hand worth at least a game force, but certainly > worth a slam try if his suit is a major." > > Now, I have never given this explanation at the table, nor do I ever > expect to have to. The simplest form of convention card that Callaghan > and I use describes 2C as "Asks for four-card majors, but does not > promise a major or any values". The question arises: which of my > responses and his rebids am I supposed to alert under English > regulations? > You see, David (S), that it is impossible to give a "complete" explanation of every single bid. However, I am certain that David (B) will explain quite fully, in the next round, which of the possible meanings are still possible. It would be, IMO, severely unhelpful if David (B) would simply list this whole bunch of possibilities and then later just refer to that list and expect opponents to be able to draw their own conclusions. That was my point, David (S), not any insinuation that it would be allright to give less than complete explanations. Sometimes, complete explanations are unhelpful. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schuster@eduhi.at Wed Oct 9 09:10:24 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:10:24 +0200 Subject: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card In-Reply-To: <002701c26f61$0c5800c0$426f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: 09.10.2002 08:55:23, "grandeval" wrote: >+=+ The obligation to other contestants is to inform them >correctly of your agreed methods. You omit to comment on this. In the paper, the question was "How ethical can we consider ourselves once we rise to the levels of national tournaments, or of regional tournaments in larger countries, if we are unable to give our opponents an accurate account of our system agreements and our special understandings?" There can be no doubt that it would be unethical if a player were *unwilling* to provide as complete an explanation as he is able to. If he is *unable*, it can be for a variety of reasons, e.g.: - His agreements are too complex for him to remember: This could possibly be deemed unethical, as the player has at least negligently brought about a situation where he cannot abide by the Laws. - He is too tired etc. - He does not have an agreement for a particular situation. I have no problem in principle with these cases. If opponents are damaged by an insufficient explanation, there will be redress. To me, this seems to be a problem of enforcing the law. Of course it is often difficult to prove that a player does in fact have an agreement when he says he does not, or what his agreement is when there is no system documentation. But I do not like the idea of a law requiring partnerships to have agreements for certain situations as this would be unenforcable in most events. Such a requirement would better be put into the regulations of certain championships, with the laws amended to make such a regulation legal. --- Regards, Petrus From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 9 10:55:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002501c26f14$772779a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > It is because identifying a Kaplan question relies purely on motive > > that I consider the change a bad one. > > > I guess you mean that motive is difficult to establish. Does the > questioner perhaps have a need to know? > > What other motive can there be when the questioner is known to possess > the answer already? In practice this situation doesn't occur very often. Even if the CC says Michaels (or top and bottom) it seldom gives a full explanation of length/hcp/suit texture expectations. Nor does the fact that something is on the CC mean that one knows the answer. Under the current laws one may ask instead of looking. Of course any pro should have taught his client that if he needs to look at the CC then the client does too! > Linda Trent, who plays top-and-bottom cue bids, says that some pros will > ask the meaning of a cue bid when she knows they know the meaning > (plainly shown on her CC). They just want to make sure that the client > doesn't take it for Michaels. Which means that the pro's interest and Linda's are completely aligned. Linda doesn't want the client thinking it is Michaels either - the disclosure process is imperfect but we all want our opponents to be properly informed. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 9 13:12:42 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 08:12:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008081420.00b415b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021009080326.00ab7d60@pop.starpower.net> At 09:29 AM 10/8/02, jurgenr wrote: >Ok - this gives a clear definition of what "demonstrably" can reasonably >be understood to mean. But if you need a committee to decide, how is the >poor player to know what he is allowed to bid? He might not, but I don't see how this is affected by how we interpret "demonstrably". The player is obligated by law to take a non-suggested choice from among his LAs, so he must perforce consider the question of which of his LAs are non-suggested, knowing that if he comes up with the wrong answer, any good score he gets will be taken from him. But at least in my world he does so with the assurance that there is a right answer. Sparing him the pain of agonizing over the right answer by telling him that there is no right answer, any action he takes will lead to an adjustment if he gets a good score, so he might as well just pick a call and get on with it, is not doing him a favor he will appreciate! >It is enough >that an action *could* demonstrably be suggested, it is not necessary >that it *must* be demonstrably suggested. I don't see the difference. If Jurgen is simply saying that if everyone agrees that an action is suggested, and that that could be demonstrated, then there is no need to actually "perform" the demonstration, that is obviously true. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 9 13:39:46 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 08:39:46 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008164538.00aac9a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021009082654.00b487f0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:40 PM 10/8/02, jurgenr wrote: >Odd that you would think that the director has the big problem. The >director, with the benefit of hindsight, always has it easier >than the player, who has to make a decision according to the L16 >seeing 13 cards. Now, must he think that Pass is suggested over 2C - >or that 2C is suggested over Pass? >The hand was discussed among strong players and there was no agreement. >The director did not adjust. Quite a few directors would adjust. Quite a few directors would be wrong. That's the point here. If "the hand was discussed among strong players and there was no agreement" as to whether 2C was suggested over pass or pass was suggested over 2C, then neither are demonstrably true, and the player cannot be held to have taken advantage of the UI whichever one he chooses. ISTM that the working definition of "demonstrable" boils down to whatever the demonstration is, it must be convincing enough to convince Jurgen's hypothetical "group of strong players" (or, in real life, of TDs and/or AC members). There is nothing in the law to suggest that there *must* be some LA which is suggested over some other whenever someone has UI. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Oct 9 14:17:50 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:17:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hands from Two Boards In-Reply-To: <005701c26f57$40c845e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > call (3C). I would also cancelled board 3. Not quite right. We all had the right cards for the auction on board 3, cards with which South and East had passed 3C previously. The bidding on board 3 went pass by South, pass, pass, 1NT all pass. Whatever UI was around from the fact that South and East had passed out 3C on board 2 was not informative enough to have an effect, so it seems to me that board 3 is okay (1NT with an overtrick, scored that way). > So I guess the upshot is cancel Board 2, offenders lose 3 imps on the board, not accruing to the NOS, Board 3 is okay. ____________________________________________________________________ I think you are right Marv. I did not get Board 3 correctly. Law 17D says "if offender subsequently repeats the cancelled call" (ONE call for ONE player). There was TWO cancelled calls, but only ONE per player. I think you can then apply Law 17D (and use your judgment). Thx for helping understanding this famous Law 17D.... I will make a flow chart on it.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 9 14:31:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 9 Oct 2002 06:31:54 -0700 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 Message-ID: <091002282.23514@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >ISTM that the working definition of "demonstrable" boils down to whatever the demonstration is, it must be convincing enough to convince Jurgen's hypothetical "group of strong players" (or, in real life, of TDs and/or AC members). Suppose we observe this auction: West North East South 1H 1S 4H 4S ...Dble Pass ? We say that the pause before doubling 4S suggests that West is not certain that his side will defeat 4S; that the pause suggests that East bids 5H if he does not have much defence to spades. Our experience leads us to believe that if we examine West's hand, we will find fewer than four certain defensive tricks against a spade contract, perhaps fewer than three or even two. But what is meant when we say that "the pause demonstrably suggests" that West has <4 tricks against spades, as opposed to "the pause suggests" that West has <4 tricks against spades? What "demonstration" do we envisage in this case that we do not envisage in some other? How would we perform such a "demonstration"? David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 9 16:03:58 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:03:58 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <091002282.23514@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021009104929.00b3d430@pop.starpower.net> At 09:31 AM 10/9/02, David wrote: >Suppose we observe this auction: > >West North East South >1H 1S 4H 4S >...Dble Pass ? > >We say that the pause before doubling 4S suggests that West is >not certain that his side will defeat 4S; that the pause suggests >that East bids 5H if he does not have much defence to spades. >Our experience leads us to believe that if we examine West's >hand, we will find fewer than four certain defensive tricks against >a spade contract, perhaps fewer than three or even two. > >But what is meant when we say that "the pause demonstrably suggests" >that West has <4 tricks against spades, as opposed to "the pause >suggests" that West has <4 tricks against spades? What "demonstration" >do we envisage in this case that we do not envisage in some other? >How would we perform such a "demonstration"? We would gather a group of five reasonably knowledgeable players (we might call them an "appeals committee"). We would show them the auction and East's hand, and ask them what East's LAs are; they would presumably tell us that the LAs are 5H and P. We would then tell them that North broke tempo with a long huddle before doubling, and ask them which LA, if either, was suggested over the other by the tempo break. If they reach a consensus that the tempo break suggested bidding 5H over passing, we will have our successful demonstration. If they cannot agree, the demonstration will have failed. WTP? If the law merely required us to find "reasonably suggested" rather than "demonstrably suggested" we would ask them which LA, if either, *or both*, might have been suggested, and would accept any 3-2 vote, even one accompanied by a strong dissent, as definitive. The difference between a reasonable assertion and a demonstable one is that the former need not be true. And that's the whole point, isn't it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Oct 9 17:03:05 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:03:05 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <091002282.23514@webbox.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > > But what is meant when we say that "the pause > demonstrably suggests" > that West has <4 tricks against spades, as opposed to "the pause > suggests" that West has <4 tricks against spades? What > "demonstration" > do we envisage in this case that we do not envisage in > some other? > How would we perform such a "demonstration"? Why are we rehashing this again and again especially for people who should know better? The UI is "West has less than 4 tricks against spades." The hesitation and UI should be considered matters of fact before things proceed. If you cannot reach a firm conclusion about what the UI is and what information it conveys, it's arguable there's no UI. Consider: 1H P ...3H (limit raise) Is the hesitator deciding between a simple raise and limit or between a limit raise and a game-forcing raise? I wouldn't think there is UI here. The demonstration in the case in question will be whether the UI suggests passing or bidding 5H over and may depend on the contents of East's hand. -Todd From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Oct 9 17:36:45 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:36:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hands from Two Boards In-Reply-To: <005701c26f57$40c845e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin writes: Thank you very much for the reply, Laval. It's much more informative than "pfui." ____________________________________________________________________ May be I am dreaming, but I have the feeling that something have changed in BLML since I unsubscribe last spring (I use to be out of Quebec City for the summer). No reaction to some of my posts, bizarre reactions (like "pfui") to others, ect... Is BLML still the right place to discuss of bridge Laws (and judgment rulings) or should I use RGB ? Laval Du Breuil Qubec City From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 9 17:53:52 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 9 Oct 2002 09:53:52 -0700 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 Message-ID: <091002282.35633@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >We would gather a group of five reasonably knowledgeable players (we might call them an "appeals committee"). We would show them the auction and East's hand, and ask them what East's LAs are; they would presumably tell us that the LAs are 5H and P. We would then tell them that North broke tempo with a long huddle before doubling, and ask them which LA, if either, was suggested over the other by the tempo break. If they reach a consensus that the tempo break suggested bidding 5H over passing, we will have our successful demonstration. If they cannot agree, the demonstration will have failed. WTP? But this is no more than to say: the truth of something is demonstrated by finding some people who agree that it is true. One might as well say that, because I could walk onto the street in the next ten minutes and find five people who would agree unhesitatingly that child molesters should be shot, then it is true that child molesters should be shot. Or that, because there must presumably have been about five members of the WBF Laws Commission who at one time thought that the current Law 25 was a good idea, then it is true that the current Law 25 is a good idea. If one wishes to "demonstrate" the truth of something, then one may proceed in a number of ways. One may show, for example, that the thing is true by means of a chain of reasoning agreed to be correct from a set of axioms agreed (or assumed) to be true. Or, one may show that the falsehood of the thing in question leads to an obvious contradiction. But one does not show that a thing is true merely by exhibiting a number of people who think that it is true. To demonstrate the truth of a thing is to be able to convince someone who believes it to be false that he is in error; one cannot rely on being able to do this simply by means of an appeal to popular opinion. >The difference between a reasonable assertion and a demonstrable one is that the former need not be true. And that's the whole point, isn't it? No. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 9 18:06:23 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 9 Oct 2002 10:06:23 -0700 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 Message-ID: <091002282.36383@webbox.com> Todd wrote: > Why are we rehashing this again and again especially for people who should know better? My apologies if I am trespassing on your time. However, the reason for my asking certain questions is that I would like to know the answers. What you have said does not indicate that you have a particularly firm grasp of what I have asked, let alone what the answers to it may be. But this is perhaps only a result of your weariness at having to re-educate the ignorant. > The UI is "West has less than 4 tricks against spades." Not necessarily. At matchpoint scoring and unfavourable vulnerability, for example, West may very well have five or even six tricks against spades, but be uncertain as to whether his side will have eleven or even twelve tricks in hearts. > The demonstration in the case in question will be whether the UI suggests passing or bidding 5H I think that you may be using the word "demonstration" in a way with which I am wholly unfamiliar. What you have called a "demonstration" is, as far as I can see, merely a question; it does not (nor can it) "demonstrate" anything at all. David Burn London, England From David Stevenson Wed Oct 9 17:29:03 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:29:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lawspage Message-ID: On my Lawspage, there is a downloads page for BLML items at http://blakjak.com/blml_log.htm The logos for use on a T-shirt have been updated so that the new home of BLML is shown. There is also Marv's summary of ACBL alerts at http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm Apart from the WordPerfect, RTF and text versions, it now includes a PDF version. This is probably the best version if you just want to read and print it, ie with no editing. If ever I get a copy of the full Adobe program I intend to make PDF versions of several of my download files. However, apparently it costs money! :(( -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 9 17:32:43 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:32:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008081420.00b415b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Jurgen Rennenkampff writes >Ok - this gives a clear definition of what "demonstrably" can reasonably >be understood to mean. But if you need a committee to decide, how is the >poor player to know what he is allowed to bid? It is enough >that an action *could* demonstrably be suggested, it is not necessary >that it *must* be demonstrably suggested. If your "poor" players follow L73C and bend over backwards to avoid using UI they will get a ruling against them very rarely indeed, and they should just nor worry about it. It is a minor matter. Of course, players who do not follow L73C through ignorance or malice will get rulings against them. Even so, it does not matter too much in the general way of things that the dividing line may not be too obvious. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 9 17:43:06 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:43:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 Message-ID: It is getting to the time when I want volunteers to write a Commentary on these Appeals, for the normal reward: thanks from the EBU L&EC [and probably criticism from BLML!]. The Appeals are published to the EBU website, which is improving again, now that Anna Gudge has become Webmaster [Webmistress?] Actually, the thanks from the EBU L&EC is more difficult than you would think. The Committee formally thanked the Commentators, but their manes did not get into the Minutes. At the next meeting I suggested this was wrong, which was agreed, and it was treated as an error in the Minutes. The new Minutes duly said that the names had been omitted in error - but still did not mention the names! Apparently the official copy of the original minutes [which no-one sees] was duly altered. At the next meeting, I suggested this was not the best way of doing corrections, since no-one saw the official copy, and the Committee agreed. The names of the Commentators duly appeared in the third set of Minutes. Phew!!!!! I had five people last year, apart from myself, each from a different country. It seemed to work well, and the number seemed about right: perhaps six or seven might be better. When I mentioned this a few months ago I got two volunteers, one of whom helped with 2001. There may have been another offer which I have lost! So, please, if you would like to do this then let me know, even if you have already told me once. Those who commentated last year please let me know if you are happy to do so again: I am not presuming anyone will if they do not say so. cc RGB -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Oct 9 18:51:48 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:51:48 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <091002282.36383@webbox.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:06 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: FW: [blml] L16 > > Todd wrote: > > > Why are we rehashing this again and again especially for > people who should know better? > > My apologies if I am trespassing on your time. However, > the reason > for my asking certain questions is that I would like to know > the answers. What you have said does not indicate that you have > a particularly firm grasp of what I have asked, Your question was meaningless to the discussion at hand. You asked how we demonstrate the existence and meaning of UI. Ok, we ask the people at the table if there was a hesitation, comment, or some gesture that could convey information. If they agree, we figure out what the nature of the information is. There's a whole lot of other stuff that could possibly be involved that I assume you both already know and understand to be irrelevant at the moment. > > The UI is "West has less than 4 tricks against spades." > > Not necessarily. At matchpoint scoring and unfavourable > vulnerability, > for example, West may very well have five or even six tricks > against spades, but be uncertain as to whether his side will > have eleven or even twelve tricks in hearts. Very well, but this is different from the example you yourself gave. > > The demonstration in the case in question will be whether > the UI suggests passing or bidding 5H > > I think that you may be using the word "demonstration" in a way > with which I am wholly unfamiliar. What you have called > a "demonstration" > is, as far as I can see, merely a question; it does not (nor > can it) "demonstrate" anything at all. I think you're not parsing the sentence correctly. You can add "of" between "be" and "whether" if this will help. However, I did not mean to offer or suggest any course for demonstration. The point of my post was that L16A does not require us to demonstrate that the hesitation shows some or fewer number of tricks against a given contract, but that it requires instead some demonstration that one course of action is suggested over another given the previous information. For what it's worth, I consider a vote by peers on the matter to be a sufficient demonstration that one course of action is suggested over another. -Todd From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 9 19:40:19 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <091002282.35633@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021009135015.00b38ee0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:53 PM 10/9/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >We would gather a group of five reasonably knowledgeable players >(we might call them an "appeals committee"). We would show them >the auction and East's hand, and ask them what East's LAs are; >they would presumably tell us that the LAs are 5H and P. We >would then tell them that North broke tempo with a long huddle >before doubling, and ask them which LA, if either, was suggested >over the other by the tempo break. If they reach a consensus >that the tempo break suggested bidding 5H over passing, we will >have our successful demonstration. If they cannot agree, the >demonstration will have failed. WTP? > >But this is no more than to say: the truth of something is demonstrated >by finding some people who agree that it is true. One might as >well say that, because I could walk onto the street in the next >ten minutes and find five people who would agree unhesitatingly >that child molesters should be shot, then it is true that child >molesters should be shot. Or that, because there must presumably >have been about five members of the WBF Laws Commission who at >one time thought that the current Law 25 was a good idea, then >it is true that the current Law 25 is a good idea. > >If one wishes to "demonstrate" the truth of something, then one >may proceed in a number of ways. One may show, for example, that >the thing is true by means of a chain of reasoning agreed to >be correct from a set of axioms agreed (or assumed) to be true. >Or, one may show that the falsehood of the thing in question >leads to an obvious contradiction. But one does not show that >a thing is true merely by exhibiting a number of people who think >that it is true. To demonstrate the truth of a thing is to be >able to convince someone who believes it to be false that he >is in error; one cannot rely on being able to do this simply >by means of an appeal to popular opinion. If one wishes to demonstrate the truth of an objective purported fact, David's line of argument is valid. But there is really no such thing as a "subjective fact", and such "facts" cannot be demonstrated by objective means. Clearly, we are talking here about the latter. Suggestions are purely subjective things; the subjective statement "'X suggests A over B' is true" translates directly into "there is a general consensus of (informed) opinion that X suggests A over B" Hence to demonstrate that X suggests A over B one must provide evidence to support the claim that there is a general consensus of opinion that X suggests A over B. I have not foolishly suggested that we can demonstrate the truth of an assertion by seeking out and finding five people who agree with it, which is how David appears to have read my earlier post. What I have suggested is that when the assertion is that there is a general consensus on some subjective question, finding five impartial and knowledgeable people, putting the question to them, and getting the same answer from each of them, is indeed compelling evidence that we would find a general consensus no matter how many more people we might ask. That's the way -- the only way! -- what I've called a "subjective fact" can be demonstrated. If I ask five competent psychiatrists to examine my writing style, and they all tell me that my writing style suggests that I suffered from extreme sibling rivalry during my childhood, the fact that I provably suffered from no sibling rivalry whatsoever as a child (I have no siblings) doesn't in the least contradict their assertion that that's what my writing style suggests. If a law cannot be applied absent an objective demonstration of a purely subjective assertion, it can never be applied, and is meaningless. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 9 19:47:42 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:47:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: Message-ID: <003201c26fc4$db6815e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-meads" > Marv wrote: > > > > It is because identifying a Kaplan question relies purely on motive > > > that I consider the change a bad one. > > > > > I guess you mean that motive is difficult to establish. Does the > > questioner perhaps have a need to know? > > > > What other motive can there be when the questioner is known to possess > > the answer already? > > In practice this situation doesn't occur very often. Even if the CC says > Michaels (or top and bottom) it seldom gives a full explanation of > length/hcp/suit texture expectations. Nor does the fact that something is > on the CC mean that one knows the answer. Under the current laws one may > ask instead of looking. Of course any pro should have taught his client > that if he needs to look at the CC then the client does too! Under the current Laws one may ask for an explanation of the auction (L20F1, confirmed at Lille). When there has been only one opposing call, then of course questioning the call and asking for an explanation of the auction are equivalent. It seems to me that questions about style details ("length/hcp/suit texture expectations") are seldom necessary at the time the call in question is made. If the style is anything highly unusual or unexpected, we have to Alert the bid over here. Do we ask for more style details than are on the opposing CC when someone opens a weak two bid? No, that would be ridiculous (assuming the CC is completed properly in the DESCRIBE column). Such questioning can wait until the auction is over. (Of course I'm assuming play in ACBL-land) > > > Linda Trent, who plays top-and-bottom cue bids, says that some pros will > > ask the meaning of a cue bid when she knows they know the meaning > > (plainly shown on her CC). They just want to make sure that the client > > doesn't take it for Michaels. > > Which means that the pro's interest and Linda's are completely aligned. > Linda doesn't want the client thinking it is Michaels either - the > disclosure process is imperfect but we all want our opponents to be > properly informed. Linda wants the client thinking it is Michaels, I'm sure, as she is very sportsmanlike. She just wants the client to obtain that information legally, which means not getting it from partner via an illegal question. The meaning of the cue bid is right there on her CC in the prescribed place. If a client is too lazy or too ignorant to look there for the meaning, hard cheese. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 9 23:05:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 23:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: FW: [blml] L16 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <091002282.23514@webbox.com> DB wrote: > >ISTM that the working definition of "demonstrable" boils down > to whatever the demonstration is, it must be convincing enough > to convince Jurgen's hypothetical "group of strong players" (or, > in real life, of TDs and/or AC members). > > Suppose we observe this auction: > > West North East South > 1H 1S 4H 4S > ...Dble Pass ? And sitting North we are going to play in 4Sx. Based on the hesitation double we are going to play West for a) better than minimum values b) sufficient distribution to make 5H a realistic consideration We will seldom be wrong. As to what action that information suggests to a player with the East cards I really couldn't say without seeing his hand. Assuming you have sufficient data to examine a good number of such doubles then this will be the hand you find most often. Whether the hand has 4 defensive tricks (or five, or two) will vary with vulnerability, player style, and state of the match. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 9 23:05:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 23:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003201c26fc4$db6815e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > Which means that the pro's interest and Linda's are completely > > aligned. > > Linda doesn't want the client thinking it is Michaels either - the > > disclosure process is imperfect but we all want our opponents to be > > properly informed. > > Linda wants the client thinking it is Michaels, I'm sure, as she is very > sportsmanlike. Marv,please! Do not accuse Linda of being unethical. Ethical players do *not* want to gain from opps being unaware of their system. Full disclosure is vital to bridge. The alert/question process is there to facilitate that objective - not provide a method of hiding agreements. In an ideal world our opponents would receive a full disclosure of our understanding without even having to ask. > Do we ask for more style details than are on the opposing CC when > someone > opens a weak two bid? No, that would be ridiculous (assuming the CC is > completed properly in the DESCRIBE column). Such questioning can wait > until the auction is over. Of course we do. At least in the EBU where a weak two is alertable (along with several other meanings) we ask for an explanation. This will include details of length/hcp relevant to the prevailing vulnerability and seating (info that does not fit, in a legible font, on the EBU20A CC). Tim From david@djallen.org.uk Wed Oct 9 23:24:32 2002 From: david@djallen.org.uk (David Allen) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 23:24:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can declarer's card played in error ever be retracted? Message-ID: <004701c26fe2$a50bc820$5d4287d9@oemcomputer> Can declarer's card played in error ever be retracted (except under L47)? At a recent EBU event, a declarer held a card touching the table, then realised he had meant to play a different card and tried to change it as soon as he saw it and before an opponent had played a card. The director ruled that he could not. This is how I would have interpreted L45. On a recent Judgement rulings TD course, the tutor believed that a recent interpretation by the EBU panel of directors had concluded that L45C4b could apply to declarer as well as dummy, but not to defenders. This might have allowed him to change the card. a) is this correct? b) are these interpretations published somewhere? Subsequently two of us idenpendently asked the EBU about this ruling. I was told that L45C4b would never apply to declarer. The other enquiry believed it had been mentioned as a possibility but it would be unlikely to be applied in practice. Is this as straightforward as it sounds - the card has been played? David From adam@irvine.com Wed Oct 9 23:35:04 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:35:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Can declarer's card played in error ever be retracted? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Oct 2002 23:24:32 BST." <004701c26fe2$a50bc820$5d4287d9@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <200210092234.PAA21705@mailhub.irvine.com> David Allen wrote: > Can declarer's card played in error ever be retracted > (except under L47)? > > At a recent EBU event, a declarer held a card touching the > table, then realised he had meant to play a different card > and tried to change it as soon as he saw it and before an > opponent had played a card. The director ruled that he > could not. This is how I would have interpreted L45. > > On a recent Judgement rulings TD course, the tutor believed > that a recent interpretation by the EBU panel of directors had > concluded that L45C4b could apply to declarer as well as dummy, > but not to defenders. This might have allowed him to change > the card. My reading of the Law is this: L45C4b applies to both declarer and defenders. However, it applies only when a card has been "named" or "designated"---not when it has been played. It would apply if, for instance, declarer wants to play the ace of spades but is having trouble getting the card out of his hand (it happens), so he tries to say "I'm playing the ace of spades", but accidentally says "Deuce of spades" (he's having a bad day), then realizes he made a slip of the tongue and tries to correct it "without pause for thought". Then L45C4b would apply and declarer gets to change his designation. But it wouldn't apply at all in the case you describe, since the card was played, not "named" or "designated". At least that's how I read the Law. I interpret "otherwise designated" as referring to some other means of letting the opponents know what card you're going to play without actually playing it. -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 10 01:08:27 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:08:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 References: Message-ID: <002e01c26ff1$4e391340$e037e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 5:43 PM Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2002 > Actually, the thanks from the EBU L&EC is more difficult than you > would think. The Committee formally thanked the Commentators, but their > manes did not get into the Minutes. > +=+ That's hairy, man +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 10 01:56:48 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:56:48 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 References: Message-ID: <001001c26ff7$e9d43900$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > > Suppose we observe this auction: > > > > West North East South > > 1H 1S 4H 4S > > ...Dble Pass ? > > And sitting North we are going to play in 4Sx. Based on the hesitation > double we are going to play West for > a) better than minimum values > b) sufficient distribution to make 5H a realistic consideration What, in the name of all that is holy, does it matter what North thinks? We are talking about illegal communication between East and West. > We will seldom be wrong. As to what action that information suggests to a > player with the East cards I really couldn't say without seeing his hand. Oh, go on. Try. For there to have been unauthorised information, there must first have been information. For there to have been "demonstrable" unauthorised information, it it at least a minimum requirement that some notion of the information that might have been conveyed will exist independently of the particular state of the recipient. Look. Forget hands, auctions, anything. What I am trying to do is to understand the meaning of two words: "demonstrably" and "information". If it is really the case that nobody believes that these words have any meaning in their own right, or can exist independently of the cards that people hold, or the identity of partner, or the "state of the match", then I am wasting my time. I don't believe that this is actually the case. I do believe that almost all of the contributors to this list are so conditioned to think about legal problems in terms of actual cases that they may find it very difficult to think about what the words on the page actually mean. I have studied Tim's reply for a good twenty minutes, and I am still firmly of the opinion that he has not remotely understood the question I am trying to ask; it is as if I had said "Would you like a drink?" and he had said "Indeed, the suicide rate in China does appear to be on the increase." David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 10 02:27:09 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:27:09 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 References: Message-ID: <001c01c26ffc$27532f80$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> Todd wrote: > Your question was meaningless to the discussion at hand. What "discussion" at what "hand"? My question was, as far as I knew, what does it mean to say that something is "demonstrably suggested" as opposed to being merely "suggested". If my question appeared otherwise, then I have failed to express myself correctly, for which (again) I apologise, > You asked how we demonstrate the existence and meaning of UI. That was not what I was trying to do. I was trying to ask how one distinguishes, in the presence of UI upon which all parties agree (a) that it is unauthorised and (b) that it is information, between something "suggested" by that information and something "demonstrably suggested" by that information. > However, I did > not mean to offer or suggest any course for demonstration. That is a pity, since what I was asking was: what nature would such a "demonstration" have? > For what it's worth, I consider a vote by > peers on the matter to be a sufficient demonstration that one > course of action is suggested over another. Thank you. That is indeed what I was trying to ascertain. Now, in view of the current climate of opinion, which is that appeals committees ought (like Carthage) to be destroyed, and that the judgement of a single official should prevail - how many peers, and how peerish should they be? David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 00:38:14 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:38:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C4D.008094CB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel wrote: >>At last! a convert! Who else agrees with >>David and me that alerts should be banned? >>"Kaplan" questions are small fry compared >>with alerts! >+=+ It is very simple to overcome the problem. >Just have two or more alertable meanings for each >call. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ To fully overcome the problem, each call would have to be alerted *always*. In Australia, this ideal state has been reached for a 2C response to 1NT, as the ABF has decreed that 2C must be alerted if conventional. Australian players have co-operated by universally agreeing to eschew a natural 2C response to 1NT. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 03:32:52 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:32:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Non! to non-agreement (was Long on Ethics) Message-ID: <4A256C4E.000D9701.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Petrus wrote: [snip] >But I do not like the idea of a law requiring >partnerships to have agreements for certain >situations as this would be unenforcable in >most events. Such a law would be easily enforcable; after enough PPs for non-agreements, player attendances would shrink to the point that the TD could kibitz the auction at the only remaining table. >Such a requirement would better be put into >the regulations of certain championships, with >the laws amended to make such a regulation >legal. Even at championship level, how are you necessarily damaged if your opponents fail to have an agreement? Although the De Wael School rules that "undiscussed" is inadequate as an explanation under L75 (because the School rules that such an explanation cannot be verified), even the School does not argue that lack of discussion in and of itself should be an irregularity. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 10 07:33:51 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:33:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: <4A256C4D.008094CB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001501c27027$24aba7a0$fc27e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > In Australia, this ideal state has been > reached for a 2C response to 1NT, as the > ABF has decreed that 2C must be alerted > if conventional. Australian players have > co-operated by universally agreeing to > eschew a natural 2C response to 1NT. :-) > +=+ I am fond of recounting a fact concerning the 1985 Final of the Venice Cup. In the preliminaries, our opposing Captain, Dan Morse, intimated that the US women were 'unfamiliar' with the Weak NT opener that my women all used and would be grateful if they would alert it. We expressed our willingness to do so, and added that since the British women were 'unfamiliar' with the opponents' strong NT would be equally grateful if they would also alert their 1NT openers. In this Final all 1NT openers were therefore alerted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 10 07:52:22 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:52:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Non! to non-agreement (was Long on Ethics) References: <4A256C4E.000D9701.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DA523A6.8060703@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Even at championship level, how are you > necessarily damaged if your opponents fail to > have an agreement? > > Although the De Wael School rules that > "undiscussed" is inadequate as an explanation > under L75 (because the School rules that such an > explanation cannot be verified), even the School > does not argue that lack of discussion in and of > itself should be an irregularity. > Exactly. I do not force you to have an agreement, but I tend not to believe you when you say this is the case. Subtle difference. Or rather, I will believe that yoou have not agreed on some meanings, but in serious partnerships I refuse to believe that this is the whole truth. Every pair has some basis for what they are doing. The one time when I will accept "no agreement" as the whole truth is when a visitor is playing with a local and the opponents know the partner better than the visitor. (But not even the reverse - the local has played, starting from the second board of the tournament, more hands with the visitor than his opponents have !) > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 07:17:42 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:17:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? Message-ID: <4A256C4E.002148A6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie suggested: [snip] >>My suggestion was for large indices with >>pips at the corners (for the short sighted) [snip] I noted: >And for the peekers. As a followup on the large indices issue, I played in a local one-day Swiss teams last Saturday. Because all boards were preduplicated, a larger than normal number of decks were required. Therefore, some previously unused large indice decks were employed. These cards were highly unpopular with those players forced to use them. Furthermore, I was forced to summon the TD when I violated L16B due to the size of an honour's indice at another table. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 08:09:58 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:09:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] L16 Message-ID: <4A256C4E.002611E7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >The player is obligated by law to take a >non-suggested choice from among his LAs, A player also has the right to select a *non-logical* alternative. The Laws include the possibility that a player may make an irrational choice. Therefore, a better statement of Law as it is currently written would be: "If a player receives UI, and if a player has more than one logical alternative, and if a player decides to choose a logical alternative, the player must choose a logical alternative which is not demonstrably suggested by the UI over another logical alternative." >so he must perforce consider the question of >which of his LAs are non-suggested, knowing >that if he comes up with the wrong answer, >any good score he gets will be taken from >him. But at least in my world he does so >with the assurance that there is a right >answer. [snip] Or, indeed, several right answers. For example, at the moment I believe that selecting a call that is: a) lucky, b) demonstrably suggested by UI, and c) non-logical is legal under a literal reading of L16 (albeit arguably illegal under L73). To be consistent with the current nature of bridge, I believe that L16 should be reworded to make such a non-logical call demonstrably illegal. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 10 08:29:34 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:29:34 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 References: <001c01c26ffc$27532f80$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004b01c2702f$32a0ad80$7c3ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:27 AM Subject: Re: FW: [blml] L16 > > That was not what I was trying to do. I was trying to > ask how one distinguishes, in the presence of UI upon > which all parties agree (a) that it is unauthorised and > (b) that it is information, between something "suggested" > by that information and something "demonstrably > suggested" by that information. > +=+ 'Demonstrable' : transparent ... (etc) You can see through it. ~ G ~ +=+ From schuster@eduhi.at Thu Oct 10 08:44:39 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:44:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Non! to non-agreement (was Long on Ethics) In-Reply-To: <4A256C4E.000D9701.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 10.10.2002 04:32:52, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Petrus wrote: > >[snip] > >>But I do not like the idea of a law requiring >>partnerships to have agreements for certain >>situations as this would be unenforcable in >>most events. > >Such a law would be easily enforcable; after >enough PPs for non-agreements, player attendances >would shrink to the point that the TD could >kibitz the auction at the only remaining table. I see we agree. > >>Such a requirement would better be put into >>the regulations of certain championships, with >>the laws amended to make such a regulation >>legal. > >Even at championship level, how are you >necessarily damaged if your opponents fail to >have an agreement? > You are not. And I do see the problem that will arise when a team is forced to change partnerships. I do not advocate such a regulation, and I will argue against it at a national level where we work hard to fight decreasing attendance. But I take it someone thinks it is a good idea to have such a regulation at world championships. Let them have it if they like, but keep it out of the Laws. --- Regards, Petrus From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 05:37:48 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:37:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C4E.0019A93E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Marv wrote: [snip] >some pros will ask the meaning of a cue bid when >she knows they know the meaning (plainly shown on >her CC). [snip] Hypothetical: Suppose that Marv did not know the meaning of an opponent's call, and had a legitimate need to immediately know the meaning. Suppose that Marv furthermore had two options: a) Ask a legal (non-Kaplan) question, or b) Rummage through the opponents' system card. Does the Lille declaration include the corollary that Marv may not ask a question until after Marv first examines the opponents' system card? In my opinion, such a corollary would unnecessarily slow down auctions to no real purpose. Most of the time, suddenly rummaging for the opponents' system card would give pard the same UI that asking the corresponding question would. The difference between the two options is that a legal non-Kaplan question provides pard with more AI about the opponents' methods than a legal rummage does. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 08:40:24 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:40:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <4A256C4E.0028DA93.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Tim wrote: [snip] >doesn't want the client thinking it is >Michaels either - the disclosure process >is imperfect but we all want our opponents >to be properly informed. The key word is "properly". The WBF has a regulation on disclosure thrusting part of the onus upon the opponents. Similarly, the ABF alert regulations have a *requirement* that some unexpected actions *must not* be alerted to the opponents. I act against the interest of my side by providing more disclosure to the opponents than local regulations order; my pre-alerts and explanations are slightly more extensive than required (especially to inexperienced opponents). But while I would deem a player who provided the minimum disclosure required by local regulations as sometimes being *unsporting*, as TD and AC I would have no option but to rule that that player's actions were *legal*. Therefore, if local regulations did not require a pre-alert of the unusual non-use of Michaels, a player can say tant pis to an opponent who does not read the CC or ask a question - - unless, of course, that opponent's partner asks a question. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 06:42:05 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Non! to non-agreement (was Long on Ethics) Message-ID: <4A256C4E.001E0623.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Petrus wrote: >>It is certainly different with zonal >>championships, but I cannot see anything >>unethical in being ill prepared: you >>have an obligation to the NBO you >>represent (and which pays at least part >>of your expenses), but not to other >>contestants to be able to play to the >>best of your ability. Grattan replied: >+=+ The obligation to other contestants is >to inform them correctly of your agreed >methods. You omit to comment on this. There is currently no obligation to have *comprehensive* agreed methods. Correctly informing the opponents that you have no explicit or implicit agreement about a particular call is not an infraction under the current Laws. *Misinforming* the opponents that you do not have an agreement (when the truth is that an agreement exists) is an infraction under L40 and L75 - and possibly L73. So in such cases, changes to the current Laws are not needed - merely their enforcement. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 06:00:10 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:00:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) Message-ID: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [snip] >Two international players, one of whom is >a long-time member of his country's Laws >commission, simply do not know whether or >not they should be alerting bids in a >number of common bidding sequences. Others >may judge whether this is the fault of the >players or the regulations; I make no >comment in that regard. It is indicative, >perhaps, of the fact that alerting >regulations are very difficult to frame in >such manner as to be understood by, or the >slightest use to, anyone at all. Australia has one of the simpler and more logically organised set of alert rules. Furthermore, the ABF has eschewed confusing players by frequently amending the alert rules; the rules have been unchanged for half-a-dozen years. Even so, I am the only pedantic player in Canberra to know all the details of the ABF alert rules. >What we do, since we do not in fact know >what we ought to do, is to alert those >bids of which we think that some opponents >might not know, or reasonably infer, the >meaning. We have probably broken an awful >lot of alerting regulations in our time >because of this approach, in other >sequences as well as those starting with >Stayman. We do not care about this, and >strangely enough, our opponents do not >seem particularly worried either. [snip] I fully agree with David Burn's last point. In my opinion, every SO's alert rules should include this catch-all clause: "Except where the alert of a call is prohibited specifically elswhere in these rules, a call must be alerted if an opponent might be unaware of its meaning." Best wishes Richard From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 10 10:57:40 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:57:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021008174111.00aae8b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008134431.02bab4e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021010114856.00aacd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:47 8/10/2002 -0400, you wrote: >At 07:45 AM 10/8/02, Alain wrote: > >>At 22:26 7/10/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>>What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally by naming a >>>convention. An oral explanation must state what a bid means, not what it >>>is called. >> >>AG : absurd. It means that I have no way of explaining marionette-type=20 >>bids, since they don't mean anything. They only ask partner to do=20 >>something specific. > >Surely "that says nothing about partner's hand; it just asks me to bid X"= =20 >is better disclosure than "that's the Wampus convention". The ACBL's=20 >insistence on the former over the latter strikes me as quite reasonable,=20 >not in the least absurd. AG : we differ here quite less than you pretend we do. 1. I fully agree with your last sentence. What I meant is that sometimes it= =20 is impossible to tell what the bid means, because it doesn't mean anything.= =20 Thus, the 'must' in your 1st sentence above is too strong. 2. In some bridge groups, a name will be enough. In Brussels, against=20 intermediate-level players, 1C p 1Ha explained as 'Walsh' will be enough.=20 Walsh is played by about 95% of us, with only minor deviations, but is=20 still alertable. Of course, it is a horse of another color when 1H means=20 spades. Thus, the ACBL's insistance is a little too extreme. What the laws should=20 say is that your explanations must be complete and comprehensible without=20 effort. Sometimes, it means answering with a name. Other sufficient names I= =20 think of are Puppet Stayman, Blackwood, 5-key Blackwood, and "2T fort=20 ind=E9termin=E9", in Flemish "semi-forcing 2Kl", ie a Benjy variant which= every=20 Belgian player is familiar with, even when not playing it. 3. I fully agree with your preference for alerting deviations, and only=20 deviations. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 10 10:57:45 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:57:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) References: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <006601c27043$7b601790$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) > > > David Burn wrote: > > [snip] more snip > >What we do, since we do not in fact know > >what we ought to do, is to alert those > >bids of which we think that some opponents > >might not know, or reasonably infer, the > >meaning. We have probably broken an awful > >lot of alerting regulations in our time > >because of this approach, in other > >sequences as well as those starting with > >Stayman. We do not care about this, and > >strangely enough, our opponents do not > >seem particularly worried either. > > [snip] > > I fully agree with David Burn's last point. > > In my opinion, every SO's alert rules should > include this catch-all clause: > > "Except where the alert of a call is prohibited > specifically elswhere in these rules, a call > must be alerted if an opponent might be > unaware of its meaning." > > Best wishes > > Richard For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be interested: In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or prohibited alert. (I believe the same applies to the other Scandinavian countries too). One of the alerting rules is: If you are not sure whether the call is to be alerted or not then you alert. (And if or when asked you just explain the call to the best of your abilities). The responsibility that your opponents are not left in the dark rests entirely upon you. Sven From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Oct 10 11:58:42 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:58:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <006601c27043$7b601790$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <006601c27043$7b601790$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:57:45 +0200, "Sven Pran" = wrote: >For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be interested: >In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or prohibited >alert. (I believe the same applies to the other Scandinavian=20 >countries too). =46or Denmark, this is putting it too strongly, though it is not much = wrong. In Denmark, alerting calls that are not alertable is not allowed. = However, * You are supposed to ask or check the CC when your opponents alert, = instead of assuming that the alert indicates some specific meaning; * We do recommend "alert when in doubt"; * Nobody is ever penalized or subjected to an adjusted score for having = alerted unnecessarily, provided that the reason for the alert was that the = alerter thought the call was alertable or that it might help the opponents to = alert. So the only practical difference from what Sven says is that we can say = "Because it is illegal" to those who ask "Why don't I just alert _all_ calls?". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 02:44:51 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:44:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lawspage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson writes > > On my Lawspage, there is a downloads page for BLML items at > > http://blakjak.com/blml_log.htm > > The logos for use on a T-shirt have been updated so that the new home >of BLML is shown. > > There is also Marv's summary of ACBL alerts at > > http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm > > Apart from the WordPerfect, RTF and text versions, it now includes a >PDF version. This is probably the best version if you just want to read >and print it, ie with no editing. > > If ever I get a copy of the full Adobe program I intend to make PDF >versions of several of my download files. However, apparently it costs >money! :(( On both these pages there is a link to Marv's eddress. Marv tells me it is the wrong one, so I shall alter it, *but* .... I have just sent two emails to the "correct" eddress, and both have failed. Is there a problem with your email, Marv? Judging by a response I have received about the BLML logo, perhaps I should make clear that it is produced by Marv, and I merely put it on my Lawspage. So any comments about the logos to Marv, please. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 10 14:02:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: FW: [blml] L16 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001001c26ff7$e9d43900$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> David wrote: > > > West North East South > > > 1H 1S 4H 4S > > > ...Dble Pass ? > > > > And sitting North we are going to play in 4Sx. Based on the > hesitation > > double we are going to play West for > > a) better than minimum values > > b) sufficient distribution to make 5H a realistic consideration > > What, in the name of all that is holy, does it matter what North > thinks? I just told you what "information" was contained in the hesitation see a) and b) above. Personally I often find it easier to interpret the information conveyed by a hesitation by sitting (mentally) in the opponent's seat - that after all is where I most benefit from reading such hesitations. > Oh, go on. Try. For there to have been unauthorised information, there > must first have been information. As you so rightly point out the question "what does the hesitation suggest?" is fairly unhelpful. Thus "what information does the hesitation probably convey?" is the question we start with - and one that we need not see any hands to answer. What action that information suggests to the partner remains a function of the actual holding/vulnerability etc. Tim From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Oct 10 14:48:48 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:48:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >I am fond of recounting a fact concerning >the 1985 Final of the Venice Cup. In the >preliminaries, our opposing Captain, Dan Morse, >intimated that the US women were 'unfamiliar' with >the Weak NT opener that my women all used and >would be grateful if they would alert it. We >expressed our willingness to do so, and added >that since the British women were 'unfamiliar' with >the opponents' strong NT would be equally grateful >if they would also alert their 1NT openers. In >this Final all 1NT openers were therefore alerted. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The mental image of all the ladies dutifully and pointlessly tapping the table is, indeed, rather amusing. "Don't care was made to care!" Cheers, Norman _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Oct 10 13:46:13 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:46:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hands from Two Boards References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Hands from Two Boards > Marvin writes: > > Swiss team, 8-board matches. > > A table is playing boards 1-4 in order, after playing boards 5-8 first, > with the other table playing 1-4 first. > > Having played board 1, they progress to board 2 (East dealer), North and > East quickly removing their hands from the board. Unnoticed by them, one > of the others flips the board over to expose board 3 (South dealer), > with the result that South and West take hands from board 3. > > South and West pass, North opens 3C, all pass. Now it is noticed that > two hands remain in the pockets, and the TD is called. > > TD says, "I think you have to play three clubs, but wait ........... > Opinions, please. > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City For many years I have wondered why the dominating law is not L21A. After all, the players made their calls under their own misunderstanding. And as for the second board, 'if it is played' [not saying that it should be salvaged] it seems that the problem calls need to be repeated the second time around as enforced calls as they were already made under the players' own misunderstanding. My opinion is that salvaging the second board creates too many ethical burdens or potentially creates an unfair result. regards roger pewick From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 14:07:05 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:07:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3DA3DF15.4080706@skynet.be> References: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> <001701c26f5f$24e726e0$e43223d9@pbncomputer> <3DA3DF15.4080706@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >It would be, IMO, severely unhelpful if David (B) would simply list >this whole bunch of possibilities and then later just refer to that >list and expect opponents to be able to draw their own conclusions. >That was my point, David (S), not any insinuation that it would be >allright to give less than complete explanations. Sometimes, complete >explanations are unhelpful. We all know that. However, where a complete explanation is simple and short, the logic for giving the wrong meaning of the bid still escapes me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 14:09:21 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008134431.02bab4e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021008134431.02bab4e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 22:26 7/10/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally by naming a >>convention. An oral explanation must state what a bid means, not what it >>is called. > >AG : absurd. It means that I have no way of explaining marionette-type >bids, since they don't mean anything. They only ask partner to do something >specific. That is their meaning. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 14:13:21 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:13:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: <3DA28D93.2070508@skynet.be> References: <4A256C47.001AD59C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005401c26b4d$89b094a0$279468d5@default> <022901c26b57$b43cb780$29a423d9@pbncomputer> <00e801c26b94$bd8902c0$279468d5@default> <3D9D8BCB.2070600@skynet.be> <3D9EC63A.8080602@skynet.be> <3DA19139.1080006@skynet.be> <3DA28D93.2070508@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >David, you do want to have the last word. Pot, kettle, black. >David Stevenson wrote: >> It is not obscure, it is simple, quite common, and for you to say htat >> it is acceptable for people to misdescribe their agreements worries me. >Don't you understand David, that it is all a question of quantity ? >Have you ever received a full explanation ? No you have not, because >that is simply impossible. All the negative inferences ? Every >single possibility ? - impossible. True. We are talking of the meaning of a simple bid, which shows something fairly simple. Without describing inferences, follow-ups, alternatives or anything else, it shows three types of hand, and I want to tell the opponents those three types: you want to tell them two of the three types, and you are arguing that is acceptable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 14:16:40 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:16:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> Why cannot people >> just play to the rules of bridge? Some of the rules are not too hard to >> grasp. > >People can, Kaplan did, then the rules changed. I don't think he would >ask now (not sure if the afterlife is subject to WBF rules tho). > >> "It is not permitted to send a message to partner as to what he should >> be doing by asking a question of opponents." > >Fine. But the "message" sent to partner is independent of whether the >person asking the question knows the answer. Had Kaplan been unsure about >the exact Italian method and asked his question then *exactly* the same >message would have been transmitted in the answer. > >The game becomes unplayable (without screens) if questions are not >permitted when partner may also benefit from the answers. True. >It is because identifying a Kaplan question relies purely on motive that I >consider the change a bad one. Change? What change? You have always been allowed to ask questions for your own benefit, and you have *never* been allowed to tell partner what to do through asking questions. Sure, it may be difficult in some cases to decide what a player is doing, but BLML rarely bothers with such niceties: they are interested in whether you should not be allowed to direct your partner during te hand. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 14:21:06 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:21:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <4A256C4E.002611E7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C4E.002611E7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RH writes >For example, at the moment I believe that >selecting a call that is: > >a) lucky, >b) demonstrably suggested by UI, and >c) non-logical > >is legal under a literal reading of L16 >(albeit arguably illegal under L73). As you presumably realise from many earlier threads, you do not have universal agreement here. I believe it to be illegal under L16A. >To be consistent with the current nature of >bridge, I believe that L16 should be reworded >to make such a non-logical call demonstrably >illegal. Making it clearer would be a good idea. But it is still a breach of L73C anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 10 16:35:25 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:35:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:21:06 BST." Message-ID: <200210101535.IAA27791@mailhub.irvine.com> David Stevenson wrote: > RH writes > > >For example, at the moment I believe that > >selecting a call that is: > > > >a) lucky, > >b) demonstrably suggested by UI, and > >c) non-logical > > > >is legal under a literal reading of L16 > >(albeit arguably illegal under L73). > > As you presumably realise from many earlier threads, you do not have > universal agreement here. I believe it to be illegal under L16A. > > >To be consistent with the current nature of > >bridge, I believe that L16 should be reworded > >to make such a non-logical call demonstrably > >illegal. > > Making it clearer would be a good idea. But it is still a breach of > L73C anyway. My opinion is that the wording of L16A2 is better, and the wording of L16A1, L16C2, and L73F1 should be made similar. L16A2 says: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested ..." Note that in this phrase, nothing suggests that the action chosen has to be logical. -- Adam From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 10 11:39:24 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:39:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3DA3DF15.4080706@skynet.be> References: <3da2111b.2971.0@esatclear.ie> <001701c26f5f$24e726e0$e43223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021010122940.02694c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:47 9/10/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >You see, David (S), that it is impossible to give a "complete" explanation= =20 >of every single bid. However, I am certain that David (B) will explain=20 >quite fully, in the next round, which of the possible meanings are still=20 >possible. >It would be, IMO, severely unhelpful if David (B) would simply list this=20 >whole bunch of possibilities and then later just refer to that list and=20 >expect opponents to be able to draw their own conclusions. >That was my point, David (S), not any insinuation that it would be=20 >allright to give less than complete explanations. Sometimes, complete=20 >explanations are unhelpful. AG : my opening 2D, explained on the CC and the additional notes, may=20 contain any one the following hands : weak 2 bid in hearts (ATV) (often 5 cards at green) weak 5H and 4+ minor (ATV) 4-losers, 5+ spades Acol 2-bid in clubs or diamonds 4 losers, 5+ hearts and 4 spades game force, 55+ without spades 'Spuer-Gambling', ie solid minor and two outside stoppers Of course, I could explain this on request, but up to now I've always=20 explained it as 'weak with hearts, perhaps with a minor on the side, or a whole variety of= =20 very strong hands' At green, it becomes 'weak with at least 5 hearts, perhaps very weak, or a= =20 whole variety of strong hands' Up to now, nobody has ever claimed the explanation was insufficient or=20 unhelpful. It contains everything the opponents must know to adjust their=20 defenses. Of course, were partner to rebid 3C over my neutral 2H response, I would=20 alert again, and if asked explain partner has 6+ clubs and about 8=BD= tricks. I will go farther, and claim that a complete explanation will be unhelpful= =20 and only mess up their comprehension of the bid. This is not what the alert= =20 prcedure is made for. The conclusion is obvious : you must not explain the full meaning of the=20 bid ; you must tell the opponents what they need to know. Of course, this=20 will vary with their level. Best regards, Alain. >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Oct 10 16:43:26 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:43:26 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <001c01c26ffc$27532f80$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:27 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: FW: [blml] L16 > > Thank you. That is indeed what I was trying to > ascertain. Now, in view > of the current climate of opinion, which is that > appeals committees > ought (like Carthage) to be destroyed, and that the > judgement of a > single official should prevail - how many peers, and > how peerish should they be? Although I'm concerned for the death of jurisprudence, the elimination of appeals committees should not also eliminate the duty of TD's to consult with players before making a decision in these cases. I believe 5 or 6 peers would be enough if their decision is unanimous or only one vote shy, but up to a dozen if the smaller sample yields an inconclusive verdict. How you determine who suitable peers are is an interesting question. A reasonable tactic would be to find people who enter similar events and perform with similar results to the person you need peers for. If you don't know the players, then you'll have to rely on masterpoint holdings as it's the only ranking system being used in bridge at the moment. -Todd From schuster@eduhi.at Thu Oct 10 16:45:59 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:45:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <006601c27043$7b601790$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3WTQTN22ZXSMJ4YMG73SQE0646ZKJ54.3da5a0b7@pp-xp> 10.10.2002 11:57:45, "Sven Pran" wrote: >For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be interested: >In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or prohibited >alert. (I believe the same applies to the other Scandinavian >countries too). > We used to have a similar regulation in Austria. Regrettably, there was a considerable amount of UI transmitted by slow alerts of partners double, so that now no double (or pass or redouble) may be alerted. Don't you have this problem, or have you found a more efficient solution? --- Regards, Petrus From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 10 17:13:17 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:13:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <006601c27043$7b601790$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021010180838.02332250@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:57 10/10/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be interested: >In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or prohibited >alert. (I believe the same applies to the other Scandinavian >countries too). > >One of the alerting rules is: If you are not sure whether the call >is to be alerted or not then you alert. (And if or when asked you >just explain the call to the best of your abilities). The responsibility >that your opponents are not left in the dark rests entirely upon you. AG : a recent decision in Belgium is : never alert a double or redouble, never alert any bid above 3NT. It is felt that alerting those would cause more problems (by transmitting UI) than it would solve. I think this is a bad rule. That you shouldn't alert any takeout, optional or penalty double is one thing ; that you should not alert very strange doubles [like (2D) X = transfer to H] is evil. Same principle : 1S p 4C is more or less self-alerting ; (3S) 4C for takeout could pass unnoticed. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 10 17:15:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:15:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: References: <006601c27043$7b601790$70d8fea9@WINXP> <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <006601c27043$7b601790$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021010181400.00ab5b20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:58 10/10/2002 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:57:45 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: > > >For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be interested: > >In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or prohibited > >alert. (I believe the same applies to the other Scandinavian > >countries too). > >For Denmark, this is putting it too strongly, though it is not much wrong. > >In Denmark, alerting calls that are not alertable is not allowed. However, >* You are supposed to ask or check the CC when your opponents alert, >instead of >assuming that the alert indicates some specific meaning; >* We do recommend "alert when in doubt"; >* Nobody is ever penalized or subjected to an adjusted score for having >alerted >unnecessarily, provided that the reason for the alert was that the alerter >thought the call was alertable or that it might help the opponents to alert. > >So the only practical difference from what Sven says is that we can say >"Because >it is illegal" to those who ask "Why don't I just alert _all_ calls?". AG : a better response would be "because you are supposed to inform your opponents, not to confuse them". From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 10 18:13:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > Change? What change? You have always been allowed to ask questions > for your own benefit, and you have *never* been allowed to tell partner > what to do through asking questions. The Kaplan question was legal prior to Lille 98 (that change occurred when the WBFLC issued an interpretation). Kaplan questions have nothing to do with telling partner what to do. > Sure, it may be difficult in some cases to decide what a player is > doing, but BLML rarely bothers with such niceties: they are interested > in whether you should not be allowed to direct your partner during te > hand. I remain convinced that Kaplan was not attempting to direct Kay's play. I have not seen his ethics questioned before Grattan used the term "criminal" earlier in this thread. A player can attempt to direct partner's play when asking a question to which he needs the answer, so what. If he does so and partner is "directed" we adjust. There is no need to make a question illegal purely on the basis of motive. There is no need to stop a partnership from protecting itself by asking a non-directing question in the face of inadequate disclosure. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 10 18:13:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C4E.0028DA93.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> > >is imperfect but we all want our opponents > >to be properly informed. > > The key word is "properly". OK. Ideal world scenario. Opponents are instantly aware of the full extent (or lack thereof) of our agreements and understandings the instant a call is made. "Properly" is as close to this ideal as one can get. Players who want their opps to act because they are ignorant of such information should get out of bridge and stick to poker. > The WBF has a regulation on disclosure > thrusting part of the onus upon the > opponents. The regulations on disclosure (anywhere) are imperfect. They are a somewhat pragmatic attempt to achieve the ideal. People should not use such regulations to try and conceal (or assist in concealing) information about their agreements. Tim From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Oct 10 18:53:21 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:53:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <001701c26f5f$24e726e0$e43223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: [snip ] > Alerts are based on what the sponsoring organisation says should be alerted Alerts are based on the opponents' need for information. If I know that my opponents know what my partner's bids mean, I do not alert them unless I am positive that the regulations compel me to do so (and even then I don't always bother). If I know that my opponents might not know what my partner's bids mean, then I do alert them, regardless of whether the regulations tell me not to. I didn't re - post all of davids comments but all I can do is cheer and applaude. Finally a bit of decent common sense. I simply can't understand what the who ha is about not alerting 2C or any convention. Alerting is a simple no effort mandatory curtesy to the opponents. You know more about a bid than they do or more importantly know that their expectation of a bids meaning may be off. Alert!! Where is the problem ?? From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 10 18:59:02 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 10 Oct 2002 10:59:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: <101002283.39543@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >I have not seen his ethics questioned before Grattan used the term "criminal" earlier in this thread. That was a literary device, Tim. It is known as "irony". David Burn London, England From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Oct 10 19:15:48 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:15:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 quickies In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021009104929.00b3d430@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: (1) Playing a teams event 8 board matches You are about to play to trick 9, last board. TD comes over and says sorry you have to scarp this hand - you're too late. Erhhh can he do this ?? I thought once a board has been started it is finished and if play has gone over the alloted time - time penalties ?? (2) Pairs Vul all Dealer N ..........S AKTxx ..........H ..........D Jxxxx ..........C Kxx S Jxxxx.............S x H AQx...............H KJxxxx D Qxxx..............D x C A.................C xxxxx ..........S Qx ..........H T9xx ..........D AKx ..........C QJTx Bidding 1S 2S(1) 3NT dbl all pass (1) No alert. South waited 4/5 seconds for alert. None Against 3NT west led the HA then the Q and the x. West claimed they had not agreed on any convetion in this situation so she didn't alert. East was playing michaels. West when asked how she managed to find such a devasting lead - said she felt partner was probable to have a 2 suiter including hearts (no 2NT) on the bidding. South said that with no alert it was possible that 2S was natural. If south had been informed it showed some sort of 2 suiter he would have doubled indicating a penalty double on one or more of the suits. South felt that Wests double & lead indicated that west knew 2S wasn't natural. N/S felt abit aggrieved. Your call. From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 10 19:33:15 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:33:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2 quickies In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:15:48 BST." Message-ID: <200210101833.LAA28974@mailhub.irvine.com> > (1) > > Playing a teams event 8 board matches > > You are about to play to trick 9, last board. TD comes over and says sorry > you have to scarp this hand - you're too late. Erhhh can he do this ?? I > thought once a board has been started it is finished and if play has gone > over the alloted time - time penalties ?? Maybe I'm missing something, but after looking through the Laws it appears that they say nothing about the whether the TD has the power to prevent a pair from playing a board that it was scheduled to play, whether or not the board has been started. This might be a matter for ZO regulations or Conditions of Contest. > (2) > > Pairs Vul all Dealer N > > ..........S AKTxx > ..........H > ..........D Jxxxx > ..........C Kxx > > S Jxxxx.............S x > H AQx...............H KJxxxx > D Qxxx..............D x > C A.................C xxxxx > > ..........S Qx > ..........H T9xx > ..........D AKx > ..........C QJTx > > Bidding > > 1S 2S(1) 3NT dbl > all pass > > (1) No alert. South waited 4/5 seconds for alert. None > > Against 3NT west led the HA then the Q and the x. West claimed they had not > agreed on any convetion in this situation so she didn't alert. East was > playing michaels. West when asked how she managed to find such a devasting > lead - said she felt partner was probable to have a 2 suiter including > hearts (no 2NT) on the bidding. South said that with no alert it was > possible that 2S was natural. If south had been informed it showed some > sort of 2 suiter he would have doubled indicating a penalty double on one or > more of the suits. South felt that Wests double & lead indicated that west > knew 2S wasn't natural. N/S felt abit aggrieved. Your call. There's no UI issue here. West had no UI. East had UI from West's failure to alert, but no one is questioning East's actions here. The only possible question is, were N/S damaged by the misinformation from West's failure to alert. My initial feeling about this are unless South just fell off the turnip truck, he should realize that 2S probably wasn't natural and bid accordingly, especially if N/S are playing a 5-card major system; thus any damage was self-inflicted and not caused by the MI. However, it's possible to argue that South had a right to assume, from the failure to alert, that East's 2S was really natural, even though this would be quite bizarre. I think this is close. If we decide that there was damage, I adjust to N/S +200 (for 3Hx down 1; I'd let E/W have one club ruff for eight tricks). In any case, West should have alerted even if she didn't know what convention they were playing; she could have said something like "I'm sure it's not natural, but we haven't agreed on what this means". West's conclusion that 2S was probably a 2-suiter, and that it probably included hearts since East did not bid 2NT, fall into the category of "general bridge knowledge" and thus did not need to be part of the explanation (L75C). -- Adam From elandau@starpower.net Thu Oct 10 22:20:24 2002 From: elandau@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:20:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021010165219.00ab8b20@pop.starpower.net> Ron Gerard's column in the October ACBL Bulletin reported a case of a ruling on a follow-up question, not a Kaplan question, but rather similar. "4NT was explained as 'Blackwood' and 5H as 'two aces'. East asked if 4NT was RKCB, was told that it was and then asked whether 5H showed or denied the queen of trumps." N-S later called the cops when E turned up with the queen in question, asking for redress under L73D2. The committee refused redress to N-S; they "determined that East was fully within her rights to ask about specific bids (including 5H) once her request for a complete review with explanations had not been fully complied with. North's description of the 4NT-5H part of the sequence as 'Blackwood' and 'two aces' was well short of what was required." IOW, at least this particular AC felt that E-W were entitled to some leeway past the usual restrictions on asking questions once they were in a situation created by the opponents' failure to give proper disclosure. The ruling certainly seemed to me to be equitable -- after all, it was N-S's own infraction that started the chain of events that led to their being "misled" about the location of the key queen. Was the AC's ruling legal? If it was, wouldn't the same kind of reasoning apply to a genuine "Kaplan question"? Eric Landau elandau@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 10 23:42:17 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:42:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021010165219.00ab8b20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c270ae$49bae240$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > Ron Gerard's column in the October ACBL Bulletin reported a case of a > ruling on a follow-up question, not a Kaplan question, but rather > similar. "4NT was explained as 'Blackwood' and 5H as 'two aces'. East > asked if 4NT was RKCB, was told that it was and then asked whether 5H > showed or denied the queen of trumps." N-S later called the cops when > E turned up with the queen in question, asking for redress under > L73D2. The committee refused redress to N-S; they "determined that > East was fully within her rights to ask about specific bids (including > 5H) once her request for a complete review with explanations had not > been fully complied with. North's description of the 4NT-5H part of > the sequence as 'Blackwood' and 'two aces' was well short of what was > required." > IOW, at least this particular AC felt that E-W were entitled to some > leeway past the usual restrictions on asking questions once they were > in a situation created by the opponents' failure to give proper > disclosure. The ruling certainly seemed to me to be equitable -- after > all, it was N-S's own infraction that started the chain of events that > led to their being "misled" about the location of the key queen. Was > the AC's ruling legal? If it was, wouldn't the same kind of reasoning > apply to a genuine "Kaplan question"? North-South were guilty of considerable negligence. East was a cheat. The Appeals Committee were lunatics. If this ruling has been given the approval of the ACBL, so that it may be considered to set a precedent, then the patients have taken over the asylum. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 10 23:53:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <101002283.39543@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > That was a literary device, Tim. It is known as "irony". I saw the context David - it was steely, not irony. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 03:09:05 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:09:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Arrow's paradox (was L16) Message-ID: <4A256C4E.000A85B0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard wrote: >>Option c) can never be the *correct* choice, since if >>the opposing contract will fail, it is correct to >>double; while if the opposing contract will fail, it >>is correct to save. David Burn replied: >Press any key to continue, or any other key to quit. [snip] Oops, insufficient word. The second use of the word "fail" in my previous post should have been "succeed". Correctly worded, my initial posting is an example of how an unsuccessful global choice could be a successful local choice. Suppose UI from pard demonstrably suggests Pass. Suppose further that pard's UI does not demonstrably suggest Double or Save. If Pass is still chosen, has damage been caused? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 10 02:46:50 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:46:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] CC error Message-ID: <4A256C4E.00087C61.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie asked: [snip] >Their card says they lead Jack from KJT but >you notice that they led Ten, so ask them if >they play "Strong tens" and they reluctantly >admit it. You ask them to confess this on their >card and they stare at you as if you are mad. >When you start to call the director, one smirks >that he will do so before their next match. >You suspect that they will not jeopardise >their chance of winning the "Booker" prize. >Should you insist on calling the TD even >although your team will suffer as a result? >The point is that you are winning the match >and if the TD forces opponents belatedly to >correct their card, the next team to meet >them will have a novel advantage over you and >the rest of the field. The mismarked card is a L40 irregularity, to which you have drawn attention. L9 *requires* the TD to be called after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. >If you do call the TD, should he adjust the >results of all previously affected boards and >matches? The results of previous matches for which the correction period has not expired can be adjusted. Just such a situation occurred to one of my team-mates when we played a sponsored team in the second-last Swiss qualifying match of the Australian National Open Teams. The team- mate was declarer in 3NT and received the lead of a deuce from the sponsor. The team-mate noted that the "fourth best" box was ticked on the sponsor's system card, so took a line of play that required the led suit to break 4-4. However, the sponsor had led fifth best, since the sponsor's actual agreement was fourth-best only against suit contracts. Our team agreed the result, studied the hand records of the match, unearthed a pattern of fifth-best leads against NT contracts, and summoned the TD. Since the correction period had not expired, the TD adjusted the score. Under the rules then in place, frivolous appeals attracted a cash penalty rather than a victory point penalty, so the sponsor's team automatically appealed the TD's ruling. They argued: a) The poor design of the then ABF system card was responsible for the MI b) On a single-dummy basis, the careless and inferior line taken by my team-mate was sufficiently bad to be irrational The AC ruled that a) did not prevent the sponsored partnership writing a clarification of their lead methods on a blank space on the system card; and b) that my team-mate was a sufficiently inferior player for his chosen line not to be irrational. Ironically my team would have preferred to lose the appeal. Due to our adjusted score, we played a tough team in the last Swiss match, so failed to qualify for the finals. And due to the adjusted score, the sponsored team played a bunny team in the last Swiss match, scored maximum VPs, and qualified. :-( Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 11 00:15:53 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:15:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) References: <3WTQTN22ZXSMJ4YMG73SQE0646ZKJ54.3da5a0b7@pp-xp> Message-ID: <001501c270b2$fb6d5050$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) > 10.10.2002 11:57:45, "Sven Pran" wrote: > > > >For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be > interested: > >In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or > prohibited > >alert. (I believe the same applies to the other > Scandinavian > >countries too). > > > > > We used to have a similar regulation in Austria. > Regrettably, there was a considerable amount of UI > transmitted by slow alerts of partners double, so that now > no double (or pass or redouble) may be alerted. > Don't you have this problem, or have you found a more > efficient solution? > > --- > Regards, > Petrus Well, first of all I was a bit too strong, Jesper made a better description, but the important point is that nobody are ever penalised for alerting a call that does not require an alert (except in the unique case when the alert apparently is made against better knowledge). Sure there is always a possibility of UI from alerts, but that problem has so far been much less than the problems solved with alerting whenever opponents MAY have reason to question what information is conveyed from a call. (Directors are generally aware of this UI possibility). The main fact is that the obligation is on any player to make sure opponents shall not risk being in the dark on the meaning of partner's call. regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 11 00:25:05 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:25:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) References: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021010180838.02332250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001b01c270b4$44181b90$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) > At 11:57 10/10/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be interested: > >In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or prohibited > >alert. (I believe the same applies to the other Scandinavian > >countries too). > > > >One of the alerting rules is: If you are not sure whether the call > >is to be alerted or not then you alert. (And if or when asked you > >just explain the call to the best of your abilities). The responsibility > >that your opponents are not left in the dark rests entirely upon you. > > AG : a recent decision in Belgium is : never alert a double or redouble, > never alert any bid above 3NT. It is felt that alerting those would cause > more problems (by transmitting UI) than it would solve. > I think this is a bad rule. That you shouldn't alert any takeout, optional > or penalty double is one thing ; that you should not alert very strange > doubles [like (2D) X = transfer to H] is evil. Same principle : 1S p 4C is > more or less self-alerting ; (3S) 4C for takeout could pass unnoticed. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > We had the rule "no alerts above 3NT" until last summer. This rule has now been changed to: Conventional opening bids and conventional calls at the first opportunity after an opening bid by opponents shall be alerted regardless of the level. regards Sven From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 23:34:11 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:34:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] re-stayman In-Reply-To: <002601c26f17$6fcafc60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> <002601c26f17$6fcafc60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L. French writes >From: "B Kelly" > >> My partner and I have occasionally used a 2C bid to remove partner >from >> a NT contract, >> only when weak (we use 12-14 NT)so is a sequence like >> 1NT pass 2C pass 2D pass pass alertable? >> by passing 2D I am not denying or confirming any hand shape,(but will >> normally have a shortage in clubs),but saying we have a lack of points >> and I think NT is not a good place to play. > >That all seeems pretty standard, no Alert at first glance. However, your >agreement is that 2C can be bid with any distribution. I am not sure if >that makes 2C Alertable, but it would seem to make the pass to 2D >Alertable if responder would not "tend to have" a major. This does show the differences in culture, does it not? I am sure this view is based on a Strong no-trump. In a place where a weak no-trump is normal, it is also fairly normal to respond 2C on 12-14 ... cards that is! If it goes 1NT P to me, I will respond 2C on xxx xxx xxx xxxx but players will not be surprised particularly. >Of course if opener would respond 2D with any minimum, that would make >both 2C and 2D Alertable. > >My defense against your agreement is to double 2C to show clubs (as >usual), and to pass a hand that would have doubled 1NT. Then, when any >response is passed around, a double is more penalty-oriented than >takeout, and a bid in the next higher denomination is for takeout. Again, I am surprised that a double of 2C is normally to show clubs, but the same applies: in the culture of the weak no-trump, a double of 2C to show a good hand with some ideas of penalties is normal. The problem with your methods, Marv, is that you let them escape when one hand has points and the other trumps. Of course, I am not suggesting your methods are wrong for you, but you might re-consider them if ever you play somewhere where a weak no-trump is standard. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 23:25:44 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RH writes >>What we do, since we do not in fact know >>what we ought to do, is to alert those >>bids of which we think that some opponents >>might not know, or reasonably infer, the >>meaning. We have probably broken an awful >>lot of alerting regulations in our time >>because of this approach, in other >>sequences as well as those starting with >>Stayman. We do not care about this, and >>strangely enough, our opponents do not >>seem particularly worried either. >I fully agree with David Burn's last point. > >In my opinion, every SO's alert rules should >include this catch-all clause: > >"Except where the alert of a call is prohibited >specifically elswhere in these rules, a call >must be alerted if an opponent might be >unaware of its meaning." The problem with this sort of approach is that it is beyond most players. If I play against Burn I trust him to alert helpfully. But I think if you put a reg like this one in place you will get more people like the well-known player who works at EBU headquarters, and who alerts about 85% of partner's calls, "because he knows something special about them". If you take the trouble to ask you will discover that he alerts a 1NT response to 1S because it might be short in spades, he alerts a 4H response to 1H because they play Splinters, he alerts .... The sad thing is, that while he wrecks the alert procedure, and no-one who knows him ever asks a question now, his intentions are pure: he actually believes he is being helpful. I think the Burn alert is like the Kaplan question: laudable in intent, sensible in safe hands, should be banned because of what others will do. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Oct 10 23:57:59 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:57:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] re-stayman In-Reply-To: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> References: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> Message-ID: <2LbDCsA3Xgp9EwiC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> B Kelly writes >My partner and I have occasionally used a 2C bid to remove partner from >a NT contract, >only when weak (we use 12-14 NT)so is a sequence like >1NT pass 2C pass 2D pass pass alertable? >by passing 2D I am not denying or confirming any hand shape,(but will >normally have a shortage in clubs),but saying we have a lack of points >and I think NT is not a good place to play. It is always helpful to say where you are, especially when asking a question about regulations, which differ from one jurisdiction to another. Let me guess that you are in New Zealand. The NZ alerting regs include: Calls Which Should Not Be Alerted Simple Stayman 2C responses in reply to partner's opening bid of 1NT and the 2D response. So 2C itself [and 2D] should not be alerted. Passes Which Should Not Be Alerted All passes which are forcing or promise values (not hitherto disclosed in the auction.) It does not seem to me that the pass is alertable under this reg either. There is a catchall statement: The following list specifies calls which must be alerted. If there are any calls which appear doubtful under these regulations they should be alerted as well. In particular any call, the meaning of which the opponents could not be expected to understand, should be alerted even where the following indicates that the call should not be alerted. ------------ It seems to me that there is no reason to alert this method of responding, which seems pretty normal to me. However, if where you play, you find that players will always assume you have majors to bid like this [classically the perfect hand is 4=4=5=0] then you might alert the pass. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 00:05:31 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:05:31 +0100 Subject: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card In-Reply-To: <002301c26edd$7d5d75e0$422a2850@pacific> References: <002301c26edd$7d5d75e0$422a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <6LYAy4A7egp9EwDK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan writes >From: "Tim West-meads" >> This bit, although phrased as a question, disturbed me >> (perhaps something about the question revealing the man!). >+=+ The revelation here is that the man believes the question >should be asked. I am aware of the views of some that an >advanced degree of preparation should be demanded of >those who present themselves at advanced levels of play. I am >equally aware of counterarguments. With me the jury is still out > - I sit back and listen; I am open to persuasion and will reach >a judgment in my own time. The original comment, deleted by someone else, included some reference to national tournaments. I have no problem with Grattan's idea that players should be required to knew their system at advanced levels of play, but I do not believe that national tournaments qualify. To take the English example, national tournaments include Brighton, with 500 pairs of whom possibly five can tell a spade from a diamond, the national Pairs Final which makes Brighton look *really* advanced, various Congresses and one-day events, and so on. To suggest that players should be required to know their system seems somewhat harsh: these are not high quality events. On the other hand we have the Trials, the Spring foursomes, possibly the Grand Masters. Now, in those events which have real quality, a different approach is not unreasonable. In general, if you make requirements for advanced levels of play, you should be chary of including the majority of events as "advanced". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 00:07:57 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:07:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long on Ethics In-Reply-To: <002701c26f61$0c5800c0$426f87d9@4nrw70j> References: <002701c26f61$0c5800c0$426f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: grandeval writes >From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >> It is certainly different with zonal championships, but I >> cannot see anything unethical in being ill prepared: you >> have an obligation to the NBO you represent (and which pays >> at least part of your expenses), but not to other >> contestants to be able to play to the best of your ability. >> >+=+ The obligation to other contestants is to inform them >correctly of your agreed methods. You omit to comment on this. So you should. However, it is not the end of the earth if you don't: well fed TDs will spring in to action. I think that a reg that will stop people playing is too harsh a method of control. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Oct 11 01:35:48 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:35:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <001b01c270b4$44181b90$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021010180838.02332250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021010203047.01c9e970@mail.comcast.net> At 07:25 PM 10/10/2002, Sven Pran wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" >Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:13 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) > > > AG : a recent decision in Belgium is : never alert a double or redouble, > > never alert any bid above 3NT. It is felt that alerting those would cause > > more problems (by transmitting UI) than it would solve. > > I think this is a bad rule. That you shouldn't alert any takeout, optional > > or penalty double is one thing ; that you should not alert very strange > > doubles [like (2D) X = transfer to H] is evil. Same principle : 1S p 4C is > > more or less self-alerting ; (3S) 4C for takeout could pass unnoticed. > > > > Best regards, > >We had the rule "no alerts above 3NT" until last summer. This rule has >now been changed to: Conventional opening bids and conventional calls >at the first opportunity after an opening bid by opponents shall be alerted >regardless of the level. The ACBL has a similar rule. Bids above 3NT are alerted immediately only on the first round of bidding; otherwise, alerts are postponed to the end of the auction. This gets the proper alerts for Namyats openings, (2S)-4D showing both red suits, and similar situations, while preventing most UI from alerts in slam auctions. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 11 01:39:32 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FW: [blml] L16 Message-ID: <200210110039.UAA05801@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > What I am trying to do is to > understand the meaning of two words: "demonstrably" and "information". As David is surely aware by now (and indeed surely was aware well before now), both words can have a variety of meanings. However, in this context, I think we can safely define "information" as something imparted by partner that may suggest for or against some bridge action. "Demonstrably" is harder. David desJardines, who does not read this list, has suggested something to the effect of a logical chain of reasoning that leads to a conclusion. It is something far less than a mathematical proof but more than mere conjecture. A minimum requirement, it seems to me, is that there is no similar logical chain of reasoning that leads to an opposite conclusion. However, bridge experience is certainly relevant, as Tim has pointed out: we can "demonstrate" something by having seen it happen over and over. Although David B. won't like it, I can't help but offer a couple of examples that seem clear to me. The slow penalty double conveys the _information_ that playing in the current contract may not be a bad idea. It seems _demonstrable_ that this suggests anything other than pass. (If the current spot is bad, another spot is likely to be better. True, it might not be -- no mathematical proof -- but the odds certainly favor pulling a slow penalty double if the TD will let you get away with it.) On the other hand, the slow limit raise conveys the _information_ that partner is either at the top or bottom of the appropriate range, but it will be very hard to _demonstrate_ how this suggests either passing or bidding game over the other alternative. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > For example, at the moment I believe that > selecting a call that is: > > a) lucky, > b) demonstrably suggested by UI, and > c) non-logical > > is legal under a literal reading of L16 I happen to agree with this much, but not everyone does. See David S.'s message for example. But it doesn't really matter. > (albeit arguably illegal under L73). How could it be "arguable?" Surely taking any action that is "demonstrably suggested by UI" amounts to "taking advantage of UI," and that is prohibited by L73C. If someone does this, you go to L12A1 and then to L12C2 (or 12C3 in some cases). Thus the result is exactly the same as a L16A violation, regardless of what you think L16A says about non-logical alternatives. > To be consistent with the current nature of > bridge, I believe that L16 should be reworded > to make such a non-logical call demonstrably > illegal. I suppose it couldn't hurt to clarify, but neither David S. nor I see a problem here. That may be significant. :-) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Oct 11 04:17:32 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:17:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] re-stayman References: <3DA2B2A1.2020200@es.co.nz> <002601c26f17$6fcafc60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004301c270d4$e052dde0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > > >My defense against your agreement is to double 2C to show clubs (as > >usual), and to pass a hand that would have doubled 1NT. Then, when any > >response is passed around, a double is more penalty-oriented than > >takeout, and a bid in the next higher denomination is for takeout. > > Again, I am surprised that a double of 2C is normally to show clubs, That surprises me, because doubling Stayman to show clubs is near-universal here, whatever the notrump range. > but the same applies: in the culture of the weak no-trump, a double of > 2C to show a good hand with some ideas of penalties is normal. > > The problem with your methods, Marv, is that you let them escape when > one hand has points and the other trumps. Of course, I am not > suggesting your methods are wrong for you, but you might re-consider > them if ever you play somewhere where a weak no-trump is standard. While not standard in these parts, we see weak notrumps fairly often. To our delight, because we average about 70% against them. Contracting to take seven tricks when holding little more than 1/4 of the deck is an overbid that should be punished more often than it is. With a good hand and penalties in mind you double 2C, warning opener and leaving lots of bidding space for their possible escape? And don't you sometimes get doubled yourself when responder has a good hand? And you can't double 2C to show clubs? Tsk, tsk. With a good hand and penalties in mind, I pass 2C, letting their auction proceed, and double a 2x bid that comes around unless I am very short in the suit. Quite often it is they who have the balance of strength, responder trying for game or bidding game, and I am well out of the auction. Yes, partner might have a trump stack when I am short, but that doesn't happen often and it doesn't necessarily mean we get a bad result. Actually that takeout bid (ranking denomination) rarely happens. My notrump defense can show any specific 4-4-4-1 distribution, with which I usually prefer to bid immediately, before the opponents can get together. I don't believe I will reconsider, but thanks for the suggestion. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 11 04:27:52 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:27:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient explain (was Pausitis) Message-ID: <4A256C4F.0011BB62.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: [snip] >Of course, I could explain this on request, but >up to now I've always explained it as > >'weak with hearts, perhaps with a minor on the >side, or a whole variety of very strong hands' > >At green, it becomes 'weak with at least 5 >hearts, perhaps very weak, or a whole variety >of strong hands' > >Up to now, nobody has ever claimed the >explanation was insufficient or unhelpful. It >contains everything the opponents must know to >adjust their defenses. [snip] Alain, if you come to Australia, you will meet a multitude of experts who will claim that your explanation is insufficient. Aussies love disrupting auctions where an opponent may have a variety of strong hands. But in order for an Aussie to intelligently compete against your ultra-multi call with a modicum of safety, it is indeed helpful to know what the meanings of the strong options are. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 11 04:37:23 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:37:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) Message-ID: <4A256C4F.00129A56.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: >A recent decision in Belgium is : never alert a >double or redouble, never alert any bid above >3NT. It is felt that alerting those would cause >more problems (by transmitting UI) than it would >solve. Australia has the same rules for the same reason. (Plus a logical addition: never alert a cuebid.) >I think this is a bad rule. That you shouldn't >alert any takeout, optional or penalty double is >one thing ; that you should not alert very >strange doubles [like (2D) X = transfer to H] is >evil. The ABF has delivered Aussies from evil by the requirement to *pre-alert* very strange calls at the start of the round. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 11 05:06:17 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:06:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Meaningless (was The Kaplan question) Message-ID: <4A256C4F.00153F94.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Tim wrote: [snip] >The regulations on disclosure (anywhere) are >imperfect. They are a somewhat pragmatic >attempt to achieve the ideal. People should >not use such regulations to try and conceal >(or assist in concealing) information about >their agreements. [snip] I wholeheartedly agree with Tim. But, in my opinion, Tim's use of "should not" is meaningless. Minimum compliance with pragmatic regulations is legal, even if Tim and I consider such minimum compliance "unsporting". And it is meaningless for a TD, such as myself, to describe L72B3 as "unsporting". I am duty-bound as a TD to enforce the Laws. The only context where a description of L72B3 as "unsporting" is meaningful, is the context of a majority of the WBF Laws Commission - since only the WBF LC has the power to repeal L72B3. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 11 06:00:47 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 15:00:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 quickies Message-ID: <4A256C4F.001A3D29.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>Playing a teams event 8 board matches >> >>You are about to play to trick 9, last board. >>TD comes over and says sorry you have to scrap >>this hand - you're too late. Erhhh can he do >>this?? I thought once a board has been >>started it is finished and if play has gone >>over the allotted time - time penalties?? Adam replied: >Maybe I'm missing something, but after looking >through the Laws it appears that they say nothing >about the whether the TD has the power to prevent >a pair from playing a board that it was scheduled >to play, whether or not the board has been started. > >This might be a matter for ZO regulations or >Conditions of Contest. No, this case is straightforwardly covered in the Laws. Slow play is an irregularity under L90B2. To rectify the irregularity, the TD's scrapping of the board is actually the consequential awarding of an ArtAS under L12A2. Technically, the TD has ruled both contestants partially at fault, given both contestants an Ave, which at teams is zero imps each. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 11 07:55:36 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:55:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021010165219.00ab8b20@pop.starpower.net> <000401c270ae$49bae240$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DA675E8.8090503@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Eric wrote: > > >>Ron Gerard's column in the October ACBL Bulletin reported a case of a >>ruling on a follow-up question, not a Kaplan question, but rather >>similar. "4NT was explained as 'Blackwood' and 5H as 'two aces'. >> > East > >>asked if 4NT was RKCB, was told that it was and then asked whether 5H >>showed or denied the queen of trumps." N-S later called the cops when >>E turned up with the queen in question, asking for redress under >>L73D2. The committee refused redress to N-S; they "determined that >>East was fully within her rights to ask about specific bids (including >>5H) once her request for a complete review with explanations had not >>been fully complied with. North's description of the 4NT-5H part of >>the sequence as 'Blackwood' and 'two aces' was well short of what was >>required." >> > >>IOW, at least this particular AC felt that E-W were entitled to some >>leeway past the usual restrictions on asking questions once they were >>in a situation created by the opponents' failure to give proper >>disclosure. The ruling certainly seemed to me to be equitable -- >> > after > >>all, it was N-S's own infraction that started the chain of events that >>led to their being "misled" about the location of the key queen. Was >>the AC's ruling legal? If it was, wouldn't the same kind of reasoning >>apply to a genuine "Kaplan question"? >> > > North-South were guilty of considerable negligence. East was a cheat. > The Appeals Committee were lunatics. If this ruling has been given the > approval of the ACBL, so that it may be considered to set a precedent, > then the patients have taken over the asylum. > David, you surprise me ! Calling east a cheat for a simple follow-up question on something which should have been told in the first place ? Consider this ploy. My partner bids 5He. I now know the queen of trumps is out. LHO asks. I say: 2 Aces. He doesn't ask any more. I play him for the queen of trumps. Or he does ask. I play the queen on the other side. If the finesse fails, I call the director. I have seen Directors (and sadly, even a Belgian AC) award 100% of the correct finesse ! (not even a 12C3 based on 60% correct finesse). By this ploy, my chance of finding the queen of trumps have now shot up to 85%. (far better than my usual average of 35%) Who's the cheat ? > David Burn > London, England > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 11 08:41:16 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:41:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021010165219.00ab8b20@pop.starpower.net> <000401c270ae$49bae240$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> <3DA675E8.8090503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001f01c270f9$94c4faa0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > David, you surprise me ! Oh, well. > Calling east a cheat for a simple follow-up question on something > which should have been told in the first place ? Law 75F2: If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score. Now, I suppose it might be argued that a question asked at a time when the player is entitled to ask questions is not a "remark, manner, tempo or the like" - but I would assert that a question of this kind is something very much like a remark. What was East doing when he asked his opponents "Have you shown or denied the queen of trumps"? Did he have a "demonstrable bridge reason for his action"? Was he asking so that he might make some call contingent upon the reply? No, he was not; what he was doing (and I dare say he could have known perfectly well that he was doing it) was to give rise to the false inference that he did not have the queen of trumps himself. > Consider this ploy. > My partner bids 5He. I now know the queen of trumps is out. > LHO asks. I say: 2 Aces. > He doesn't ask any more. I play him for the queen of trumps. > Or he does ask. I play the queen on the other side. If the finesse > fails, I call the director. > I have seen Directors (and sadly, even a Belgian AC) award 100% of the > correct finesse ! (not even a 12C3 based on 60% correct finesse). > By this ploy, my chance of finding the queen of trumps have now shot > up to 85%. > (far better than my usual average of 35%) > Who's the cheat ? If you deliberately give a misleading answer to a question, in the hope of prompting further questions that might reveal something about the opponents' hands, then you are cheating. If an opponent deliberately asks whether you might hold some card that he himself holds, then he is cheating. The ploy that you describe is not unlike the original Alcatraz Coup, in which a player with this trump suit at rubber bridge: Axxx KJ109 claims 100 for honours in an attempt to ascertain which opponent holds the queen. The rather more difficult Counter Alcatraz Coup requires the defender with the queen of trumps to write 100 above the line, while the other defender remains inert. (Before a sub-thread starts that could meander on for ever, I am aware that the name "Alcatraz Coup" has been applied to other deceptive manoeuvres.) Now, the Alcatraz Coup is cheating: it is pretending to hold a card that you do not hold, in an attempt to cause the player who does hold it to reveal the position. Similarly, the keycard Blackwood "follow-up question" is cheating: it is pretending (by means other than a deceptive call or play) not to hold a card that you do hold. This, while a valuable tactic at Happy Families and Cluedo, has no place in bridge. If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in which you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also positions in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to rectify the situation at the table. But you must not use questions either to communicate with partner, or to deceive an opponent. David Burn London, England From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Oct 11 09:41:38 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:41:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] L17, repeating the auction Message-ID: Yesterday evening I arrived at 'my' table with four players already busy. >From some distance we told them to check their walking guide and yes one of the pairs was seated wrongly. It left and eager to apply law 15C I asked whether the play had started already. No as an answer, so I explained what to do afterwhich my partner opened with 2S and the auction was cancelled. I then told to write down 60/40 but now it appeared that the bidding had gone pass-pass-pass-pass. And my opponents prefered the score for the 'played' board. Next time I call the TD again, leaving it to him/her to make the mistakes. ton From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Oct 11 10:16:36 2002 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:16:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] L17, repeating the auction References: Message-ID: <001101c27106$e6967e00$9be31e3e@mikeamos> Ask a silly question .... He He mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: [blml] L17, repeating the auction > Yesterday evening I arrived at 'my' table with four players already busy. > From some distance we told them to check their walking guide and yes one of > the pairs was seated wrongly. It left and eager to apply law 15C I asked > whether the play had started already. No as an answer, so I explained what > to do afterwhich my partner opened with 2S and the auction was cancelled. I > then told to write down 60/40 but now it appeared that the bidding had gone > pass-pass-pass-pass. And my opponents prefered the score for the 'played' > board. > Next time I call the TD again, leaving it to him/her to make the mistakes. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ljtrent@adelphia.net Fri Oct 11 10:30:11 2002 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 02:30:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of >>David Stevenson >>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:48 AM >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: [blml] Illegal convention >> >> >> >> Of course it is also made worse that I have not had a >>copy of the Las >>Vegas case-book yet. >> hmmmm - all you have to do is go to the ACBL web site and look in the Members section under NABC Casebooks... Linda From ljtrent@adelphia.net Fri Oct 11 10:43:22 2002 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 02:43:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> >>> Linda Trent, who plays top-and-bottom cue bids, says that >>some pros will >>> ask the meaning of a cue bid when she knows they know the meaning >>> (plainly shown on her CC). They just want to make sure >>that the client >>> doesn't take it for Michaels. >> >>Which means that the pro's interest and Linda's are >>completely aligned. >>Linda doesn't want the client thinking it is Michaels either - the >>disclosure process is imperfect but we all want our opponents to be >>properly informed. >> >>Tim Yes, but it just didn't feel right when the very next day the same pro with the same client played against myself and a different partner and when the smae cuebid arose, followed by the same glance at the CC (the client was oblivious both times) chose not to ask the same question... Linda From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Oct 11 10:49:42 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:49:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: > >The problem with this sort of approach is that it is beyond most >players. If I play against Burn I trust him to alert helpfully. >The sad thing is, that while he [Some bloke who works for the EBU]>wrecks >the alert procedure, and no-one >who knows him ever asks a question now, his intentions are pure: he >actually believes he is being helpful. > >I think the Burn alert is like the Kaplan question: laudable in >intent, sensible in safe hands, should be banned because of what others >will do. I agree with this wholeheartedly. An earlier post from David Burn suggested that it was a good idea for him to break the rules in an attempt to be helpful. While this may be sauce for the goose, the ganders are a very different kettle of fish. As the Burn "approved for himself, by himself" behaviour trickles down the drainpipe to lesser mortals, a whole can of worms is opened, and good intentions pave the way to argument and misery. David Stevenson is quite right. Shouldn't, by the way, another thread on this mailing list actually be called "The Kaplan Question question"? _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 11 11:00:12 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:00:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021010165219.00ab8b20@pop.starpower.net> <000401c270ae$49bae240$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> <3DA675E8.8090503@skynet.be> <001f01c270f9$94c4faa0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DA6A12C.2030406@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > Now, the Alcatraz Coup is cheating: it is pretending to hold a card that > you do not hold, in an attempt to cause the player who does hold it to > reveal the position. Similarly, the keycard Blackwood "follow-up > question" is cheating: it is pretending (by means other than a deceptive > call or play) not to hold a card that you do hold. This, while a > valuable tactic at Happy Families and Cluedo, has no place in bridge. > > If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in > which you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also > positions in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to > rectify the situation at the table. But you must not use questions > either to communicate with partner, or to deceive an opponent. > But David, don't you realize that a remark "from five ?", "without the queen of trumps ?" is innocent ? It is not done to deceive an opponent. I realize that the law only requires that the player "could have known that his remark might deceive", but surely the insitgator is the man who gives an insufficient answer. In the case I talk of, with the Belgian AC, the fellow asking the question told me he did not realize he had the queen when he asked about her. It was the logical thing to do at the time, and keeping schtum could have revealed he did have her. You are right when you say that asking this question in order to deceive is not allowed. But don't turn it around. When the second question is asked in order to clarify a first one, the player who has failed in his obligation to inform correctly ought not to benefit from that. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 11 11:07:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001f01c270f9$94c4faa0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > Now, the Alcatraz Coup is cheating: it is pretending to hold a card that > you do not hold, in an attempt to cause the player who does hold it to > reveal the position. No argument there. Is the Counter-Alcatraz Coup also cheating? The man without the trump Q who doesn't write down the 100 honours is pretending to hold a card in order to mislead opponents as to its position. Is the Imperfect RKCB Disclosure Coup similar to the Alcatraz coup in that it is an attempt to get opponents to reveal the position of trump queen? Is the counter (follow-up question from holder of trump Q) also illegal? Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 11 11:30:09 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 11 Oct 2002 03:30:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >But David, don't you realize that a remark "from five ?", "without the queen of trumps ?" is innocent ? No, I don't. It isn't. You're supposed to ask your opponents to explain their methods, not tell them what you think their methods are and see if they agree with you. >In the case I talk of, with the Belgian AC, the fellow asking the question told me he did not realize he had the queen when he asked about her. He should not have been asking about the queen of trumps. He should have been asking what 5H meant; when he was told, he should have accepted the explanation he was given; and if his side was damaged because the explanation was incorrect, he should have sought redress. Now, I know that in the real world, people don't do this. They ask all sorts of improper questions, they are given (and accept) a lot of partial or wrong explanations, because they do not treat every situation at the bridge table with a high degree of formality. And no more they should, of course; not every event is a World Championship, and most of the time, a less than strictly legal approach will do no harm and will contribute to a more enjoyable game. But if you ask the wrong question, it is no defence to claim that you then asked another wrong question because you thought you might have been given the wrong answer to the first wrong question. And you must be extremely careful not to ask questions (or do anything else) that might imply anything about the contents of your hand. >It was the logical thing to do at the time I can only conclude from the above that "logical" must be a Belgian word similar in appearance to a word in English, but in fact meaning something akin to "berserk, demented, bereft of sense". >and keeping schtum could have revealed he did have her. Yes, but that was his own fault for asking an improper question in the first place. Just because your opponents may be doing wrong, that does not give you licence to do wrong yourself. >You are right when you say that asking this question in order to deceive is not allowed. If a question could deceive, and could serve no other purpose, then to ask it is not allowed, whatever your intention may have been, and however far adrift from reality you were at the time. > But don't turn it around. I have not done so. >When the second question is asked in order to clarify a first one, the player who has failed in his obligation to inform correctly ought not to benefit from that. When the first question was wrongly put, and the second question was manifestly absurd, the person who asked both questions should not benefit from that either. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 11 11:44:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:44:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 quickies In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021009104929.00b3d430@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021011124147.026a39e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:15 10/10/2002 +0100, Karel wrote: >(2) > >Pairs Vul all Dealer N > >..........S AKTxx >..........H >..........D Jxxxx >..........C Kxx > >S Jxxxx.............S x >H AQx...............H KJxxxx >D Qxxx..............D x >C A.................C xxxxx > >..........S Qx >..........H T9xx >..........D AKx >..........C QJTx > >Bidding > >1S 2S(1) 3NT dbl >all pass > >(1) No alert. South waited 4/5 seconds for alert. None AG : a direct cue-bid is self-alerting. Just ask what it means. >Against 3NT west led the HA then the Q and the x. West claimed they had not >agreed on any convetion in this situation so she didn't alert. East was >playing michaels. West when asked how she managed to find such a devasting >lead - said she felt partner was probable to have a 2 suiter including >hearts (no 2NT) on the bidding. South said that with no alert it was >possible that 2S was natural. AG : don't make me laugh. > If south had been informed it showed some >sort of 2 suiter he would have doubled indicating a penalty double on one or >more of the suits. South felt that Wests double & lead indicated that west >knew 2S wasn't natural. N/S felt abit aggrieved. Your call. AG : mum. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 11 11:46:38 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:46:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <001b01c270b4$44181b90$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C4E.001A352F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021010180838.02332250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021011124555.026a00c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:25 11/10/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" >Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:13 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Stayman (was Pausitis) > > > > At 11:57 10/10/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > >For what it is worth, and maybe someone would be interested: > > >In Norway there is no such thing as an illegal or prohibited > > >alert. (I believe the same applies to the other Scandinavian > > >countries too). > > > > > >One of the alerting rules is: If you are not sure whether the call > > >is to be alerted or not then you alert. (And if or when asked you > > >just explain the call to the best of your abilities). The responsibility > > >that your opponents are not left in the dark rests entirely upon you. > > > > AG : a recent decision in Belgium is : never alert a double or redouble, > > never alert any bid above 3NT. It is felt that alerting those would cause > > more problems (by transmitting UI) than it would solve. > > I think this is a bad rule. That you shouldn't alert any takeout, optional > > or penalty double is one thing ; that you should not alert very strange > > doubles [like (2D) X = transfer to H] is evil. Same principle : 1S p 4C is > > more or less self-alerting ; (3S) 4C for takeout could pass unnoticed. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > > > > > >We had the rule "no alerts above 3NT" until last summer. This rule has >now been changed to: Conventional opening bids and conventional calls >at the first opportunity after an opening bid by opponents shall be alerted >regardless of the level. AG : I'll submit this to the Belgian Committee in charge. It seems a sensible compromise. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 11 11:45:00 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 11 Oct 2002 03:45:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <111002284.13501@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >Is the Counter-Alcatraz Coup also cheating? The man without the trump Q who doesn't write down the 100 honours is pretending to hold a card in order to mislead opponents as to its position. No; there is no obligation to write down the score until the end of the hand (and, as far as I can make out, there is no obligation to do it even then). The man with the queen of trumps who does write down the 100 honours is certainly practising a counter-deception, however. In various accounts of this coup, his conduct in so doing has been applauded. I can understand the motivation for this - we are, as human beings, naturally pleased to see a villain thwarted, and we consider it entirely right and proper that a trickster should be foiled by his own trick. That is why we admire characters such as Robin Hood, while we do not generally admire thieves. It is this kind of motivation that drives Herman to remonstrate with me along these lines: my opponent has committed an act of villainy by refusing to answer my questions honestly, so I should now have carte blanche to deceive him in return by whatever means I can. And what could be more fitting than that I should bring about his doom by asking a question that he will have to answer honestly, thus creating a false picture in his mind? As I have said, I can understand this motiviation; I would be something other than human if I could not. But it is one thing to understand and to sympathise with Robin Hood. It is quite another to say that what he did was not theft. >Is the Imperfect RKCB Disclosure Coup similar to the Alcatraz coup in that it is an attempt to get opponents to reveal the position of trump queen? Very possibly. >Is the counter (follow-up question from holder of trump Q) also illegal? Yes. If players would confine themselves to: Asking questions of the form "Please explain that call"; Accepting the answers given; and Asking for redress should those answers prove inadequate then Alcatraz could, once again, be left to the birds. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 11 12:25:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:25:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <111002284.13501@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021011131748.00ab0d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:45 11/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >As I have said, I can understand this motiviation; I would be >something other than human if I could not. But it is one thing >to understand and to sympathise with Robin Hood. It is quite >another to say that what he did was not theft. > > >Is the Imperfect RKCB Disclosure Coup similar to the Alcatraz >coup in that it is an attempt to get opponents to reveal the >position of trump queen? > >Very possibly. > > >Is the counter (follow-up question from holder of trump Q) also >illegal? > >Yes. > >If players would confine themselves to: > >Asking questions of the form "Please explain that call"; >Accepting the answers given; and >Asking for redress should those answers prove inadequate > >then Alcatraz could, once again, be left to the birds. AG : what was named "Alcatraz coup" in this subthread is triggered by pretending one holds honors. I've been shown another kind of coup, also called "Alcatraz", as an example of use of L16C and L72B : Axxx KJ10xx You play the Ace from that combination, then small to your hand. As North plays small for the second time, you discard some card (or you ruff), and you see whether the Queen appears or not ; then you correct your (non-established) revoke by playing the appropriate card from your hand. Of course, you won't get out with it, and that's where L16C appears. Is the name "Alcatraz" standard for this form too, or would you use another name for it ? Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 11 12:39:33 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 11 Oct 2002 04:39:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Alcatraz (was: The Kaplan question) Message-ID: <111002284.16774@webbox.com> Alain Alain wrote wrote: > Axxx KJ10xx > >You play the Ace from that combination, then small to your hand. As North plays small for the second time, you discard some card (or you ruff), and you see whether the Queen appears or not This is, indeed, another kind of dubious manoeuvre that has at one time or another been termed the Alcatraz Coup. Arguing about what the original Coup was is about as pointless as discussing who invented Stayman. This is, indeed, another kind of dubious manoeuvre that has at one time or another been termed the Alcatraz Coup. Arguing about what the original Coup was is about as pointless as discussing who invented Stayman. Readers may have noticed a degree of repetitiveness about certain aspects of this message. This is because I have deduced that Alain likes to receive everything twice. Since I am not in the habit of sending the same message to an individual and a mailing list that the individual will certainly read, I have taken the precaution of duplicating everything within the message itself. Readers may have noticed a degree of repetitiveness about certain aspects of this message. This is because I have deduced that Alain likes to receive everything twice. Since I am not in the habit of sending the same message to an individual and a mailing list that the individual will certainly read, I have taken the precaution of duplicating everything within the message itself. David David Burn Burn London London, England England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 11 12:46:52 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:46:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > > When the first question was wrongly put, and the second question > was manifestly absurd, the person who asked both questions should > not benefit from that either. > Just to make one small point, the first question was not wrongly put, it was "what is 5He?". The player thought he knew the answer, because he knew his opponent (he was from the same club). The answer "two" surprised him. So he inquired further "of five?". There have been many cases in which a player was not given redress because he blindly followed to an explanation that he knew was wrong. Again, you are ruling against the wrong offender. > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 11 13:10:22 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 11 Oct 2002 05:10:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <111002284.18622@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >Just to make one small point, the first question was not wrongly put, it was "what is 5He?". The player thought he knew the answer, because he knew his opponent (he was from the same club). The answer "two" surprised him. So he inquired further "of five?". Oh, well. Presumably, then, there were three questions, one of which was the not entirely correct "what is 5H?" and the other two the innocuous "of five?" and the entirely illegal and misleading "does it deny the queen of trumps?" >There have been many cases in which a player was not given redress because he blindly followed to an explanation that he knew was wrong. There have indeed. They have nothing very much to do with this case, of course. >Again, you are ruling against the wrong offender. I am ruling against a player who broke Law 75 and perpetrated an illegal deception. If the question arose: did North-South cause damage by their inadequate explanations? then I would consider a score adjustment if the answer proved to be "Yes". If the question arose: should North-South be penalised for errors in procedure by giving inadequate explanations? then I would consider so doing if the nature of the event and the experience of North-South made this appropriate. In other words: North-South have committed an infraction. I do not know whether this resulted in damage to be redressed, or whether it would be considered serious enough to result in a procedural penalty; but if this turned out to be the case, I would rule against North-South in both respects. East-West have also committed an infraction. This certainly resulted in damage to be redressed, and was certainly serious enough to warrant an additional procedural penalty. I will therefore also rule against East-West in both respects. If this leads to an adjustment in which North-South fail in their slam while East-West have it made against them, and both sides are then fined several victory points for abuse of procedure, splendid. That, after all, is what they deserve. Where more than one side has offended, one rules against more than one set of offenders; they are both the "right" offenders against whom to rule and neither is the "wrong" offender. But one does not say: "Well, these offences seem to have cancelled one another out, so we will rule against no one." David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 11 13:39:52 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:39:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021011083149.00b45100@pop.starpower.net> At 06:30 AM 10/11/02, David wrote: >Herman wrote: > > >But David, don't you realize that a remark "from five ?", "without >the queen of trumps ?" is innocent ? > >No, I don't. It isn't. You're supposed to ask your opponents >to explain their methods, not tell them what you think their >methods are and see if they agree with you. > > >In the case I talk of, with the Belgian AC, the fellow asking >the question told me he did not realize he had the queen when >he asked about her. > >He should not have been asking about the queen of trumps. He >should have been asking what 5H meant; when he was told, he should >have accepted the explanation he was given; and if his side was >damaged because the explanation was incorrect, he should have >sought redress. > >Now, I know that in the real world, people don't do this. They >ask all sorts of improper questions, they are given (and accept) >a lot of partial or wrong explanations, because they do not treat >every situation at the bridge table with a high degree of formality. >And no more they should, of course; not every event is a World >Championship, and most of the time, a less than strictly legal >approach will do no harm and will contribute to a more enjoyable >game. > >But if you ask the wrong question, it is no defence to claim >that you then asked another wrong question because you thought >you might have been given the wrong answer to the first wrong >question. And you must be extremely careful not to ask questions >(or do anything else) that might imply anything about the contents >of your hand. > > >It was the logical thing to do at the time > >I can only conclude from the above that "logical" must be a Belgian >word similar in appearance to a word in English, but in fact >meaning something akin to "berserk, demented, bereft of sense". > > >and keeping schtum could have revealed he did have her. > >Yes, but that was his own fault for asking an improper question >in the first place. Just because your opponents may be doing >wrong, that does not give you licence to do wrong yourself. > > >You are right when you say that asking this question in order >to deceive is not allowed. > >If a question could deceive, and could serve no other purpose, >then to ask it is not allowed, whatever your intention may have >been, and however far adrift from reality you were at the time. > > > But don't turn it around. > >I have not done so. > > >When the second question is asked in order to clarify a first >one, the player who has failed in his obligation to inform correctly >ought not to benefit from that. > >When the first question was wrongly put, and the second question >was manifestly absurd, the person who asked both questions should >not benefit from that either. To set the record straight, in the case reported in the Bulletin it was clear that the original question was *not* "wrongly put". The original "question" was in fact a request for a full review of the auction accompanied by explanations of the calls. In the ACBL, that has been officially stated to be the "most preferred" form of inquiry at the end of the auction. Does this make any difference? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Fri Oct 11 13:53:43 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:53:43 UT Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <20021011125343.C58842FD8A@server3.fastmail.fm> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:41:16 +0100, "David Burn" said: > Herman wrote: > > > David, you surprise me ! > > Oh, well. > > > Calling east a cheat for a simple follow-up question on something > > which should have been told in the first place ? > > Law 75F2: > > If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false > inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who > has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have > known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his > benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score. > > Now, I suppose it might be argued that a question asked at a time when > the player is entitled to ask questions is not a "remark, manner, tempo > or the like" - but I would assert that a question of this kind is > something very much like a remark. What was East doing when he asked his > opponents "Have you shown or denied the queen of trumps"? Did he have a > "demonstrable bridge reason for his action"? Was he asking so that he > might make some call contingent upon the reply? No, he was not; what he > was doing (and I dare say he could have known perfectly well that he was > doing it) was to give rise to the false inference that he did not have > the queen of trumps himself. > In the scenario described in the Bulletin, South had bid clubs strongly (opening 1C and jumping to 3C over his partner's 1H response IIRC). Belated H support was given. According to the article, it was unclear to East that H was the agreed suit - it was certainly possible from his perspective that C was the agreed suit. -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm/ - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 11 14:11:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 11 Oct 2002 06:11:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <111002284.22313@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >To set the record straight, in the case reported in the Bulletin it was clear that the original question was *not* "wrongly put". >Does this make any difference? Apologies for tangling two (or more) threads here; when I was talking about wrongly put questions, I was referring to the Belgian case about which Herman had written, not the American one. I don't know if it's possible to read the ACBL Bulletin without being an ACBL member, but if I could somehow have a look at the actual Bulletin article, it would be of interest. I think, though, that provided the facts regarding the question as to the queen of trumps were as reported in the original message to BLML, I am unlikely to be persuaded from my original view that it was a question that should not have been asked, and that if it deceived an opponent, redress was due. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 11 15:12:56 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:12:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies In-Reply-To: <3dcfb391.4aa2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021011160739.00ab8410@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:41 11/11/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: > >AG : a direct cue-bid is self-alerting. Just ask what it means. > >[Karel - ok it is mosstttt unlikely that 2S is natural ... BUT ... IF a bid >is not alerted (ie) 1NT P 2C :>> it IS natural. AG : sorry. In Belgium, we *don't* alert transfers, and *do* alert natural 1NT ... 2H. Your rule is unefficient. Also, we don't alert strong 2C openings, but we do alert natural (Precision) 2C. Etc. I guess that the "standard" sense for a cue-bid would be a strong hand, with control in the opponents' suit. That's what lies in classical books. But many countries have decided that, as there are as many meanings for a direct cue as there are pairs, the bid is self-alerting. To cut it short, assuming the bid is natural amounts to failing to protect yourself. > South gave E/W 4/5 seconds >to wake up and alert the call. Why should the onus be on South to wake west >up or to allow west the opportunity to tell east that he has forgotten the >system >?? If a bid is alertable then the opps should alert it - the onus is not on >you to chase them up to find out what it means. > > > >AG : don't make me laugh. > >[Again ok its unlikely 2S is natural but what if just this one time it >actually >was natural Alain ?? Can you read the opps minds ?? Should you be required >to ask the meaning of a bid which may wake an opponent up ?? ] > > >AG : mum. > >[Finally it is 100% clear cut that West KNEW 2S wasn't natural and failed to >alert. She may not have known what it meant but her double, pretty amazing >lead and no spade raise with J to 5 clearly indicated she knew 2S was not >natural. > She failed to alert. N/S were damaged. AG : unless, of course, she didn't have to. In Belgium, they don't have to. No damage. This is more than "mum", but says the same. Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Oct 11 15:46:49 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:46:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > In-Reply-To: > DWS wrote: > > > Why cannot people > > just play to the rules of bridge? Some of the rules are not too hard to > > grasp. -s- > The game becomes unplayable (without screens) if questions are not > permitted when partner may also benefit from the answers. I am having difficulty understanding why the game becomes unplayable if questions are not permitted. If you are looking at the difference between questions and no questions, surely a well constructed CC is needed, filled out with useful information, traded with opponents, and looked at with the minimal of fanfare when a meaning is in fact needed. And it would be helpful for the declaring side to tell the agreement ascribed to the calls made before the opening lead. Questions are not needed at all, but they do facilitate various things. No questions make the game different, not unplayable. regards roger pewick > Tim From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 11 16:13:40 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:13:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: Message-ID: <000d01c27138$c8745690$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Roger Pewick" .......... > > The game becomes unplayable (without screens) if questions are not > > permitted when partner may also benefit from the answers. > > I am having difficulty understanding why the game becomes unplayable if > questions are not permitted. If you are looking at the difference > between questions and no questions, surely a well constructed CC is > needed, filled out with useful information, traded with opponents, and > looked at with the minimal of fanfare when a meaning is in fact needed. > And it would be helpful for the declaring side to tell the agreement > ascribed to the calls made before the opening lead. Questions are not > needed at all, but they do facilitate various things. No questions make > the game different, not unplayable. > > regards > roger pewick No, the game would not become unplayable, but it would not be the game we call "Duplicate Contract Bridge" under laws that are intended to secure a game that is as fair as possible to all participants. "Secret partnership agreements" are illegal, that means opponents are entitled to a full knowledge of the information conveyed with each call. Such knowledge is what is contained in the system descriptions, extracts of which are supposed to be provided in CCs. I believe we still consider "standard Goren" as a reference for what is "the natural system", this system was described (condensed) in the book "New Contract Bridge in a Nutshell". The Norwegian translation of this book is almost exactly 100 pages, excluding the part on play techniques and a brief summary of the laws. Are you seriously suggesting that we should provide opponents with system descriptions so complete that no questions shall ever be needed at the table? Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Oct 11 14:42:30 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 15:42:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 quickies References: <4A256C4F.001A3D29.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00f301c27139$7b5c0d20$a2053dd4@b0e7g1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 quickies > > > >>Playing a teams event 8 board matches > >> > >>You are about to play to trick 9, last board. > >>TD comes over and says sorry you have to scrap > >>this hand - you're too late. Erhhh can he do > >>this?? I thought once a board has been > >>started it is finished and if play has gone > >>over the allotted time - time penalties?? > >snip > >This might be a matter for ZO regulations or > >Conditions of Contest. > > No, this case is straightforwardly covered in the > Laws. Slow play is an irregularity under L90B2. To > rectify the irregularity, the TD's scrapping of the > board is actually the consequential awarding of an > ArtAS under L12A2. > > Technically, the TD has ruled both contestants > partially at fault, given both contestants an Ave, > which at teams is zero imps each. > This means that the best policy when playing against expert players is to play slow; you will get zero imps. Quoting the Commentary of the Laws of 1987 by Grattan: Penalties are to be distinguished from adusted scores; an adjusted score is an attempt to restore equity; a penalty is a disadvantage imposed on the compatitor for a breach of Law or regulation. Scrapping a board is love of ease and do not contribute to the preponderance of the director. Ben From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 11 16:46:33 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:46:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 quickies In-Reply-To: <00f301c27139$7b5c0d20$a2053dd4@b0e7g1> References: <4A256C4F.001A3D29.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021011174355.02a028e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:42 11/10/2002 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:00 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] 2 quickies > > > > > > > > >>Playing a teams event 8 board matches > > >> > > >>You are about to play to trick 9, last board. > > >>TD comes over and says sorry you have to scrap > > >>this hand - you're too late. Erhhh can he do > > >>this?? I thought once a board has been > > >>started it is finished and if play has gone > > >>over the allotted time - time penalties?? > > > >snip > > > >This might be a matter for ZO regulations or > > >Conditions of Contest. > > > > No, this case is straightforwardly covered in the > > Laws. Slow play is an irregularity under L90B2. To > > rectify the irregularity, the TD's scrapping of the > > board is actually the consequential awarding of an > > ArtAS under L12A2. > > > > Technically, the TD has ruled both contestants > > partially at fault, given both contestants an Ave, > > which at teams is zero imps each. > > >This means that the best policy when playing against expert players is to >play slow; you will get zero imps. AG : you will get -3 IMPs per board if they don't follow your non-rhythm. This being said, it is true that there is a problem. If you are caught in a nightmarish hand, you could then wait long enough to make it unplayable - and get 40% or -3 IMPs, which isn't expensive. Somebody did it to me long ago. He didn't want to play against my system - this is understandable - and he took 15 min to bid. Two cancelled boards. From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 11 16:39:48 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:39:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:12:56 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20021011160739.00ab8410@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200210111539.IAA04134@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > I guess that the "standard" sense for a cue-bid would be a strong hand, > with control in the opponents' suit. That's what lies in classical books. > But many countries have decided that, as there are as many meanings for a > direct cue as there are pairs, the bid is self-alerting. > To cut it short, assuming the bid is natural amounts to failing to protect > yourself. I sympathize with this view but *only* when the opening bid is a major. Minor opening bids are sometimes three-card suits, especially in places where major openings tend to promise five; so while it's unheard of to play a "cue-bid" of a major suit opening as natural, it's not unreasonable to play that way over a minor opening. (In fact, I had a partner that suggested playing that way, and we did for a while, although it never came up. We used a 1NT overcall as a major two-suiter.) Thus, if I open 1C, and LHO bids 2C, and a failure to alert implies that the bid is natural, I might not consider it "failing to protect myself" to assume that the 2C bid is natural as advertised. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 11 20:05:58 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:05:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: Message-ID: <000b01c27159$3ff2cce0$2c9468d5@default> Linda Trent: Yes, but it just didn't feel right when the very next day the same pro with the same client played against myself and a different partner and when the smae cuebid arose, followed by the same glance at the CC (the client was oblivious both times) chose not to ask the same question... Nigel: By Linda's analysis, the pro situation was "tails you win; heads I lose". If he had he asked a question, it would "demonstrably" (:whatever that word means:) have been a heinous "Kaplan question". From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 19:06:40 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:06:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 quickies In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021011174355.02a028e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4A256C4F.001A3D29.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <00f301c27139$7b5c0d20$a2053dd4@b0e7g1> <5.1.0.14.0.20021011174355.02a028e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 15:42 11/10/2002 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: >>This means that the best policy when playing against expert players is to >>play slow; you will get zero imps. >AG : you will get -3 IMPs per board if they don't follow your non-rhythm. >This being said, it is true that there is a problem. If you are caught in a >nightmarish hand, you could then wait long enough to make it unplayable - >and get 40% or -3 IMPs, which isn't expensive. Somebody did it to me long >ago. He didn't want to play against my system - this is understandable - >and he took 15 min to bid. Two cancelled boards. Are you suggesting that this is the right decision by the TD? If a player takes 15 minutes to bid in a timed event - which most bridge events are - then he should be dealt with under some Law or other - L90A if nothing else comes to mind. Cancel the two boards, give him a PP of 40 imps, and see if he does it again. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 19:09:51 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:09:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >David Burn wrote: >> When the first question was wrongly put, and the second question >> was manifestly absurd, the person who asked both questions should >> not benefit from that either. >Just to make one small point, the first question was not wrongly put, >it was "what is 5He?". The player thought he knew the answer, because >he knew his opponent (he was from the same club). The answer "two" >surprised him. So he inquired further "of five?". There have been >many cases in which a player was not given redress because he blindly >followed to an explanation that he knew was wrong. >Again, you are ruling against the wrong offender. While it may have caused trouble in this case, it is getting to be quite a common occurrence. I am not convinced that "of five" should be accepted as misleading. On the other hand "Does it show the queen of trumps?" is not acceptable as a question from a player who holds it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 19:22:52 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:22:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient explain (was Pausitis) In-Reply-To: <4A256C4F.0011BB62.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C4F.0011BB62.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RH writes >Alain wrote: > >[snip] > >>Of course, I could explain this on request, but >>up to now I've always explained it as >> >>'weak with hearts, perhaps with a minor on the >>side, or a whole variety of very strong hands' >> >>At green, it becomes 'weak with at least 5 >>hearts, perhaps very weak, or a whole variety >>of strong hands' >> >>Up to now, nobody has ever claimed the >>explanation was insufficient or unhelpful. It >>contains everything the opponents must know to >>adjust their defenses. > >[snip] > >Alain, if you come to Australia, you will meet >a multitude of experts who will claim that your >explanation is insufficient. > >Aussies love disrupting auctions where an >opponent may have a variety of strong hands. > >But in order for an Aussie to intelligently >compete against your ultra-multi call with a >modicum of safety, it is indeed helpful to >know what the meanings of the strong options >are. True, but it is not terribly difficult to ask what they are. If people answer helpfully rather than in complete detail it does no harm, and an occasional further question is ok. Of course, the answer must be correct. So: >>'weak with hearts, perhaps with a minor on the >>side, or a whole variety of very strong hands' "The strong hands are?" "........" -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 19:25:37 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:25:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Linda Trent writes >>>David Stevenson >>> Of course it is also made worse that I have not had a >>>copy of the Las >>>Vegas case-book yet. >hmmmm - all you have to do is go to the ACBL web site and look in the >Members section under NABC Casebooks... Is it easy to find things on the ACBL website now? Last time I looked it was a nightmare! Anyway, the above is no longer true since someone kindly sent me a PDF copy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 19:27:19 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:27:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alcatraz (was: The Kaplan question) In-Reply-To: <111002284.16774@webbox.com> References: <111002284.16774@webbox.com> Message-ID: David Burn writes >Alain Alain wrote wrote: > >> Axxx KJ10xx >> >>You play the Ace from that combination, then small to your hand. >As North plays small for the second time, you discard some card >(or you ruff), and you see whether the Queen appears or not > >This is, indeed, another kind of dubious manoeuvre that has at >one time or another been termed the Alcatraz Coup. Arguing about >what the original Coup was is about as pointless as discussing >who invented Stayman. > >This is, indeed, another kind of dubious manoeuvre that has at >one time or another been termed the Alcatraz Coup. Arguing about >what the original Coup was is about as pointless as discussing >who invented Stayman. > >Readers may have noticed a degree of repetitiveness about certain >aspects of this message. This is because I have deduced that >Alain likes to receive everything twice. Since I am not in the >habit of sending the same message to an individual and a mailing >list that the individual will certainly read, I have taken the >precaution of duplicating everything within the message itself. > >Readers may have noticed a degree of repetitiveness about certain >aspects of this message. This is because I have deduced that >Alain likes to receive everything twice. Since I am not in the >habit of sending the same message to an individual and a mailing >list that the individual will certainly read, I have taken the >precaution of duplicating everything within the message itself. Noted. Noted. I was a bit miffed recently to answer a private email and find later that it was a copy of a posting. Please could people do one or the other. I was a bit miffed recently to answer a private email and find later that it was a copy of a posting. Please could people do one or the other. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Oct 11 19:33:32 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:33:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies In-Reply-To: <3dcfb391.4aa2.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3dcfb391.4aa2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel writes >>AG : a direct cue-bid is self-alerting. Just ask what it means. >[Finally it is 100% clear cut that West KNEW 2S wasn't natural and failed to >alert. She may not have known what it meant but her double, pretty amazing >lead and no spade raise with J to 5 clearly indicated she knew 2S was not >natural. > She failed to alert. N/S were damaged. > >Let me put it another way - N/S did nothing wrong other than not ask about a >bid they should have been told about - and yet they are the villians ... someone >help me here pls ?? ] To adjust a player must be damaged by the misinformation, in this case the failure to alert. If a player knows that a call is alertable, or suspects it and can ask to find out, then if he treats it as non- alertable in an attempt to gain from opponents' confusion then that is the cause of the damage, not the original misinformation. If N/S are really so inexperienced that they believed that 2S was natural and were damaged they should get redress. But if, as most readers suspect [apparently] they were merely hoping the opponents would go wrong or they would get redress via a ruling, then they were not damaged by the misinformation, and no adjustment is required. You may be interested in the following English Directive from the Orange book. 5.5 Misinformation 5.5.1 If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to alert a call, and it is judged that you were aware of its likely meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 11 21:07:29 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:07:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] Alcatraz (was: The Kaplan question) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:27:19 BST." Message-ID: <200210112007.NAA05874@mailhub.irvine.com> David Stevenson wrote: > I was a bit miffed recently to answer a private email and find later > that it was a copy of a posting. Please could people do one or the > other. If that was me, I apologize. I'm using a relatively featureless e-mail setup such that when I respond to a BLML post, I have to manually delete the poster's name from the headers so that it goes only to the blml address. Occasionally I forget, and the e-mail goes to both places. (Before I get a lot of suggestions about what e-mail program I ought to be using, please keep in mind that I'm using neither Windows nor Macintosh.) -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Oct 11 21:12:09 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:12:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: <008a01c27162$d29e0420$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" < > Is it easy to find things on the ACBL website now? Last time I looked > it was a nightmare! > I just tried, same nightmare. All sorts of requests for identification, passwords, etc., but I can't get through to anywhere in the Members Only section. Yes, I'm paid-up, an active Patron Member. It's been this way for at least a week now, but no doubt it'll get cleared up soon. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 11 22:03:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Roger Pewick > > The game becomes unplayable (without screens) if questions are not > > permitted when partner may also benefit from the answers. > > I am having difficulty understanding why the game becomes unplayable if > questions are not permitted. If you are looking at the difference > between questions and no questions, surely a well constructed CC is > needed, filled out with useful information, traded with opponents, and > looked at with the minimal of fanfare when a meaning is in fact needed. How big is this convention card? How many of the billions of possible bidding sequences will it cover (each at 4 possible vulnerability combinations)? How many of our current players are going to be prepared to spend the time necessary to write such a document - and how is one going to be able to find the specific information one needs with a minimum of fanfare when it is located on page 18? Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 11 22:44:29 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:44:29 +0100 Subject: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card References: <002301c26edd$7d5d75e0$422a2850@pacific> <6LYAy4A7egp9EwDK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <006d01c2716f$66650440$2c9468d5@default> David Stevenson: To take the English example, national tournaments include Brighton, with 500 pairs of whom possibly five can tell a spade from a diamond.... Nigel: Of course I can tell a spade from a diamond. Diamonds are green. No. No. Don't tell me! They're orange! Wait a minute. Are they pink or grey? Anyway, using the symmetrical playing cards at Brighton, they are different from spades because ALL the pips are symmetrical! David, please spare the feelings of us rabbits (or should that be lemmings) who enjoy Brighton every year and are delighted if we can finish in the top 20% :) From david@djallen.org.uk Sat Oct 12 00:07:57 2002 From: david@djallen.org.uk (David Allen) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 00:07:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies References: <3dcfb391.4aa2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <002d01c2717b$0ac69de0$a87287d9@oemcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies > You may be interested in the following English Directive from the > Orange book. > > 5.5 Misinformation > > 5.5.1 If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to > alert a call, and it is judged that you were aware of its likely > meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to > ask without putting your side's interests at risk. Under what sort of circumstances would it be accepted that you were putting your side's interests at risk? Is it entirely at your own risk if you don't ask because you think the opponents have forgotten their system? Can you argue that if the bid turned out to be natural, you would have to pass and that partner would be constrained by UI? David From david@djallen.org.uk Sat Oct 12 00:22:44 2002 From: david@djallen.org.uk (David Allen) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 00:22:44 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 References: <200210110039.UAA05801@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003f01c2717d$1adf7ce0$a87287d9@oemcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:39 AM Subject: Re: FW: [blml] L16 > Although David B. won't like it, I can't help but offer a couple of > examples that seem clear to me. The slow penalty double conveys the > _information_ that playing in the current contract may not be a bad > idea. It seems _demonstrable_ that this suggests anything other than > pass. (If the current spot is bad, another spot is likely to be > better. True, it might not be -- no mathematical proof -- but the odds > certainly favor pulling a slow penalty double if the TD will let you > get away with it.) On the other hand, the slow limit raise conveys the > _information_ that partner is either at the top or bottom of the > appropriate range, but it will be very hard to _demonstrate_ how this > suggests either passing or bidding game over the other alternative. Interesting. I quote an example from the EBU TD training course on Judgement rulings that was a surprise to me: ============================================= The auction is 1NT - P - 2NT(H) - P The (H) is an agreed hesitation before the 2NT bid. "Declarer says: 'My partner's hesitation was uninformative. I don't know whether he was stretching to bid two or thinking of bidding three. Am I always going to be penalised for guessing correctly?' No, as lomg as you guess the same way as 70% of players who had no UI. Thus, on this hand, if he bids 3NT on a minimum and makes nine tricks, you will adjust to 2NT+1; if he passes with a maximum when 8 tricks are the limit, you will adjust to 3NT-1. Law 16A2 reads '*could* the UI suggest...' not *did* it. ============================================= The "demonstrably have been suggested" appears earlier in L16A. Does everyone agree with the example above? Do you adjust for an action that looks very agressive or pessimistic? Anything less than 70% (under EBU rule)? Somewhere in between? Never? David From mikedod@gte.net Sat Oct 12 01:12:18 2002 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:12:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008134431.02bab4e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c701c26e8b$7e57fbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021010114856.00aacd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c2718d$79201bb0$0100a8c0@MIKE> >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Eric Landau" > >At 17:47 8/10/2002 -0400, you wrote: >>At 07:45 AM 10/8/02, Alain wrote: >> >>>At 22:26 7/10/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >>> >>>>What the ACBL prohibits is explaining a call orally by naming a >>>>convention. An oral explanation must state what a bid means, not what it >>>>is called. >>> >>>AG : absurd. It means that I have no way of explaining marionette-type >>>bids, since they don't mean anything. They only ask partner to do >>>something specific. >> >>Surely "that says nothing about partner's hand; it just asks me to bid X" >>is better disclosure than "that's the Wampus convention". The ACBL's >>insistence on the former over the latter strikes me as quite reasonable, >>not in the least absurd. >AG : we differ here quite less than you pretend we do. >1. I fully agree with your last sentence. What I meant is that sometimes it >is impossible to tell what the bid means, because it doesn't mean anything. >Thus, the 'must' in your 1st sentence above is too strong. >2. In some bridge groups, a name will be enough. In Brussels, against >intermediate-level players, 1C p 1Ha explained as 'Walsh' will be enough. >Walsh is played by about 95% of us, with only minor deviations, but is >still alertable. Of course, it is a horse of another color when 1H means >spades. >Thus, the ACBL's insistance is a little too extreme. What the laws should >say is that your explanations must be complete and comprehensible without >effort. Sometimes, it means answering with a name. Other sufficient names I >think of are Puppet Stayman, Blackwood, 5-key Blackwood, and "2T fort >indéterminé", in Flemish "semi-forcing 2Kl", ie a Benjy variant which every >Belgian player is familiar with, even when not playing it. >3. I fully agree with your preference for alerting deviations, and only >deviations. > >Best regards, > > Alain. In fact, you disagree even less. As actually enforced, the ACBL regulation really means you use a convention name at your own risk. If communication is successful, no problem. If not, you are at fault. It matters not if you and your opponents had a different definition of the convention or they were intimidated by your sophistication into not asking for clarification. Using names versus (relative) novices is wrong, against BL's dangerous. For everyone else its quicker but it is up to you to know the difference. Curiously, in the ACBL 1C 1H(walsh) is no longer alertable but describing it as "Walsh" would just get a blank look from 50+% of ACBL players. Mike Dodson From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 12 02:21:38 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 02:21:38 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 References: <200210110039.UAA05801@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <008301c2718d$b9862960$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Steve wrote: > As David is surely aware by now (and indeed surely was aware well before > now), both words can have a variety of meanings. Quite so. In fact, I speak English so well that I am understood almost anywhere south of Watford, and even in the more refined parts of the Midlands. > However, in this > context, I think we can safely define "information" as something > imparted by partner that may suggest for or against some bridge action. Well, "information" is certainly "something imparted"; moreover, it needs to be something that was not part of the recipient's prior set of beliefs. I incline to the view that "information" must correspond to reality; if I meet someone I have never seen before and tell him that my name is Walter, have I "informed" him? In one sense of the word I have, for his subsequent actions will be "informed" as a result (in our ensuing conversation, he will call me Walter). But in another sense I have not, for I have not given him anything that will increase his knowledge of the true state of things - quite the contrary, in fact, for my name is not Walter, and if he believes that it is, I think many people would agree that he is worse "informed" than he was before he met me. To "inform" someone is then: [1] to influence their subsequent courses of action; or [2] to increase their knowledge of the actual state of the world. (Crede expertum: both of these definitions are well supported by the standard reference works.) In the usual sense, one does the former by doing the latter. But it is possible that one may influence someone else's courses of action by imparting a falsehood about the state of the world, as in the example I have just given. Now, it becomes important to understand in which sense the word "information" is to be interpreted in the context of the laws of bridge. People have argued that if I raise one heart to three hearts slowly, I have not given partner any "information" in sense [2], while I have certainly "informed" his subsequent actions in sense [1]. At this point, there is - as far as I can see - a general washing of hands; the view is taken that if his actions are "informed [1]" and successful, they must be disqualified, even though he has received no "information [2]". I believe that the concept that "informs [1]" the laws relating to illegal communication between partners (of which the laws relating to unauthorised information are merely a subset, or an offshoot) are firmly based in sense [2] of the word "information". But I am aware that this may be a minority view. > "Demonstrably" is harder. Not really. There are not all that many things that it can mean, after all. > David desJardines, who does not read this > list and whose name is "des Jardins"; he is more than usually sensitive when people get this wrong, but his views have been of great help to me in my own muddled thinking > has suggested something to the effect of a logical chain of > reasoning that leads to a conclusion. Curiously enough, that is more or less what I was suggesting. At least I think it was, though I can't prove it. But David is an information theorist by vocation; he once sent me a long message explaining what information might be contained in a series of coin tosses. I read it as carefully as I could, several times, with a wet towel wrapped around my head (for I am no mathematician). At length, I concluded that there was a sense [3] in which the word "information" might be understood by people whose special subject it was, but that this was not very likely to be helpful (at least, until the more pressing question of which of [1] and [2] to adopt had been resolved). > It is something far less than a > mathematical proof but more than mere conjecture. A minimum > requirement, it seems to me, is that there is no similar logical chain > of reasoning that leads to an opposite conclusion. However, bridge > experience is certainly relevant, as Tim has pointed out: we can > "demonstrate" something by having seen it happen over and over. Perhaps. Alain will know more about this than I do, but in essence, there is something called Bernouilli's Theorem, which states that by observing how often things happen, you can probably work out how often they will happen again. There is also something called the Law of Large Numbers, which states that things will probably happen about as often as they have happened before. These are both subsumed into the Central Limit Theorem, which states that both of the preceding theorems are probably true. > Although David B. won't like it, I can't help but offer a couple of > examples that seem clear to me. The slow penalty double conveys the > _information_ that playing in the current contract may not be a bad > idea. It seems _demonstrable_ that this suggests anything other than > pass. I don't mind it at all, except that I would delete the word "not". We have this rule of thumb in England: a slow double suggests that partner takes it out (which is indisputable); a slow bid suggests a maximum (which is disputable, and in which context it is important to know the meaning of the word "information"). > (If the current spot is bad, another spot is likely to be > better. True, it might not be -- no mathematical proof -- but the odds > certainly favor pulling a slow penalty double if the TD will let you > get away with it.) He won't. David "Hawkeye" Stevenson will be down on you like a ton of bricks. > On the other hand, the slow limit raise conveys the > _information_ that partner is either at the top or bottom of the > appropriate range, but it will be very hard to _demonstrate_ how this > suggests either passing or bidding game over the other alternative. Quite so. It is in precisely this position that all successful guesses are annulled; it is my contention that they should not be. To put this in context: a very long time ago, before I was even a member of the English laws commission, I had to rule on a position in which a pair had bid (in effect, for the actual auction was competitive) 1S-slow 3S-4S. The 4S bid was a complete joke, as was the final contract. But it made, and the opponents called the director. The director, an enlightened soul, let the score stand (he did this primarily because the defence had been cretinous), and the defending side (a couple of cretins of near-international class) appealed. I said this. If South had seen North's hand, she would never have bid four spades; she would have hoped not to go more than two down in three. Therefore, South's bid could not possibly have been predicated upon any illicitly transmitted information about North's hand. Where there cannot have been any information, there cannot have been any unauthorised information, and there cannot therefore have been any infraction of Law. I was younger then. I was, as will have been recognised, considering the word "information" only in the sense of [2] above. I am older now, and I know that the common practice is to consider the term "information" primarily in sense [1]. But, even though I do it, I still cannot for the life of me understand why I do it. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Oct 12 01:05:08 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 01:05:08 +0100 Subject: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card References: <002301c26edd$7d5d75e0$422a2850@pacific> <6LYAy4A7egp9EwDK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006d01c2716f$66650440$2c9468d5@default> Message-ID: <000601c271b7$31c5b6b0$db37e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 10:44 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Long on Ethics : was [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card > > Diamonds are green. No. No. Don't tell me! > They're orange! Wait a minute. Are they pink or > grey? > +=+ White elephants are pink; white rabbits are Daresbury Green +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Oct 12 07:38:05 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:38:05 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 References: <200210110039.UAA05801@cfa183.harvard.edu> <008301c2718d$b9862960$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000401c271ba$8d583860$dd16e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 2:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: [blml] L16 > Steve wrote: > > > As David is surely aware by now (and indeed surely > > was aware well before now), both words can have a > > variety of meanings. > > Quite so. In fact, I speak English so well that I am > understood almost anywhere south of Watford, and > even in the more refined parts of the Midlands. > --------------------------------- \x/ -------------------------------------- > I was younger then. I was, as will have been > recognised, considering the word "information" only > in the sense of [2] above. I am older now, and I > know that the common practice is to consider the > term "information" primarily in sense [1]. But, even > though I do it, I still cannot for the life of me > understand why I do it. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ I have deleted some of this message, not out of any disrespect but rather to make room for a few words of my own. Having read it I am now considering whether I am better informed than before; this is not immediately apparent. However, I should make remark that it is a blot on David's reputation that his English is understood and (singularly) admired also on Merseyside, where it is generally held that we do not speak the language at all. Grattan Endicott Mossley Hill, Merseyside. +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Oct 12 10:29:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:29:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DA7EB5D.8090705@skynet.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > > >>Just to make one small point, the first question was not wrongly put, >>it was "what is 5He?". The player thought he knew the answer, because >>he knew his opponent (he was from the same club). The answer "two" >>surprised him. So he inquired further "of five?". There have been >>many cases in which a player was not given redress because he blindly >>followed to an explanation that he knew was wrong. >>Again, you are ruling against the wrong offender. >> > > While it may have caused trouble in this case, it is getting to be > quite a common occurrence. I am not convinced that "of five" should be > accepted as misleading. On the other hand "Does it show the queen of > trumps?" is not acceptable as a question from a player who holds it. > You know the way it goes. "5 He ?" "two" "of five ?" "yes" "without the queen ?" "yes". Sometimes you have to drag the information out of them. I am quite certain that at the time of the third question, the player is not thinking about what he has in his hand, but rather is annoyed at the non-forthcoming nature of the information. It would be a great shame if a player were not allowed to ask this third question without looking in his hand to see if he has the queen or not. It's just an innocent remark, made solely because of a mistake by opponents. While it certainly deceived (but only because declarer thought he would get redress if he relied on it and it wasn't in fact true) it was not made with such intent. And while I do know that this intent is not necessary for the law to kick into action, surely our bridge-lawyers should be able to find reasons enough to not have to rule against this person who they believe did nothing wrong. How about "has no demonstrable bridge reason". Isn't "wanting to know" a bridge reason. Don't forget that it's not important that North hasn't got the queen of trumps, but that South knows he hasn't. "It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner". I would add, and asking in unvarying manner. Personally, I always ask about the meaning of a 2Cl opening. There are 3 versions quite common in our parts and I don't want my opponents to know that I am not interested in calling in either of them. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jurgenr@t-online.de Sat Oct 12 10:53:50 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:53:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 Message-ID: This discussion began with the question quoted below the line. What we seem to have concluded is: 1. The ..from among..over another.. indicates that when there is only one logical action, then that action must be admissible even if suggested by UI. 2. The word 'demonstrably' is intended to indicate that the criteria for deciding that an action is inadmissible are relatively strict - stricter than 'reasonably' would imply. - What constitutes a demonstration remains unclear and is, in any case, of no use to the player when making a decision in the presence of UI. 3. Against (2) stands the fact that some regulations also make the criteria for admissibility rather strict (70% or more of peers making the same decision). 4. The player may be left without an option that is both admissible and logical, but the intent of the rule is not that he must, in such a case, do something illogical Is this an approximation of the consensus? Is the following formulation an improvement? "...may not choose an action that has been suggested by extraneous information. If every logical alternative can reasonably be said to have been suggested by UI, then the player must choose the one that appears to him least advantageous to his side." Jürgen -------------------------------- Law 16 contains the famous phrase "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." (A) Suppose it were written thus: "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested by the extraneous information." (B) Are the two formulations equivalent? If not, what is the difference? From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 12 11:40:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:40:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Western question Message-ID: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> I am just about to play against a pair who use an opening bid of 2S to show a weak pre-empt in any suit; opening bids at the three level show constructive pre-empts. I would like some advice as to whether I may use either or both of the following counter-measures: (1) Suppose I hold 32 A4 A3 AKQJ1096 After 3S to my left and two passes, am I permitted to conduct the following dialogue: "You're playing 2S as a weak pre-empt, aren't you?" "Yes." "So 3S is a constructive pre-empt?" "Yes." "Might he have a solid suit?" "I suppose he might, but he will usually have at least two of the top three honours." "Thank you. 3NT." This, a form of the Western cue bid, asks partner to pass only with a spade stop. (2) Suppose I hold AQ2 3 43 AKQJ1096 Am I now permitted to conduct the same dialogue as above, in order to convince my left hand opponent that my spade stop might be only Qx or Qxx, in order to deter him from finding a red suit lead? David Burn London, England From jurgenr@t-online.de Sat Oct 12 13:05:05 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 14:05:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Western question In-Reply-To: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Burn > Sent: Samstag, 12. Oktober 2002 12:41 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: [blml] The Western question > > > I am just about to play against a pair who use an opening bid of 2S to > show a weak pre-empt in any suit; opening bids at the three level show > constructive pre-empts. > > I would like some advice as to whether I may use either or both of the > following counter-measures: > > (1) Suppose I hold > > 32 A4 A3 AKQJ1096 > > After 3S to my left and two passes, am I permitted to conduct the > following dialogue: > > "You're playing 2S as a weak pre-empt, aren't you?" > "Yes." > "So 3S is a constructive pre-empt?" > "Yes." > "Might he have a solid suit?" > "I suppose he might, but he will usually have at least two of the top > three honours." > "Thank you. 3NT." > > This, a form of the Western cue bid, asks partner to pass only with a > spade stop. But why use the Western cue bid, which according to L73B risks expulsion - unless your partner alerts your questions? Eastern cue is better: Ask no questions and bid 3NT confidently. If LHO doesn't have a solid suit, he will believe you have Spades stopped and might not lead the suit. And if he does lead Spades and runs the first 7 tricks, then you call the director and complain that 3S should have been alerted. > > (2) Suppose I hold > > AQ2 3 43 AKQJ1096 > > Am I now permitted to conduct the same dialogue as above, in order to > convince my left hand opponent that my spade stop might be only Qx or > Qxx, in order to deter him from finding a red suit lead? Same partner? Same agreement? Well, then partner will next bid 4H or 4D. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Oct 12 03:44:16 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:44:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.22313@webbox.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 08:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > > Eric wrote: > > >To set the record straight, in the case reported in the Bulletin > it was clear that the original question was *not* "wrongly put". > > > >Does this make any difference? > > Apologies for tangling two (or more) threads here; when I was > talking about wrongly put questions, I was referring to the Belgian > case about which Herman had written, not the American one. > > I don't know if it's possible to read the ACBL Bulletin without > being an ACBL member, but if I could somehow have a look at the > actual Bulletin article, it would be of interest. I think, though, > that provided the facts regarding the question as to the queen > of trumps were as reported in the original message to BLML, I > am unlikely to be persuaded from my original view that it was > a question that should not have been asked, and that if it deceived > an opponent, redress was due. > > David Burn > London, England I don't yet know which article is wanted but I will try to get it posted or sent directly to David once I am told which one it is. regards rpger pewick From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Oct 12 18:42:32 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:42:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 References: Message-ID: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "J=FCrgen Rennenkampff" -------------------------------- Law 16 contains the famous phrase "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." (A) Suppose it were written thus: "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested by the extraneous information." (B) I don't know if it's the same, but your version looks much better. Howeve= r, "suggested" has too many shades of meaning. I would "suggest" (C), which incorporates one of those shades: "...may not take an action that might be prompted by the extraneous information." It may happen that an action not seemingly related to the information in = the UI is brought to mind by it. For instance, we don't want people doing something crazy just because partner has hesitated too long. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 12 22:34:10 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:34:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Western question References: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006101c27237$1dd10300$c49468d5@default> Nigel: Shome mishtake surely? In the same context, using identical sequences of Kaplan Questions to impart different information? Or do you also rely on tone of voice, like everybody else does? David Burn: (1) Suppose I hold 32 A4 A3 AKQJ1096 After 3S to my left and two passes, am I permitted to conduct the following dialogue: "You're playing 2S as a weak pre-empt, aren't you?" "Yes." "So 3S is a constructive pre-empt?" "Yes." "Might he have a solid suit?" "I suppose he might, but he will usually have at least two of the top three honours." "Thank you. 3NT." This, a form of the Western cue bid, asks partner to pass only with a spade stop. (2) Suppose I hold AQ2 3 43 AKQJ1096 Am I now permitted to conduct the same dialogue as above, in order to convince my left hand opponent that my spade stop might be only Qx or Qxx, in order to deter him from finding a red suit lead? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 12 23:15:26 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:15:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 References: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006f01c2723c$df19a800$c49468d5@default> I am afraid that some TDs seem to be well behind the times. Most sophisticated players at Brighton and elsewhere have adopted the latest "Reverse Hesitation" convention. e.g. RHO opens (4H) Immediate actions... P = Scattered values e.g. Axx Qx Axxx Jxxx X = T/O e.g. AQxx - KJxxx Axxx After a hesitation the meaning changes... ...P = Rubbish - if partner Xs or bids, he is on his own e.g. Qxx xx Jxxxxxx xx ...X = Penalty e.g. Axx AKJ xxxxxxx x The TD has never been called yet; but if he were and if he had the affrontery to question your hesitation, you just answer that you had your diamonds in with your spades and ask for David Stevenson. Don't worry, he'll back you up. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Oct 13 02:07:59 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:07:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 References: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <006f01c2723c$df19a800$c49468d5@default> Message-ID: <000701c27254$feca8620$339468d5@default> I am afraid that some TDs seem to be well behind the times. Most sophisticated players at Brighton and elsewhere have adopted the latest "Reverse Hesitation" convention. e.g. RHO opens (4H) Immediate actions... P = Scattered values e.g. Axx Qx Axxx Jxxx X = T/O e.g. AQxx - KJxxx Axxx After a hesitation the meaning changes... ...P = Rubbish - if partner Xs or bids, he is on his own e.g. Qxx xx Jxxxxx xx ...X = Penalty e.g. Axx AKJ xxxxx xx The TD has never been called yet; but if he were and if he had the affrontery to question your hesitation, you just answer that you had your diamonds in with your spades and ask for David Stevenson. Don't worry, he'll back you up. This the same as the previous email except more of my examples have 13 cards to anticipate the usual daft quibbles. From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 13 02:41:57 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:41:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <3DA7EB5D.8090705@skynet.be> References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <3DA7EB5D.8090705@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3DA7EB5D.8090705@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Personally, I always ask about the meaning of a 2Cl opening. There >are 3 versions quite common in our parts and I don't want my opponents >to know that I am not interested in calling in either of them. > Herman, for the first time that I have noticed, you have made a mistake in your use of English. > >> > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 13 02:45:38 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:45:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <001f01c270f9$94c4faa0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021010165219.00ab8b20@pop.starpower.net> <000401c270ae$49bae240$bd9823d9@pbncomputer> <3DA675E8.8090503@skynet.be> <001f01c270f9$94c4faa0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <001f01c270f9$94c4faa0$583d27d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Herman wrote: > >> David, you surprise me ! > >Oh, well. > >> Calling east a cheat for a simple follow-up question on something >> which should have been told in the first place ? > >Law 75F2: > >If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false >inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who >has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have >known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his >benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score. > >Now, I suppose it might be argued that a question asked at a time when >the player is entitled to ask questions is not a "remark, manner, tempo >or the like" - but I would assert that a question of this kind is >something very much like a remark. What was East doing when he asked his >opponents "Have you shown or denied the queen of trumps"? Did he have a >"demonstrable bridge reason for his action"? Was he asking so that he >might make some call contingent upon the reply? No, he was not; what he >was doing (and I dare say he could have known perfectly well that he was >doing it) was to give rise to the false inference that he did not have >the queen of trumps himself. > David, I really don't think this is as clear as you do. If I don't hold the trump Q, I might have asked (we agree). How *dare* you let RHO get away with discovering the position of the trump Q by failing to answer fully in the first place? john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 13 02:49:55 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:49:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Western question In-Reply-To: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> References: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >I am just about to play against a pair who use an opening bid of 2S to >show a weak pre-empt in any suit; opening bids at the three level show >constructive pre-empts. > >I would like some advice as to whether I may use either or both of the >following counter-measures: > snip DALB's cheating. > >Am I now permitted to conduct the same dialogue as above, in order to >convince my left hand opponent that my spade stop might be only Qx or >Qxx, in order to deter him from finding a red suit lead? > Oh s**t! I'm directing this event! Look boyo, just hang TT up by his b***s and save us a lot of aggro please (this remark is not for public consumption). john >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 13 02:55:26 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:55:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Western question In-Reply-To: References: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article , J=FCrgen Rennenkampff writes > > > >Eastern cue is better: Ask no questions and bid >3NT confidently. If LHO doesn't have a solid suit, he will believe you >have Spades stopped and might not lead the suit. And if he does lead=20 >Spades and runs the first 7 tricks, then you call >the director and complain that 3S should have been alerted. > ok, so (and this happened on Monday) RHO 1H, P from me, DALB 1S, pard (an international) 3N in tempo, all out. unlucky, they lead a spade and DALB took the first 7 spade tricks, having worked out to get his pard to unblock the SA. I had the HA and pard held - xx AKQJTxxxxx Ax. opening leader has Axx KQJx in the majors. Oh!, and for the pillock we only scored 55% --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 13 07:16:53 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 07:16:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 References: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002001c27280$5fb3e280$d96b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: L16 From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" -------------------------------- Law 16 contains the famous phrase "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." (A) Suppose it were written thus: "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested by the extraneous information." (B) I don't know if it's the same, but your version looks much better. However, "suggested" has too many shades of meaning. I would "suggest" (C), which incorporates one of those shades: > +=+ I have noted the basic point here. I think it will be covered one way or another in the Laws Review. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 13 07:44:05 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 07:44:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <3DA7EB5D.8090705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004201c27284$31bfd420$d96b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > > It would be a great shame if a player were not allowed > to ask this third question without looking in his hand to > see if he has the queen or not. It's just an innocent > remark, made solely because of a mistake by opponents. > "The innocent are so few that two of them seldom meet - when they do, their victims lie strewn around." The player who asks the question has looked at his hand and knows without looking again whether he has the Q. To ask about the location of the Q when the player has seen it in his own hand is clearly enough a 73F2 case, though the innocence of the opponent may lie in question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (Quote from Elizabeth Bowen) From jurgenr@t-online.de Sun Oct 13 14:40:59 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 15:40:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board Message-ID: Suppose a board has been played rotated 90 degrees from normal orientation, so that N/S have played the E/W hands. A player notices this after play of this hand is completed. Questions: 1. What is the correct scoring procedure for this board? 2. Does L87 apply? Consider that the identical situation can arise by rotating the board before replacing the cards, which meets the definition of a fouled board. 3. Is a player who notices the irregularity obliged to inform the director? When? Jürgen From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 13 15:29:14 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:29:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board References: Message-ID: <006101c272c4$e82ee8a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" > Suppose a board has been played rotated 90 degrees > from normal orientation, so that N/S have played the E/W hands. > A player notices this after play of this hand is completed. > > Questions: > > 1. What is the correct scoring procedure for this board? > > 2. Does L87 apply? Consider that the identical situation can > arise by rotating the board before replacing the cards, > which meets the definition of a fouled board. > > 3. Is a player who notices the irregularity obliged to > inform the director? When? > > Jürgen Let us for this example assume board 2 with North-South vulnerable and East the dealer, and that North took the cards belonging to East, East the cards belonging to South and so on around the table. (Different details just call for adjusting the example correspondingly, they do not change the reality). You have two possibilites for what really happened: 1: North made the first call and North-South consider themselves non- vulnerable while East-West consider themselves vulnerable (all according to the notation on the board). The effect is solely as if North-South were sitting East-West and vice versa for this board (only). Then this board shall be scored normally just as if that was exactly what had happened. No penalty of any kind. The director will just have to observe that this particular board at that table has the pairs swapped. It is important that the result obtained by North-South (with the cards belonging to East-West is recorded for East-West and vice versa. Example: North bids and plays 4H with 10 tricks. The report shall be that the pair number for East-West was seated North- South and the pair number for North-South was seated East- West, and that East played 4H with 10 tricks for 420 points. (This is the place where we see most mistakes in such cases!) 2: East made the first call and East-West consider themselves non-vulnerable (because the notation on the board says so and they know very well that they are East and West, although they really hold the cards belonging to North and South). North-South similarly consider themselves vulnerable while holding the cards belonging to East and West. This board has then not been played in identical form as at the other tables (there is a different dealer and possibly different vulnerabilities), so it must be scored according to Law87. A procedure penalty (anything from a warning to some points) is also in order. (Law 90B7). Sven From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Oct 13 20:00:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Western question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > I would like some advice as to whether I may use either or both of the > following counter-measures: > > (1) Suppose I hold > > 32 A4 A3 AKQJ1096 > > After 3S to my left and two passes, am I permitted to conduct the > following dialogue: > > "You're playing 2S as a weak pre-empt, aren't you?" Stop right there. This is a wholly improper way to start questioning. "Please explain." or "What is 3S?" are just fine (ok technically you should ask for a review of the auction with explanations but I doubt there is any significant UI in failing to do so here). Should you receive an obviously incomplete/inadequate answer I, for one, will be sympathetic when you ask follow-up questions. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Oct 13 23:18:14 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:18:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Western question References: Message-ID: <001201c27306$6f6ce240$b99427d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > > "You're playing 2S as a weak pre-empt, aren't you?" > Stop right there. This is a wholly improper way to start questioning. Henk, would you please forthwith implement the following facility. Should Grattan wish to refer to Edgar Kaplan as a criminal, or should I wish to make some point by a means of a rhetorical device known as hyperbole, could the message that reaches Tim West-Meads please contain, in addition to the BLML flag: "What follows is not meant to be taken entirely seriously." David Burn Vladivostok, China (just testing) From David Stevenson Mon Oct 14 01:11:31 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 01:11:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 In-Reply-To: <006f01c2723c$df19a800$c49468d5@default> References: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <006f01c2723c$df19a800$c49468d5@default> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie writes >I am afraid that some TDs seem to be well behind >the times. Most sophisticated players at >Brighton and elsewhere have adopted the latest >"Reverse Hesitation" convention. > >e.g. RHO opens (4H) >Immediate actions... > P = Scattered values e.g. Axx Qx Axxx Jxxx > X = T/O e.g. AQxx - KJxxx Axxx >After a hesitation the meaning changes... >...P = Rubbish - if partner Xs or bids, > he is on his own e.g. Qxx xx Jxxxxxx xx >...X = Penalty e.g. Axx AKJ xxxxxxx x > >The TD has never been called yet; but if he were >and if he had the affrontery to question your >hesitation, you just answer that you had your >diamonds in with your spades and ask for David >Stevenson. Don't worry, he'll back you up. There seems an unnecessary level of insult in this posting. Fortunately, the posting itself has no content requiring an answer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Oct 14 01:09:50 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 01:09:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >This discussion began with the question quoted below the line. >What we seem to have concluded is: > >1. The ..from among..over another.. indicates >that when there is only one logical action, then that >action must be admissible even if suggested by UI. True. >2. The word 'demonstrably' is intended to indicate that the >criteria for deciding that an action is inadmissible are >relatively strict - stricter than 'reasonably' would >imply. - What constitutes a demonstration remains >unclear and is, in any case, of no use to the player >when making a decision in the presence of UI. > >3. Against (2) stands the fact that some regulations also >make the criteria for admissibility rather strict (70% or >more of peers making the same decision). > >4. The player may be left without an option that is both >admissible and logical, but the intent of the rule >is not that he must, in such a case, do something illogical It is not possible for a player to be in such a position. >Is this an approximation of the consensus? > >Is the following formulation an improvement? > >"...may not choose an action that has been suggested by >extraneous information. If every logical alternative >can reasonably be said to have been suggested by UI, then >the player must choose the one that appears to him >least advantageous to his side." No. It seems to make an unnecessary assumption which the original formulation does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 14 07:37:31 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:37:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Western question References: <001201c27306$6f6ce240$b99427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001b01c2734c$6c20e8c0$56a8193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Western question > Should Grattan wish to refer to Edgar Kaplan as a criminal, > or should I wish to make some point by a means of a > rhetorical device known as hyperbole, > David Burn > Vladivostok, China (just testing) > +=+ Jesting, is that? But David, don't overdo the hyperbole - according to Bacon perpetual hyperbole is "comely in nothing but in love" - and have you heard of irony that is 'light'? - it always seems to be heavy, so I might drop it - or we could hibernate ...... ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Oct 14 09:05:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Western question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001201c27306$6f6ce240$b99427d9@pbncomputer> DALB wrote: > TWM wrote: > > > > "You're playing 2S as a weak pre-empt, aren't you?" > > > Stop right there. This is a wholly improper way to start questioning. > > Henk, would you please forthwith implement the following facility. > Should Grattan wish to refer to Edgar Kaplan as a criminal, or should I > wish to make some point by a means of a rhetorical device known as > hyperbole, could the message that reaches Tim West-Meads please contain, > in addition to the BLML flag: "What follows is not meant to be taken > entirely seriously." The only point you were trying to establish by hyperbole was "David Burn is a clever clogs" (and most of us are aware that you think you are clever). We already know that it is possible to use questions to mislead opponents and/or create UI for partner - so what. We also know that questions are a necessary component of the current approach to disclosure. My experience has been that TDs are capable of distinguishing between neutral and UI/misleading questions and adjusting accordingly in the circumstances. That they do this on the basis of what they learn at the table rather than idle speculation seems perfectly sensible. Tim From Martin@SPASE.NL Mon Oct 14 09:53:32 2002 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:53:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A615@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: jurgenr@t-online.de [mailto:jurgenr@t-online.de] > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 15:41 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] Rotated Board > > > Suppose a board has been played rotated 90 degrees > from normal orientation, so that N/S have played the E/W hands. > A player notices this after play of this hand is completed. > > Questions: > > 1. What is the correct scoring procedure for this board? If the entire board had been rotated, so that every hand still comes from the right pocket, you score in the line you played, so NS is EW for one board and vice versa. This, of course, when the tournament conditions allow this. In pairs this is usually the case; in team play, if the board hasn't been played at the other table, just make sure that you rotate the board at the other table as well; if the board already has been played at the other table, you will have to cancel it. > 2. Does L87 apply? Consider that the identical situation can > arise by rotating the board before replacing the cards, > which meets the definition of a fouled board. Not identical. If you rotate the board, but still take the hands from the right pocket, then all you have to do is rename the players; the properties of every hand (dealer, vulnerability) remain the same. L87 does not apply. Not so if the board is rotated before the hands are replaced; now a different hand is dealer; the vulnerability probably has changed, so now we have a fouled board and must apply L87 > 3. Is a player who notices the irregularity obliged to > inform the director? When? As soon as he discovers it, especially when the tournament conditions dictate this. Although often nothing needs to be done. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 14 12:02:40 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:02:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 References: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <006f01c2723c$df19a800$c49468d5@default> Message-ID: <005301c27371$6737bd00$aa9868d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] The TD has never been called yet; but if he were and if he had the effrontery to question your hesitation, you just answer that you had your diamonds in with your spades and ask for David Stevenson. Don't worry, he'll back you up. [David Stevenson] There seems an unnecessary level of insult in this posting. [Nigel] Is this the same David Stevenson, the master of one line comic put-downs, who wrote, inter alia: "To take the English example, national tournaments include Brighton, with 500 pairs of whom possibly five can tell a spade from a diamond...." As the Bridge Law Committee might put it: "Individuals who perforce are constrained to be domiciled in vitreous structures of a patent frangibility should on no account employ petrous formations as projectiles", From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 14 12:36:59 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:36:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] helping opponents Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014132507.02461ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, A deal from The Bridge World's MSC feature raises an interesting ethics problem. The idea of the deal is that you should lead your singleton, albeit you can't possibly get a ruff, because it will probably be read as a singleton and deter declarer from taking a trump safety play. What if you **FIRE** your singleton on the table ? L73B1 and 73C disallows you to fire your singleton so that your partner will take his ace immediately and return the suit. L73D2 disallows you to fire a non-singleton lead so that declarer is scared into a losing line. I couldn't find any law against the fact that you help declarer guess you've got a singleton. L74C7 doesn't seem to cover this kind of situations. L72B1 won't apply, because your abnormal tempo (which could be called an infraction) didn't damage the opponent. It helped him. ... or will it ? Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Mon Oct 14 12:26:26 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:26:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 References: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <006f01c2723c$df19a800$c49468d5@default> <005301c27371$6737bd00$aa9868d5@default> Message-ID: <000101c27377$5515f500$392a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: L16 >> As the Bridge Law Committee might put it: > "Individuals who perforce are constrained to be > domiciled in vitreous structures of a patent > frangibility should on no account employ petrous > formations as projectiles", > +=+ Oh, I think we could find something less transparent. +=+ From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 14 12:19:05 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:19:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , J=FCrgen Rennenkampff writes >Suppose a board has been played rotated 90 degrees >from normal orientation, so that N/S have played the E/W hands. >A player notices this after play of this hand is completed. > >Questions: > >1. What is the correct scoring procedure for this board? I believe that in a single winner movement it should be scored as played, and in a 2-winner movement should be scored as fouled. > >2. Does L87 apply? Consider that the identical situation can >arise by rotating the board before replacing the cards, >which meets the definition of a fouled board. > >3. Is a player who notices the irregularity obliged to >inform the director?=20 It's an irregularity >When? Immediately > >J=FCrgen > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Oct 14 13:29:57 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:29:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] helping opponents In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014132507.02461ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014132507.02461ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50elqu8bmtb7sislqn3pvuan4qrkvetlim@heimdal.i.softco.dk> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:36:59 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner = wrote: >I couldn't find any law against the fact that you help declarer guess=20 >you've got a singleton. What you're actually "helping" him to guess is that you have a singleton = and the possibility of a ruff. The latter part of that is misleading in your = example, which seems to me to be quite well covered by the laws. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 14 15:30:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:30:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies In-Reply-To: <3dd3a979.2f6c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014162438.00aac7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:47 14/11/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >[Ok i was playing devils advote on the actual hand in that certainly over a >major as pointed out by Adam, 2S as nat ... is highly unlikely. The actual >hand is not a good example. > >5.5.1 above is very apt - but it seems the onus is on you to decide (1) have >the opps gone wrong (2) is it likely the call is natural or not. I would >rather >the opps were forced to alert a call regardless of certainty or not of the >meaning >(ie) > >- "Alert - We haven't discussed this sequence it may be natural or showing a >2 suiter". At least we now know that the opps are on unsure ground. AG : and one opp has UI that his partner is unsure about the meaning, thus cating doubt on all his future bids. He also knows partner will bis so as to cover both cases - more UI, and one which is difficult to discard voluntarily. >- "Alert - We haven't discussed this but its not natural - probably a 2 suiter >". Now we know for certain the bid is a 2 suiter more info for us. > >Etc etc > >By alerting the opps have at least forefilled their obligation and given you >some info. In the actual case - there was no alert when it was 200% evident >that the bid wasn't natural. Ok South should have asked ... BUT ... West >shouldn't >be allowed to just walk away with no alert. AG : unless, of course, the SO decides that the bid is self-alerting and as such should not be alerted. This has been the decision of several SOs about direct cue-bids. I don't understand what is wrong with this. BTW, Karel, your mails come with strange date/time information, ie about one month in the future. Would you please check your system date/time ? It makes rational use of our mailboxes quite difficult. Best regards, Alain. From vwalther@vwalther.de Mon Oct 14 15:49:00 2002 From: vwalther@vwalther.de (Volker R. Walther) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:49:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board Law 9 References: Message-ID: <3DAAD95C.5070402@vwalther.de> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , Jürgen > Rennenkampff writes > ... >>3. Is a player who notices the irregularity obliged to >>inform the director? > > > It's an irregularity > > >>When? > > > Immediately In law 9 it is said that you _may_ call attention to an irregularity during auction or play under certain conditions and that the TD has to be summoned _if_ somebody calls attention to an irregularity. Now you say that the TD has to be called immediatly after a player _recogizes_ an irregularity. This seems to me very different. Is a player obliged to call the TD after _any_ irregularity he recognizes? greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 14 16:18:53 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:18:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board Law 9 In-Reply-To: <3DAAD95C.5070402@vwalther.de> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014171223.00ab06b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:49 14/10/2002 +0200, Volker R. Walther wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article , J=FCrgen >>Rennenkampff writes > > ... > >>>3. Is a player who notices the irregularity obliged to >>>inform the director? >> >>It's an irregularity >> >>>When? >> >>Immediately > > > > >In law 9 it is said that you _may_ call attention to an irregularity=20 >during auction or play under certain conditions and that the TD has to be= =20 >summoned _if_ somebody calls attention to an irregularity. > >Now you say that the TD has to be called immediatly after a player=20 >_recogizes_ an irregularity. > >This seems to me very different. > >Is a player obliged to call the TD after _any_ irregularity he recognizes? > AG : no, one isn't. L72B3 is explicit about it. One exception is made for incorrect explanations. Another exception is less explicit : if you count your cards and get some=20 other number than 13, I think you're compelled to say it. It might even be= =20 more general : onr might be compelled to call after realizing any=20 irregularity that may affect the play at other tables. As an element of=20 proof, if a board has been fouled at table one and discovered as such at=20 table 3, table 2 might be penalized. But irregularities that will only affect the result at your table (revoke,= =20 LOOT, BOOT, ...) may remain unmentioned (though not hidden, see again L72). Best regards, Alain. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 14 16:44:31 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:44:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board Law 9 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014171223.00ab06b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001c01c27398$96d267f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ..... >Is a player obliged to call the TD after _any_ irregularity he recognizes? > AG : no, one isn't. L72B3 is explicit about it. One exception is made for incorrect explanations. SP: See Law 90B7 for reasons you can be penalized for not even noticing an irregularity, let alone not calling attention to it. AG: Another exception is less explicit : if you count your cards and get some other number than 13, I think you're compelled to say it. It might even be more general : onr might be compelled to call after realizing any irregularity that may affect the play at other tables. As an element of proof, if a board has been fouled at table one and discovered as such at table 3, table 2 might be penalized. SP: What is the irregularity for which you will penalize table two? How do you know that the board was fouled already at table one in such a way that this should have been detected at table two? Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 14 18:04:19 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:04:19 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <003f01c2717d$1adf7ce0$a87287d9@oemcomputer> References: <200210110039.UAA05801@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021014125948.00b45840@pop.starpower.net> At 07:22 PM 10/11/02, David wrote: >Interesting. I quote an example from the EBU TD training course on >Judgement rulings that was a surprise to me: > >============================================= >The auction is 1NT - P - 2NT(H) - P > >The (H) is an agreed hesitation before the 2NT bid. > >"Declarer says: 'My partner's hesitation was uninformative. I don't >know whether he was stretching to bid two or thinking of bidding >three. Am I always going to be penalised for guessing correctly?' > >No, as lomg as you guess the same way as 70% of players who had >no UI. Thus, on this hand, if he bids 3NT on a minimum and makes >nine tricks, you will adjust to 2NT+1; if he passes with a maximum >when 8 tricks are the limit, you will adjust to 3NT-1. Law 16A2 reads >'*could* the UI suggest...' not *did* it. >============================================= > >The "demonstrably have been suggested" appears earlier in L16A. >Does everyone agree with the example above? Do you adjust for >an action that looks very agressive or pessimistic? Anything less >than 70% (under EBU rule)? Somewhere in between? Never? I would not adjust. But I would have under the 1987 laws. I would have said that this example nicely illustrates the difference between "could reasonably have been suggested" (yes) and "could demonstrably have been suggested" (no). If I am wrong, I join those of us who have no idea what the change in wording was about. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 14 20:56:59 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:56:59 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] L16 In-Reply-To: <008301c2718d$b9862960$583d27d9@pbncomputer> References: <200210110039.UAA05801@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021014153659.00a924c0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:21 PM 10/11/02, David wrote: >Steve wrote: > > > On the other hand, the slow limit raise conveys the > > _information_ that partner is either at the top or bottom of the > > appropriate range, but it will be very hard to _demonstrate_ how this > > suggests either passing or bidding game over the other alternative. > >Quite so. It is in precisely this position that all successful guesses >are annulled; it is my contention that they should not be. Amen. It makes no sense whatsoever to find that a player has chosen a suggested call from among LAs unless one can assert the existence of a non-suggested call. There must always be *some* action that a player can take, in any UI-restricted position, which will not lead to an adjusted score if it works out well. >To put this >in context: a very long time ago, before I was even a member of the >English laws commission, I had to rule on a position in which a pair had >bid (in effect, for the actual auction was competitive) 1S-slow 3S-4S. >The 4S bid was a complete joke, as was the final contract. But it made, >and the opponents called the director. The director, an enlightened >soul, let the score stand (he did this primarily because the defence had >been cretinous), and the defending side (a couple of cretins of >near-international class) appealed. > >I said this. If South had seen North's hand, she would never have bid >four spades; she would have hoped not to go more than two down in three. >Therefore, South's bid could not possibly have been predicated upon any >illicitly transmitted information about North's hand. Where there cannot >have been any information, there cannot have been any unauthorised >information, and there cannot therefore have been any infraction of Law. That seems self-evident, at least under the current law. A purported "suggestion" of a particular call improperly conveyed by partner cannot be "demonstrable" if partner's actual holding would suggest that that particular call be avoided. >I was younger then. I was, as will have been recognised, considering the >word "information" only in the sense of [2] above. I am older now, and I >know that the common practice is to consider the term "information" >primarily in sense [1]. But, even though I do it, I still cannot for the >life of me understand why I do it. I'm not sure that this matters all that much, as one can easily argue that any tempo break conveys information in sense 2 which is pertinent to the table action -- i.e. that partner has some sort of problem with his choice of call. The key is to understand that this doesn't necessarily -- or perhaps even typically -- carry a demonstrable suggestion of one action over another. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 14 21:45:08 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:45:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <3DA7EB5D.8090705@skynet.be> References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:29 AM 10/12/02, Herman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> While it may have caused trouble in this case, it is getting to be >>quite a common occurrence. I am not convinced that "of five" should be >>accepted as misleading. On the other hand "Does it show the queen of >>trumps?" is not acceptable as a question from a player who holds it. >You know the way it goes. >"5 He ?" "two" >"of five ?" "yes" >"without the queen ?" "yes". >Sometimes you have to drag the information out of them. > >I am quite certain that at the time of the third question, the player >is not thinking about what he has in his hand, but rather is annoyed >at the non-forthcoming nature of the information. > >It would be a great shame if a player were not allowed to ask this >third question without looking in his hand to see if he has the queen >or not. It's just an innocent remark, made solely because of a >mistake by opponents. >While it certainly deceived (but only because declarer thought he >would get redress if he relied on it and it wasn't in fact true) it >was not made with such intent. And while I do know that this intent >is not necessary for the law to kick into action, surely our >bridge-lawyers should be able to find reasons enough to not have to >rule against this person who they believe did nothing wrong. > >How about "has no demonstrable bridge reason". Isn't "wanting to know" >a bridge reason. Don't forget that it's not important that North >hasn't got the queen of trumps, but that South knows he hasn't. >"It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information by making all >calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner". I would add, and >asking in unvarying manner. >Personally, I always ask about the meaning of a 2Cl opening. There >are 3 versions quite common in our parts and I don't want my opponents >to know that I am not interested in calling in either of them. I can easily imagine holding the trump queen and legitimately wanting to know whether 5H showed it or not. Perhaps I will be facing a crucial reconstruction on defense against a slam, and it will be vital to know whether declarer bid the slam knowing he was missing the trump queen or might have been hoping to find it in dummy. Herman is quite right. There are several possible reasons for asking about the trump queen, some of which can be valid "bridge reasons" even when one holds it. Attempting to deceive is one possible reason, but in my experience one encountered far less frequently than any of several others. BTW, this was, in fact, the position taken by Mr. Gerard in the article which reported the ruling. He writes a monthly column, "Appeals: A New View", in which he typically writes dissenting or alternative views of either commonly accepted principles of bridge jurisprudence or the outcome of actual cases. In the article originally cited (Roger: ACBL Bulletin, October 2002, p.100), he approved of the result of the case, but argued that the reasoning was too narrow -- that asking about the trump queen should not in general be construed as deceptive, and that the initial MI was not necessary to find no grounds for redress: "So the 'correct' way to handle these cases is to let the result stand, unless there is clear evidence that it was the asker's intent to deceive." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Oct 14 22:43:56 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:43:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) References: Message-ID: I apologize to TWM for the previous double post, I was pressed for time and failed to edit the addressee. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) > In-Reply-To: > Roger Pewick > > > > The game becomes unplayable (without screens) if questions are not > > > permitted when partner may also benefit from the answers. > > > > I am having difficulty understanding why the game becomes unplayable if > > questions are not permitted. If you are looking at the difference > > between questions and no questions, surely a well constructed CC is > > needed, filled out with useful information, traded with opponents, and > > looked at with the minimal of fanfare when a meaning is in fact needed. > > How big is this convention card? How many of the billions of possible > bidding sequences will it cover (each at 4 possible vulnerability > combinations)? How many of our current players are going to be prepared > to spend the time necessary to write such a document - and how is one > going to be able to find the specific information one needs with a minimum > of fanfare when it is located on page 18? > > Tim Before getting into million page CC's maybe things could be clarified by a discussion as to what system information is useful to players. Btw, can anyone recount the reasons why questions are permitted during the hand? -given that questions create a communication to partner other than by call or play; and the response thereto creates a communication to partner other than by call or play. fwiw I gleaned the following passage from the 1963 FLB: "Conventional calls or plays should be explained to the opponents before any player has looked at his cards." regards roger pewick From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 14 23:24:52 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:24:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <4A256C52.0079D047.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman wrote: [snip] >>Some people have the opposite point of view. It is >>against those that I argue, not against you David, >>who most probably thinks both ought to be told. >>I'm just a bit more lenient, that's all. Grattan replied: >+=+ You may think provocative the text of the paper > I have just presented to the EBL Seminar for Presidents >and Officers. On the day it might have had one or more >thoughts added (this is the original text). > > > EUROPEAN BRIDGE LEAGUE > > > SEMINAR > For > Presidents and Officers of NBOs. > > Torino, 3 to 5 October, 2002. > > >Questions for discussion groups moderated by Grattan >Endicott. > > 'ETHICS' > > 1. Are ethics an outmoded concept in a game >environment? Yes. Ethical players win less in a game environment than *slightly* unethical players do. (Of course, stupidly *highly* unethical players eventually get caught and expelled from the game.) But in my opinion, winning the meta-game of ethics is better value than winning the game of bridge. [snip] > 2. The young player's first experience of a bridge >club. > >Even if they do not bring with them what they have >learnt about the game at their mother's knee, young >players entering a bridge club for the first time will >frequently encounter a socially relaxed game. > >There is often (but not always) a tolerance of ethical >standards that will not stand scrutiny if they move >upwards to the regional, national and international >levels of bridge. I agree that there should be tolerance of a new player's inadvertent ethical errors, due to ignorance of ethical norms in Duplicate. In my opinion, rudeness and bullying of novices is the worst type of violation of L74, and TDs should be more active in policing such violations. > 3. What should be the role of the NBO before, during, >and immediately after, the transition from social >player to competition level? [snip] >Do you include it in seminars for club tournament >directors? Training for club TDs should not emphasise technical mechanics to the exclusion of courtesy, ethics and psychology. > 4. What are the chief problems? > >Tempo > About half (at least) of the appeals in tournaments > are to do with action by the partner of a player who > breaks tempo (allegedly) before calling. > > We must not overlook the less frequent, but at times > highly significant, occasions when a player is slow > to play a card to a trick. An *unnecessary* problem in tempo situations is the implicit assumption by most players that use of UI is "cheating". NBOs, SOs and TDs should educate players that adjusted scores after UI do *not* imply bad ethics. Strictly speaking, a discussion of tempo in a paper on Ethics itself gives the impression that self-deceiving use of UI after a tempo break is unethical. The only two special cases where tempo should be discussed in a paper on ethics are: a) Deliberate breaks in tempo, and b) Breaks in tempo for no bridge reason. [snip] >Disclosure > Law and Regulation normally requires that our > methods be 'fully disclosed'. > > The pressure for full disclosure should increase at > each higher level of the game. It is suggested that a > high standard of ethics calls for a high level of > consideration for opponents. In turn this means care > in giving a full and fair explanation of any > understanding that opponents may not readily > anticipate and understand. > > Consider this proposition: "" On the first occasion > that something happens you may draw an inference; > maybe the second time it is still a matter of > evidence and reasoning. The third time it happens you > are on solid ground and it is a matter of partnership > agreement. Further, if you say to partner 'so in > this situation I cannot have four Spades' a > conversation that began with an inference has > transmuted it into an agreement."" Think about > advanced partnerships in your NBO - those with well > developed system files. Do they measure up to these > standards of disclosure when asked to explain a call? > Do they mention relevant 'agreed' inferences? In my opinion, this is how L75 should be interpreted. There have been two alternate views propounded by other blmlers: a) Inferences need not be explained, even if a matter of partnership agreement, if the opponents can use logic to deduce them. b) General knowledge and experience includes default agreements of the locality, so a partnership using a default agreement need not explain it, even if the partnership has specifically agreed to use that default agreement. In my opinion a) also breaches L74 and b) is a mis- interpretation of the intent the lawmakers had when including "general knowledge and experience" as a clause in L75. >Misinformation > > As with disclosure, there is an issue under this > heading if it is considered a matter of bridge > ethics to be considerate of opponents. The higher we > go in bridge, is there not a corresponding increase > in our responsibility for preparing ourselves for > tournaments? > > How ethical can we consider ourselves once we rise > to the levels of national tournaments, or of > regional tournaments in larger countries, if we are > unable to give our opponents an accurate account of > our system agreements and our special understandings? *Inability* to give an accurate account of system is, in my opinion, totally ethical. *Unwillingness* to do so is, of course, a different pair of sleeves. > Is it acceptable if we go to such major tournaments > inadequately prepared? Yes; most of the time our opponents will love us. > - using methods that we have not fully grasped? Yes; any other answer smacks of the Convention Disruption theory. Inserting CD into the Laws will, in my opinion, destroy the nature of bridge. [snip] > 6. Suspicion > >Another problem is that some players are more >gifted than others. When we see a highly successful >partnership are we too ready to suspect them of >cheating? At least in some bridge cultures, yes. From my reading of ACBL literature, over-suspiciousness seems to be endemic in ACBL-land bridge culture. [snip] > Moderator's footnote: > > The question reveals the man. But it is not what I >think that is important. > > The need is for the group to consider, and for >each individual to find his/her own answers to, >questions that ought to be asked, at least, in >every NBO. My man-revealing questions are: Should an NBO repeatedly ratify as one of its international representatives, a player who habitually violates the Law prohibiting peeking? If the NBO does so, making that player a role model, how can that NBO convincingly urge its members to behave ethically? Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 14 23:48:15 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 23:48:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002b01c273d3$cc6ec3a0$7e9868d5@default> [Eric Landau [& Gerard]] "So the 'correct' way to handle these cases is to let the result stand, unless there is clear evidence that it was the asker's intent to deceive." [Nigel Guthrie] In context, yours may be a morally correct view. The Law, however, seems to disagree at 2 levels. Firstly, as here, if you know that opponents' explanation is incorrect and incomplete -- your recourse is to call the TD. According to David Burns, even "Is that all?" is a Kaplan Question and will attract an adverse ruling. If players take this law literally, TDs will be busy indeed. Secondly and more sensibly, specific questions that might direct a defence are banned; and whether or not you know what is in your hand, the "trump queen" question is obviously in that category, as the actual answer would seem to rule out a trump lead. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 15 00:43:55 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:43:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <4A256C52.0079D047.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004e01c273db$9406c960$7e9868d5@default> Richard Hills: My man-revealing questions are: Should an NBO repeatedly ratify as one of its international representatives, a player who habitually violates the Law prohibiting peeking? If the NBO does so, making that player a role model, how can that NBO convincingly urge its members to behave ethically? Nigel Guthrie: Your arguments are convincing, Richard; you set a high ethical standard, to which we all vainly aspire.... I am intrigued by your specific example. Is it based on any recent allegation? From David Stevenson Tue Oct 15 02:15:54 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 02:15:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lawspage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson writes >David Stevenson writes >> >> On my Lawspage, there is a downloads page for BLML items at >> >> http://blakjak.com/blml_log.htm >> >> The logos for use on a T-shirt have been updated so that the new home >>of BLML is shown. > Judging by a response I have received about the BLML logo, perhaps I >should make clear that it is produced by Marv, and I merely put it on my >Lawspage. So any comments about the logos to Marv, please. Further to the above, the logo for BLML has been updated to use a shorter URL. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 15 02:56:31 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:56:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] I've got a little list Message-ID: <4A256C53.00095A72.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "(no subject)" I wrote: >>My man-revealing questions are: >>Should an NBO repeatedly ratify as one of its >>international representatives, a player who >>habitually violates the Law prohibiting peeking? >>If the NBO does so, making that player a role >>model, how can that NBO convincingly urge its >>members to behave ethically? Nigel Guthrie asked: >Your arguments are convincing, Richard; you set >a high ethical standard, to which we all vainly >aspire.... I am intrigued by your specific >example. Is it based on any recent allegation? Some NBOs use selection committees to pick their international representatives. While such NBOs usually hold Trials amongst their leading players, the results of the trials are either advisory or perhaps merely partially binding on the selection committee. There are pluses and minuses in selectors picking a team. One plus is that it is easier to weed out players with dubious ethics. A significant minus is that the selectors may, subconciously or otherwise, be unjustifiably biased towards a particular player and/or unjustifiably biased against another player. Therefore, for the past quarter-century, the ABF has had a policy of automatically ratifying the winners of the Australian Trials. The consequence of this ABF policy has been the repeated ratification of: a) A complex system player, who often gave sub-minimum explanations (with the catchphrase, "It's just a bid"). b) A professional who had a CPU of one-way transfers with their sponsoring partner; when the ABF discovered the CPU, the only significant action the ABF took was prohibit future partnership of the professional and the sponsor. c) Players who habitually violate the courtesy requirements of L74. d) A (now-deceased) sponsor implicated in an underworld murder. Best wishes Richard From David Stevenson Tue Oct 15 02:31:45 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 02:31:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger Pewick writes >Btw, can anyone recount the reasons why questions are permitted during >the hand? -given that questions create a communication to partner other >than by call or play; and the response thereto creates a communication >to partner other than by call or play. Because it is far easier to call when you know what your opponents' calls mean, and you have a right to know them. If you do not allow questions then you will create an impossible situation where players need information that you do not allow them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Minke Tue Oct 15 02:43:02 2002 From: Minke (Nanki Poo) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 02:43:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cats Message-ID: List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus Lester RB David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Ray Crowe Mo RB, Vegas, Aspen Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge EMale, Bear RB, Taggie, Joss EL Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Paws RB, Monte MIA, Conrad RB, Babe RB, Betty RB, Bobbsie RB, Caruso EL Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Irv Kostal * Albert, Abby, Truman, Tuppence RB, Bill RB, Cleo EL, Sabrina RB Jack Kryst * Bentley, Ava RB John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Ted Merrette Zippy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat RB, Casey RB Henk Pieters Jip, Janneke, Ketie Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Tommy Sandsmark * Lillepus RB, Bittepus, Snoppen Michael Schmahl Sophie Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Ed Shapiro * Shelby, Althea Flemming B-Soerensen Flora, Rose RB Ian Spoors Zeus WV Grant Sterling Big Mac RB, Flash David Stevenson * Quango RB, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB, Sophie EL, Minke Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action, EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known] and WV is a welcome visitor [ie lives elsewhere but visits on a regular basis]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://blakjak.com/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Minke at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 15 13:25:59 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:25:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021015082011.00abc4f0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:53 AM 10/12/02, jurgenr wrote: >This discussion began with the question quoted below the line. >What we seem to have concluded is: > >1. The ..from among..over another.. indicates >that when there is only one logical action, then that >action must be admissible even if suggested by UI. > >2. The word 'demonstrably' is intended to indicate that the >criteria for deciding that an action is inadmissible are >relatively strict - stricter than 'reasonably' would >imply. - What constitutes a demonstration remains >unclear and is, in any case, of no use to the player >when making a decision in the presence of UI. > >3. Against (2) stands the fact that some regulations also >make the criteria for admissibility rather strict (70% or >more of peers making the same decision). > >4. The player may be left without an option that is both >admissible and logical, but the intent of the rule >is not that he must, in such a case, do something illogical > >Is this an approximation of the consensus? No. Certainly not with #4 included. >Is the following formulation an improvement? > >"...may not choose an action that has been suggested by >extraneous information. If every logical alternative >can reasonably be said to have been suggested by UI, then >the player must choose the one that appears to him >least advantageous to his side." No. The second sentence reflects neither the wording nor the intent of the current law. One can argue that it is possible for "every LA... to have been suggested by UI"; one might even be able to argue that it is possible for every LA to have been "demonstrably" suggested by UI. But the law doesn't just require "suggested"; it requires "suggested over another [LA]". ISTM we have a strong consensus that that makes it impossible for *every* LA to lead to a potential L16 violation if chosen. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Oct 15 13:27:45 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:27:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > At 05:29 AM 10/12/02, Herman wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > outcome of actual cases. In the article originally cited (Roger: ACBL > Bulletin, October 2002, p.100), Sent to DB yesterday. thanx roger pewick > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 15 13:47:05 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:47:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Western question In-Reply-To: <001b01c271db$d7b783e0$583d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021015083011.00abf870@pop.starpower.net> At 06:40 AM 10/12/02, David wrote: >I am just about to play against a pair who use an opening bid of 2S to >show a weak pre-empt in any suit; opening bids at the three level show >constructive pre-empts. > >I would like some advice as to whether I may use either or both of the >following counter-measures: > >(1) Suppose I hold > >32 A4 A3 AKQJ1096 > >After 3S to my left and two passes, am I permitted to conduct the >following dialogue: > >"You're playing 2S as a weak pre-empt, aren't you?" >"Yes." >"So 3S is a constructive pre-empt?" >"Yes." >"Might he have a solid suit?" >"I suppose he might, but he will usually have at least two of the top >three honours." >"Thank you. 3NT." > >This, a form of the Western cue bid, asks partner to pass only with a >spade stop. If you do this deliberately, as a "counter-measure", you obviously violate L73B2, and should be subject to severe disciplinary action. But the dialog itself could be motivated by many things other than an intentional violation of L73B2, and, if so, is not in itself illegal. Only if partner, holding no spade stopper, pulls 3NT with no compelling reason to do so does L16 get triggered. >(2) Suppose I hold > >AQ2 3 43 AKQJ1096 > >Am I now permitted to conduct the same dialogue as above, in order to >convince my left hand opponent that my spade stop might be only Qx or >Qxx, in order to deter him from finding a red suit lead? That would be a good test of whether the dialog in (1) was per se an infraction. If you are in violation of L73D2, that is, of course, just as illegal as in (1). If the dialog in (1) was innocently intended, you would be not only permitted but *expected* to conduct a similar dialog in both cases. If a player had indeed conducted the same dialog in both cases, and was accused of either deliberately giving MI in (1) or deliberately trying to deceive an opponent in (2), ISTM that the fact that he had conducted the same dialog in the other case would be sufficient to refute the accusation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Oct 15 14:00:04 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:00:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: L16 References: <003501c27217$0b4e72a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <002001c27280$5fb3e280$d96b87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00eb01c2744b$3bd79ab0$24e1f1c3@LNV> > > From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" > -------------------------------- > Law 16 contains the famous phrase > > "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions > one that could demonstrably have been suggested over > another by the extraneous information." (A) > > Suppose it were written thus: > > "...may not choose an action that could have been suggested > by the extraneous information." (B) > > I don't know if it's the same, but your version looks much > better. However, "suggested" has too many shades of > meaning. I would "suggest" (C), which incorporates one > of those shades: > > > +=+ I have noted the basic point here. I think it will be > covered one way or another in the Laws Review. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I will get my opportunities when things appear during the laws review (not sure yet whether to use capitals), and then I will say that the suggested way of rewriting this sentence is a wrong one (I thougth to have read this answer already and was satisfied with it, but reading these reactions I am not so sure anymore). We need to have alternatives to be able to disallow an action chosen. And don''t tell me that using the word 'choose' implies such an alternative. Even if it is true it is not clear. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 15 14:14:49 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:14:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <002b01c273d3$cc6ec3a0$7e9868d5@default> References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021015091030.00b4f9f0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:48 PM 10/14/02, Nigel wrote: >[Eric Landau [& Gerard]] >"So the 'correct' way to handle these cases >is to let the result stand, unless there is >clear evidence that it was the asker's intent >to deceive." >[Nigel Guthrie] >In context, yours may be a morally correct view. Nigel should know better. Just because I have quoted Mr. Gerard doesn't mean I agree with him. Quite the contrary; I cited Mr. Gerard because, as is often the case, I hope to start a discussion which will help me form an opinion about the merit, or lack thereof, of his position. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 15 16:58:05 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] I've got a little list In-Reply-To: <4A256C53.00095A72.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Oct 15, 2002 11:56:31 AM Message-ID: <200210151558.LAA09901@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > In the thread "(no subject)" I wrote: > > >>My man-revealing questions are: > >>Should an NBO repeatedly ratify as one of its > >>international representatives, a player who > >>habitually violates the Law prohibiting peeking? > >>If the NBO does so, making that player a role > >>model, how can that NBO convincingly urge its > >>members to behave ethically? > > Nigel Guthrie asked: > > >Your arguments are convincing, Richard; you set > >a high ethical standard, to which we all vainly > >aspire.... I am intrigued by your specific > >example. Is it based on any recent allegation? > > Some NBOs use selection committees to pick their > international representatives. While such NBOs > usually hold Trials amongst their leading > players, the results of the trials are either > advisory or perhaps merely partially binding on > the selection committee. > > There are pluses and minuses in selectors > picking a team. One plus is that it is easier > to weed out players with dubious ethics. Why use the selection process for a disciplinary role? I think it reasonable to disqualify a player for disciplinary purposes (as for instance happened to Chagas one time), but it's not the selections process that appears to be failing the ABF. All of the examples below (snipped) are appalling and the players *should* be disciplined. If the consequences of the discipline arebeing dropped from the team, so be it. But don't use the selections process to cover the failure of others to do their jobs. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 15 07:35:51 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:35:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c27475$b3fa0da0$58ed193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > > > > BTW, this was, in fact, the position taken by Mr. Gerard > in the article which reported the ruling. He writes a monthly > column, "Appeals: A New View", in which he typically writes > dissenting or alternative views of either commonly accepted > principles of bridge jurisprudence or the outcome of actual > cases. In the article originally cited (Roger: ACBL Bulletin, > October 2002, p.100), he approved of the result of the case, > but argued that the reasoning was too narrow -- that asking > about the trump queen should not in general be construed as > deceptive, and that the initial MI was not necessary to find no > grounds for redress: "So the 'correct' way to handle these > cases is to let the result stand, unless there is clear evidence > that it was the asker's intent to deceive." > +=+ It depends whether prima facie the view is that there is no bridge reason to enquire about information when you know the answer. The risk is that what the player is doing is to tell his partner where the Q is, as well as to deceive opponent. I consider the onus is on the player to demonstrate his bridge reason for asking the question. And I take that view in this particular case. ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Oct 15 20:40:20 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:40:20 +1300 Subject: [blml] L62B2 Message-ID: <000101c27482$b5646020$cd9637d2@Desktop> 2. By Partner of Offender After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). Is the wording intentional in this law? Here is the problem: Partner revokes trumping the trick; RHO plays low; I play low; Partner discovers the revoke; Partner corrects to a low card; RHO does not correct but his low card beats mine and partner's low card; The conditions of this law have not been met for me to withdraw my card. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 15 22:21:40 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 07:21:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Imps Dlr: S Vul: EW You, South hold: AJ85 KQJT872 86 --- WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 4H 2C(1) 2S 3C 3S 4C Pass Pass ? (1) Insufficient, accepted by North. Your call. Scenario One: This deal has occurred in Australia. The ABF has not passed any special regulation governing auctions after an insufficient bid. What are your logical alternatives? Scenario Two: This deal has occurred in ACBL-land. The ACBL has passed a regulation prohibiting special partnership agreements after an insufficient bid from the opponents. You have no explicit agreement with partner, as you are playing with a visitor from England. However, you have an implicit agreement that partner's sobriquet is "MadDog". What are your remaining legal logical alternatives in ACBL-land? Best wishes Richard From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Tue Oct 15 22:32:06 2002 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:32:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] L62B2 References: <000101c27482$b5646020$cd9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <004901c27492$4fbf9cc0$674ff9c1@olivier> right, bad luck, try to pick a partner who follow suit next time, Kenavo Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Bridge Laws List'" Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:40 PM Subject: [blml] L62B2 > 2. By Partner of Offender > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side > next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which becomes a penalty > card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). > > Is the wording intentional in this law? > > Here is the problem: > > Partner revokes trumping the trick; > > RHO plays low; > > I play low; > > Partner discovers the revoke; > > Partner corrects to a low card; > > RHO does not correct but his low card beats mine and partner's low card; > > The conditions of this law have not been met for me to withdraw my card. > > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From toddz@worldnet.att.com Tue Oct 15 22:57:45 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:57:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:22 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The English detest a siesta > > Imps, EW-Vul, South holds: > > AJ85 > KQJT872 > 86 > --- > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 4H > 2C(1) 2S 3C 3S > 4C Pass Pass ? > > (1) Insufficient, accepted by North. > > Your call. > > [Various scenarios] > What are your logical alternatives? What is the source and nature of the UI? Wouldn't this situation be governed by the regulation(s) and/or L40, if it's governed at all? -Todd From adam@irvine.com Tue Oct 15 23:21:53 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:21:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Oct 2002 07:21:40 +1000." <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <200210152221.PAA06205@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Imps > Dlr: S > Vul: EW > > You, South hold: > > AJ85 > KQJT872 > 86 > --- > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 4H > 2C(1) 2S 3C 3S > 4C Pass Pass ? > > (1) Insufficient, accepted by North. > > Your call. > > Scenario One: > This deal has occurred in Australia. > The ABF has not passed any special > regulation governing auctions after > an insufficient bid. What are your > logical alternatives? > > Scenario Two: > This deal has occurred in ACBL-land. > The ACBL has passed a regulation > prohibiting special partnership > agreements after an insufficient bid > from the opponents. You have no > explicit agreement with partner, as > you are playing with a visitor from > England. However, you have an > implicit agreement that partner's > sobriquet is "MadDog". What are > your remaining legal logical > alternatives in ACBL-land? I kind of wonder whether the ACBL regulation can be construed as prohibiting you from following the same agreements you normally use. Suppose the auction goes: You LHO Partner RHO 1NT pass 2D(1) 2C (1) transfer to hearts ? Your agreements over a transfer are that 2H denies four-card support, and with four-card support you either jump to 3H or make some other bid that shows something else about your hand. (In my regular partnership, 3H shows a minimum with four hearts; with a maximum hand with four hearts, we bid our doubleton or 2NT with 4-3-3-3.) You decide to accept the insufficient bid, because if you don't, RHO will correct to 3C and take away the room for you to use your lovely agreement. But by one possible interpretation of the ACBL regulation, if you accept the insufficient bid you're no longer allowed to use any conventions. Is this what was intended? Someone should ask the ACBL about this (*), but I don't think their intent was that an opponent's infraction should deprive you of your own bidding system. I'm guessing that the regulation is meant to apply only to special agreements that would apply *only* after an insufficient bid but not otherwise. In the above example, perhaps the regulation would prevent you from adopting a special meaning for 2D but not for any other call. Or perhaps it would allow a meaning for 2D that would be logically consistent with the system you would have been playing if RHO had passed. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any difference between Richard's two scenarios. The regulation would mean that you can't agree beforehand that 2S in the above auction means something special. However, if you have a general implicit agreement that any call at any point may occasionally show some random collection of 13 cards (which I assume is equivalent to the implicit agreement Richard described), I wouldn't think that accepting an insufficient bid should deprive you of your implicit agreement. (*) Marv or someone, what would be the right e-mail address to send a question like this to? -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Wed Oct 16 00:07:31 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:07:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:21:53 PDT." <200210152221.PAA06205@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200210152307.QAA06489@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: > > Scenario Two: > > This deal has occurred in ACBL-land. > > The ACBL has passed a regulation > > prohibiting special partnership > > agreements after an insufficient bid > > from the opponents. . . . > > I kind of wonder whether the ACBL regulation can be construed as > prohibiting you from following the same agreements you normally use. I wrote my response trusting that the regulation was more or less as Richard stated it. But . . . I checked the ACBL web site, and the only regulation I could find dealing with this is: Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. This is quite vaguely worded, but it appears to me that what's illegal are conventional calls for taking advantage of an opponents' infraction. This isn't at all the same as prohibiting all "special partnership agreements after an insufficient bid from the opponents". Is there another applicable regulation that someone knows about? -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 16 00:56:18 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:56:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <200210152221.PAA06205@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <009701c274a6$784b7740$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Richard Hills wrote: > > I kind of wonder whether the ACBL regulation can be construed as > prohibiting you from following the same agreements you normally use. > Suppose the auction goes: > > You LHO Partner RHO > 1NT pass 2D(1) 2C (1) transfer to hearts > ? > > Your agreements over a transfer are that 2H denies four-card support, > and with four-card support you either jump to 3H or make some other > bid that shows something else about your hand. (In my regular > partnership, 3H shows a minimum with four hearts; with a maximum hand > with four hearts, we bid our doubleton or 2NT with 4-3-3-3.) > > You decide to accept the insufficient bid, because if you don't, RHO > will correct to 3C and take away the room for you to use your lovely > agreement. But by one possible interpretation of the ACBL regulation, > if you accept the insufficient bid you're no longer allowed to use any > conventions. Is this what was intended? I doubt it. > > Someone should ask the ACBL about this (*), but I don't think their > intent was that an opponent's infraction should deprive you of your > own bidding system. I'm guessing that the regulation is meant to > apply only to special agreements that would apply *only* after an > insufficient bid but not otherwise. In the above example, perhaps the > regulation would prevent you from adopting a special meaning for 2D > but not for any other call. Yes, a conventional meaning based on an infraction. > Or perhaps it would allow a meaning for > 2D that would be logically consistent with the system you would have > been playing if RHO had passed. I believe that is correct. > > If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any difference between > Richard's two scenarios. The regulation would mean that you can't > agree beforehand that 2S in the above auction means something special. > However, if you have a general implicit agreement that any call at any > point may occasionally show some random collection of 13 cards (which > I assume is equivalent to the implicit agreement Richard described), I > wouldn't think that accepting an insufficient bid should deprive you > of your implicit agreement. > > (*) Marv or someone, what would be the right e-mail address to send a > question like this to? > Your subsequent post seems to have the answer. I don't know of any other regulation on the subject than the one you quote The most authoritative opinion would come from Gary Blaiss, gary.blaiss@acbl.org Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 16 01:19:02 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:19:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004901c274a9$cf21f780$b79468d5@default> [Richard Hills] AJ85 KQJT872 86 --- WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 4H 2C(1) 2S 3C 3S 4C Pass Pass ? (1) Insufficient, accepted by North. [Nigel Guthrie] To me the scenarios are the same, provided I have no agreement with partner. IMO it is unlikely that partner has psyched; but on the other hand, by definition partner's pass cannot be forcing -- because that would be an illegal convention. Hence I would like to pass, expecting that opponents have missed game or slam. Perhaps, however, rather than wait around for appeals committees, I should just bid the obvious natural four hearts which may play better than a 4-4 spade fit. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 16 06:04:38 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:04:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <4A256C52.0079D047.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 10/15/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >At least in some bridge cultures, yes. From my >reading of ACBL literature, over-suspiciousness >seems to be endemic in ACBL-land bridge culture. This works both ways. I was informed (by a player new to duplicate) today that merely asserting that the director should be called in some situations, much less actually calling her, is insulting and accusatory. And yes, I'm in ACBL-land. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 16 06:00:10 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:00:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/14/02, Roger Pewick wrote: >Btw, can anyone recount the reasons why questions are permitted during >the hand? -given that questions create a communication to partner >other than by call or play; and the response thereto creates a >communication to partner other than by call or play. > >fwiw I gleaned the following passage from the 1963 FLB: > >"Conventional calls or plays should be explained to the opponents >before any player has looked at his cards." Interesting. I wasn't playing bridge in 1963 (though I did play some rubber in college ca 65 and later), so I don't know how well this actually worked then, but I daresay it would hardly work at all today. Unless you want to allow a couple of hours per round. Personally, I think that somebody opened a can of worms when he (or they) devised an alert procedure that allowed for immediate questions about a specific alerted call. OTOH, if a player *does* alert a specific call, only an idiot would assume that a request for "an explanation of the entire auction" (as specified in Law 20) would not actually be directed at the alerted call. It seems to me that the EBU procedure (summarize those things about your system opponents might need to be aware of on the front of the CC, and require everyone to examine opponents' CC at the beginning of the round) is the best solution to the problem (or at least, the best one I've seen), but around here you get (as I once did) supercilious comments like "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions" because there is no such requirement. From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Oct 16 06:27:20 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 07:27:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rotated Board In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A615@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Martin Sinot > Sent: Montag, 14. Oktober 2002 10:54 > To: BLML > Subject: RE: [blml] Rotated Board > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jurgenr@t-online.de [mailto:jurgenr@t-online.de] > > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 15:41 > > To: BLML > > Subject: [blml] Rotated Board > > > > > > Suppose a board has been played rotated 90 degrees > > from normal orientation, so that N/S have played the E/W hands. > > A player notices this after play of this hand is completed. > > > > Questions: > > > > 1. What is the correct scoring procedure for this board? > > If the entire board had been rotated, so that every hand still > comes from the right pocket, you score in the line you played, > so NS is EW for one board and vice versa. This, of course, > when the tournament conditions allow this. In pairs this is > usually the case; in team play, if the board hasn't been played > at the other table, just make sure that you rotate the board at > the other table as well; if the board already has been played at > the other table, you will have to cancel it. > > > 2. Does L87 apply? Consider that the identical situation can > > arise by rotating the board before replacing the cards, > > which meets the definition of a fouled board. > > Not identical. If you rotate the board, but still take the hands > from the right pocket, then all you have to do is rename the > players; the properties of every hand (dealer, vulnerability) > remain the same. L87 does not apply. Not so if the board is > rotated before the hands are replaced; now a different hand > is dealer; the vulnerability probably has changed, so now we > have a fouled board and must apply L87 > > > 3. Is a player who notices the irregularity obliged to > > inform the director? When? > > As soon as he discovers it, especially when the tournament > conditions dictate this. Although often nothing needs to > be done. I agree, of course, that this is the only reasonable thing to do. But that is not the question. Does the lawgiver agree? Does L72B3 not apply? Why? Because it contradicts some other paragraphs? "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side." Why "one's own side"? Does the explicit exclusion imply that one must draw attention to opponents' infractions? Jürgen > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 16 06:17:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:17:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nanki-Poo's listing brings to mind a small thing I learned recently. It seems that Robert Heinlein once (ca. 1950, iirc) wrote a novel involving time travel and a cat named Petronius the Arbiter. He was searching for a title (it was winter in Colorado) when one day he noted that his cat kept running to see what was on the other side of every exterior door in the house whenever one was opened. Mrs. Heinlein remarked "he's looking for the Door Into Summer," and thus the title was found. :-) From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 16 07:47:40 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:47:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> <000201c27475$b3fa0da0$58ed193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3DAD0B8C.50708@skynet.be> grandeval wrote: >>grounds for redress: "So the 'correct' way to handle these >>cases is to let the result stand, unless there is clear evidence >>that it was the asker's intent to deceive." >> >> > +=+ It depends whether prima facie the view is that there is > no bridge reason to enquire about information when you know > the answer. The risk is that what the player is doing is to tell > his partner where the Q is, as well as to deceive opponent. > I consider the onus is on the player to demonstrate his bridge > reason for asking the question. And I take that view in this > particular case. ~ G ~ +=+ > I am not clear what Grattan is saying here, and whatever it is, he is wrong. Asking the question when one has it himself might give the partner the false information that declarer does have it. If one only asks when one does not have it, one gives (A) info to the declarer who now knows where to find her, and (B) UI to partner who knows you have her. The only way out of that dilemma is allowing the question to be asked regardless of the holding. And I do know what DB's view is. The question should not be asked because declarer ought to have told it in full. But when he does not, should he really benefit from that by creating a dilemma that can only be to his advantage. Better to solve the dilemma by not ruling in DB's manner. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 16 07:51:27 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:51:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cats References: Message-ID: <3DAD0C6F.6020903@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > Nanki-Poo's listing brings to mind a small thing I learned recently. It > seems that Robert Heinlein once (ca. 1950, iirc) wrote a novel involving > time travel and a cat named Petronius the Arbiter. He was searching for > a title (it was winter in Colorado) when one day he noted that his cat > kept running to see what was on the other side of every exterior door in > the house whenever one was opened. Mrs. Heinlein remarked "he's looking > for the Door Into Summer," and thus the title was found. :-) > Actually one of my favourite books. I never made the connection "arbiter" though. Let's make Petronius the patron cat of blml. (arbiter is the actual word used in Flanders to call the director) > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 16 07:58:47 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:58:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DAD0E27.4070108@skynet.be> How come nobody is asking what 2C meant ? I know I am not entitled to know why he made the IC (did he not notice my opening or is he thinking that 2>4 ?) but I'd still like to know what their opening bid of 2C means. After all, on this depend the reason for my partner accepting. If 2C is natural (I doubt it) he could be defending against a change to 5C. If it is strong, he might just be showing a very light, long suit, and 6C is cold. But then why the strange 4C bid, which cannot be forcing by any means. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps > Dlr: S > Vul: EW > > You, South hold: > > AJ85 > KQJT872 > 86 > --- > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 4H > 2C(1) 2S 3C 3S > 4C Pass Pass ? > > (1) Insufficient, accepted by North. > > Your call. > > Scenario One: > This deal has occurred in Australia. > The ABF has not passed any special > regulation governing auctions after > an insufficient bid. What are your > logical alternatives? > > Scenario Two: > This deal has occurred in ACBL-land. > The ACBL has passed a regulation > prohibiting special partnership > agreements after an insufficient bid > from the opponents. You have no > explicit agreement with partner, as > you are playing with a visitor from > England. However, you have an > implicit agreement that partner's > sobriquet is "MadDog". What are > your remaining legal logical > alternatives in ACBL-land? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Oct 16 08:05:02 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:05:02 +0200 Subject: FW: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: [...] > > I checked the ACBL web site, and the only regulation I could find > dealing with this is: Congratulations! I can't find this even knowing it must be somewhere. I do find lots of dead links and no search mechanism. > > Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of > the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's > call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is > conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage > of a call out of rotation has been approved. This merely shows that once you appoint regulators they tend to regulate, and if you appoint fools the regulations will be foolish. The notion that a pass may not show "some agreed-on point range" is quite novel, but not the worst flaw in this particular concoction. Jürgen > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 16 09:11:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> > However, you have an > implicit agreement that partner's > sobriquet is "MadDog". What are > your remaining legal logical > alternatives in ACBL-land? Under these conditions almost anything is logical - including playing partner to have psyched 2S. Tim From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Oct 16 10:08:06 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:08:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question >Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:45:08 -0400 > >At 05:29 AM 10/12/02, Herman wrote: > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> While it may have caused trouble in this case, it is getting to be >>>quite a common occurrence. I am not convinced that "of five" should be >>>accepted as misleading. On the other hand "Does it show the queen of >>>trumps?" is not acceptable as a question from a player who holds it. >>You know the way it goes. >>"5 He ?" "two" >>"of five ?" "yes" >>"without the queen ?" "yes". >>Sometimes you have to drag the information out of them. >> >>I am quite certain that at the time of the third question, the player is >>not thinking about what he has in his hand, but rather is annoyed at the >>non-forthcoming nature of the information. >> >>It would be a great shame if a player were not allowed to ask this third >>question without looking in his hand to see if he has the queen or not. >>It's just an innocent remark, made solely because of a mistake by >>opponents. >>While it certainly deceived (but only because declarer thought he would >>get redress if he relied on it and it wasn't in fact true) it was not made >>with such intent. And while I do know that this intent is not necessary >>for the law to kick into action, surely our bridge-lawyers should be able >>to find reasons enough to not have to rule against this person who they >>believe did nothing wrong. >> >>How about "has no demonstrable bridge reason". Isn't "wanting to know" a >>bridge reason. Don't forget that it's not important that North hasn't got >>the queen of trumps, but that South knows he hasn't. >>"It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information by making all >>calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner". I would add, and asking >>in unvarying manner. >>Personally, I always ask about the meaning of a 2Cl opening. There are 3 >>versions quite common in our parts and I don't want my opponents to know >>that I am not interested in calling in either of them. > >I can easily imagine holding the trump queen and legitimately wanting to >know whether 5H showed it or not. Perhaps I will be facing a crucial >reconstruction on defense against a slam, and it will be vital to know >whether declarer bid the slam knowing he was missing the trump queen or >might have been hoping to find it in dummy. > >Herman is quite right. There are several possible reasons for asking about >the trump queen, some of which can be valid "bridge reasons" even when one >holds it. Attempting to deceive is one possible reason, but in my >experience one encountered far less frequently than any of several others. > >BTW, this was, in fact, the position taken by Mr. Gerard in the article >which reported the ruling. He writes a monthly column, "Appeals: A New >View", in which he typically writes dissenting or alternative views of >either commonly accepted principles of bridge jurisprudence or the outcome >of actual cases. In the article originally cited (Roger: ACBL Bulletin, >October 2002, p.100), he approved of the result of the case, but argued >that the reasoning was too narrow -- that asking about the trump queen >should not in general be construed as deceptive, and that the initial MI >was not necessary to find no grounds for redress: "So the 'correct' way to >handle these cases is to let the result stand, unless there is clear >evidence that it was the asker's intent to deceive." So,as long as East claims that there was no intention to deceive, and that any play by declarer and any inference drawn by decalrer was completely due to declarer's failure to realise this, that's okay. Must remember that one. What is declarer supposed to do? Imagine that there is no intent to deceive? If this is the case, he must play West for the missing Queen, and Bingo! Score one trick to East. Am I being completely stupid, or does this give East carte blanche (as it were) to do this with complete impunity whenever he holds the Queen of Trumps? Provide he claims that his intention was not to deceive, and he's believed, then he's laughing. Even though he was being deceptive twice, once when he asked the question, once when he lied about it afterwards. And he's got away with it. I'm sure there are 'many bridge reasons' why East would want to know if declarer thought his dummy had the trump queen even when holding it himself. Many are convoluted, most ridiculous. A great many can be composed whilst waiting for the advent of the director. N/S had a responsibility to explain properly their system, which they failed to do. East has a deed of care, however, which is not dependent on the N/S failure to disclose: By gratuitously asking a question he was not entitled to ask to which a) he probably knew the answer anyway and b) planted a false impression suggests to me a sharp operator of the first order, who should be drummed out of the brownies forthwith... _________________________________________________________________ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 16 10:58:31 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:58:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021016115514.02690ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:21 16/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dlr: S >Vul: EW > >You, South hold: > >AJ85 >KQJT872 >86 >--- > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 4H >2C(1) 2S 3C 3S >4C Pass Pass ? > >(1) Insufficient, accepted by North. > >Your call. > >Scenario One: >This deal has occurred in Australia. >The ABF has not passed any special >regulation governing auctions after >an insufficient bid. What are your >logical alternatives? > >Scenario Two: >This deal has occurred in ACBL-land. >The ACBL has passed a regulation >prohibiting special partnership >agreements after an insufficient bid >from the opponents. You have no >explicit agreement with partner, as >you are playing with a visitor from >England. However, you have an >implicit agreement that partner's >sobriquet is "MadDog". What are >your remaining legal logical >alternatives in ACBL-land? AG : to cut a long story short, are you allowed to field partner's psyche ? I won't call this a classical position, but surely everything could have happened. I guess I'm allowed to pass, as I raised partner once and it didn't arise his interest. If partner has Kxxxxx spades and out, they are cold for 6C. The fact that partner has a strange sense of humor when bidding doesn't mean I have to push them to the slam (or merely game). Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 16 11:20:39 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:20:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: Message-ID: <3DAD3D77.4050506@skynet.be> Norman Scorbie wrote: >> to find no grounds for redress: "So the 'correct' way to handle these >> cases is to let the result stand, unless there is clear evidence that >> it was the asker's intent to deceive." > > > So,as long as East claims that there was no intention to deceive, and > that any play by declarer and any inference drawn by decalrer was > completely due to declarer's failure to realise this, that's okay. > > Must remember that one. What is declarer supposed to do? Imagine that > there is no intent to deceive? If this is the case, he must play West > for the missing Queen, and Bingo! Score one trick to East. > > Am I being completely stupid, or does this give East carte blanche (as > it were) to do this with complete impunity whenever he holds the Queen > of Trumps? Provide he claims that his intention was not to deceive, and > he's believed, then he's laughing. Even though he was being deceptive > twice, once when he asked the question, once when he lied about it > afterwards. And he's got away with it. > Yes it does give East carte blanche. But don't forget that this situation only comes about AFTER an infraction by declarer. If he would have simply said "5He=2KC without the queen of trumps", there is no deception possible. East should indeed have carte blanche, because if he has not, then the fact that he does not ask reveals that he might have the queen. And that is giving declarer an advantage arising from his own infraction. > I'm sure there are 'many bridge reasons' why East would want to know if > declarer thought his dummy had the trump queen even when holding it > himself. Many are convoluted, most ridiculous. A great many can be > composed whilst waiting for the advent of the director. > Indeed - but this is not an argument that east need use to cover up his deception. It is an argument that he must use to counter over-active directors who want to rule deception. It is they who claim that East has no demonstrable bridge reason for his question. That is simply not true. East does not want to know whether South has the queen or not, he wants to know whether north knows this. > N/S had a responsibility to explain properly their system, which they > failed to do. East has a deed of care, however, which is not dependent > on the N/S failure to disclose: By gratuitously asking a question he was > not entitled to ask to which a) he probably knew the answer anyway and > b) planted a false impression suggests to me a sharp operator of the > first order, who should be drummed out of the brownies forthwith... > Answered many times already. > _________________________________________________________________ > Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 16 11:47:16 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:47:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021016123409.0268c7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:08 16/10/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >Am I being completely stupid, or does this give East carte blanche (as it >were) to do this with complete impunity whenever he holds the Queen of >Trumps? Provide he claims that his intention was not to deceive, and he's >believed, then he's laughing. Even though he was being deceptive twice, >once when he asked the question, once when he lied about it afterwards. >And he's got away with it. > >I'm sure there are 'many bridge reasons' why East would want to know if >declarer thought his dummy had the trump queen even when holding it >himself. Many are convoluted, most ridiculous. A great many can be >composed whilst waiting for the advent of the director. AG : I can find one quite obvious reason : if declarer knows his side is missing the Queen, he won't be missing one Ace if he decides to play a slam. This is helpful to the defence. If he has no means to ask about the Queen, the inference is not valid. This is useful and not uncommon. >N/S had a responsibility to explain properly their system, which they >failed to do. East has a deed of care, however, which is not dependent on >the N/S failure to disclose: By gratuitously asking a question he was not >entitled to ask to which a) he probably knew the answer anyway and b) >planted a false impression suggests to me a sharp operator of the first >order, who should be drummed out of the brownies forthwith... AG : so the Rules are made for dealing with irregularities and aren't good weapons against cheats. Nihil novo sub sole. But to call East a cheat because he wanted to know if partner could still have an Ace is dangerous. Since asking is not an infraction per se, L72B1 doesn't apply. L73D2 doesn't mention asking. I wouldn't have any grounds to penalize East in any way, except the traditional way to deal with unlawful, potentially wilful, but difficult to detect, actions, like fielding psyches, leading OOT to provoke a cover, or dumping tricks : register the case and see if there is any pattern (ie if East asks every time the same question in a similar case, no problem ; if he asks only when holding the Queen, you have evidence against him). Best regards, Alain. >_________________________________________________________________ >Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! >http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 16 12:08:55 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 16 Oct 2002 04:08:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <161002289.14936@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >East should indeed have carte blanche, because if he has not, then the fact that he does not ask reveals that he might have the queen. And that is giving declarer an advantage arising from his own infraction. Herman, you really must get rid of the notion that it is OK to commit an infraction of your own in order to avoid damage from an infraction by an opponent. Also, you (and others) must get rid of the notion that anyone who has got the queen of trumps ever wants to know whether his opponents are in the middle of a bidding misunderstanding about that card. It never has, and it never will, make a blind bit of difference to the way anyone has ever defended a hand. Moreover, if it ever were to make a difference, that does not mean that you can ask questions about it. What it means is this: you ask for an explanation of 5H; you are told (wrongly) that it shows two aces; you misdefend as a consequence because you do not know whether or not one of your opponents thinks that the other one has got the queen of trumps. Now, if this fantastical sequence of events actually happens (can you ever imagine saying in cold blood "If only I'd known that he thought his partner had the queen of trumps when I had it all the time, I'd have defended differently?"), you call the tournament director and you say: "My opponents have explained their methods inadequately, and I feel that our side has been damaged as a result." But you do not commit an infraction of your own. Once more: Whatever your opponents do, you must behave correctly. You may ask questions at your turn to call. But these questions must conform to a prescribed format, must not amount to harassment, and above all must never be asked either for the purpose of communicating with partner or of deceiving an opponent. If, despite your best intentions, it is held that your question could have communicated with partner, or could have deceived an opponent, then you are subject to penalty and your score may be adjusted. Infractions committed by the opponents are *not* mitigating circumstances in judging infractions committed by your side. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 16 12:43:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:43:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <161002289.14936@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021016133341.02326390@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:08 16/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >Herman wrote: > > >East should indeed have carte blanche, because if he has not, >then the fact that he does not ask reveals that he might have >the queen. And that is giving declarer an advantage arising from >his own infraction. > >Herman, you really must get rid of the notion that it is OK to >commit an infraction of your own in order to avoid damage from >an infraction by an opponent. AG : the problem with your thesis, David, is that asking is not an infraction. Asking for the sake of deception is an infraction. Asking because you were'nt duly informed surely isn't. So, your last argument doesn't hold. You will only be able to call it an infraction if you prove there was no bridge reason to ask. Big if. >Also, you (and others) must get rid of the notion that anyone >who has got the queen of trumps ever wants to know whether his >opponents are in the middle of a bidding misunderstanding about >that card. It never has, and it never will, make a blind bit >of difference to the way anyone has ever defended a hand. AG : as I said it before, asking about the TQ may help you to detect whether your partner can possibly have an ace. If they play 'plus TQ' answers, and if they go all the way to 6, he cannot. If they have no means to know, he may. This is quite important, and surely a bridge reason. >Moreover, if it ever were to make a difference, that does not >mean that you can ask questions about it. What it means is this: >you ask for an explanation of 5H; you are told (wrongly) that >it shows two aces; you misdefend as a consequence because you >do not know whether or not one of your opponents thinks that >the other one has got the queen of trumps. Now, if this fantastical >sequence of events actually happens (can you ever imagine saying >in cold blood "If only I'd known that he thought his partner >had the queen of trumps when I had it all the time, I'd have >defended differently?") AG : as I said, it is possible : I could play partner for an Ace where it would be impossible given the opponents' system. But, rather than having to convince the TD that the cause was in the MI (you just admitted you wouldn't easily believe it), I'd prefer to ask a simple question. >, you call the tournament director and >you say: "My opponents have explained their methods inadequately, >and I feel that our side has been damaged as a result." But you >do not commit an infraction of your own. AG : once more, asking is *not* an infraction if you have any grounds to do it. Evan transmitting UI isn't. Only using it is. >Once more: > >Whatever your opponents do, you must behave correctly. > >You may ask questions at your turn to call. But these questions >must conform to a prescribed format AG : if it were so, you wouldn't ever be able to ask about a call that wasn't made. If your opponent has overcalled 1S, and you want to know whether he might have a second 5-carder, you are allowed to ask them 'do you play any 55 conventions, and if you do, what are the conditions ?' I guess this doesn't fit into a prescribed format, but it has to be allowed. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 16 13:10:33 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 16 Oct 2002 05:10:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <161002289.18633@webbox.com> Alain wrote: >AG : the problem with your thesis, David, is that asking is not an infraction. Of course it isn't. I have never said that it was. Asking "please explain the auction" or even "what is the meaning of five hearts?" is not an infraction. Asking questions in any other form may very well be an infraction, because it may convey information to partner or it may cause a false inference to be drawn by an opponent. >Asking for the sake of deception is an infraction. Certainly it is, and a serious one. But so is asking in a manner that might deceive, even though to deceive was not your intention. > Asking because you weren't duly informed surely isn't. The problem with your thesis is that you are using the word "asking" on two different levels. You have the right to ask "What does five hearts mean?" But you do not have the right to ask: "What in the hell does five hearts mean, you miserable excuse for a misbegotten toad?" because it is an infraction to do anything that might cause offence. Similarly, it is an infraction to ask: "Does five hearts deny the queen of hearts?" >So, your last argument doesn't hold. Yes, it does. Your arguments, like Herman's, do not hold, both because you confuse the levels on which you use your terms, and because you have an understandable but wholly irrational belief that if you have been offended against, you may in turn offend (the "Robin Hood" syndrome to which I have referred). >You will only be able to call it an infraction if you prove there was no bridge reason to ask. No, I won't. You may ask questions. But you may ask questions only of a certain type, and that type can be categorised by the word "neutral". You may not ask questions that offend, or questions that inform, or questions that deceive. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 16 13:35:09 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:35:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <4A256C53.007405F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021016082606.00b60100@pop.starpower.net> At 05:21 PM 10/15/02, richard.hills wrote: >Imps >Dlr: S >Vul: EW > >You, South hold: > >AJ85 >KQJT872 >86 >--- > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 4H >2C(1) 2S 3C 3S >4C Pass Pass ? > >(1) Insufficient, accepted by North. > >Your call. > >Scenario One: >This deal has occurred in Australia. >The ABF has not passed any special >regulation governing auctions after >an insufficient bid. What are your >logical alternatives? > >Scenario Two: >This deal has occurred in ACBL-land. >The ACBL has passed a regulation >prohibiting special partnership >agreements after an insufficient bid >from the opponents. You have no >explicit agreement with partner, as >you are playing with a visitor from >England. However, you have an >implicit agreement that partner's >sobriquet is "MadDog". What are >your remaining legal logical >alternatives in ACBL-land? Same as in Australia. The ACBL forbids explicit or implicit(*) agreements regarding actions over insufficient bids, but even the ACBL's atypically broad interpretation of "implicit agreement" won't stretch to cover Richard's scenario. Bid whatever you like. (*) I argue that the inclusion of implicit agreements gives rise to logical contradictions that make the rule absurd, but that subject is for another thread. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 16 13:47:33 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:47:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question (was Stop Card) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021016084027.00abb430@pop.starpower.net> At 01:00 AM 10/16/02, Ed wrote: >On 10/14/02, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >fwiw I gleaned the following passage from the 1963 FLB: > > > >"Conventional calls or plays should be explained to the opponents > >before any player has looked at his cards." > >Interesting. I wasn't playing bridge in 1963 (though I did play some >rubber in college ca 65 and later), so I don't know how well this >actually worked then, but I daresay it would hardly work at all today. >Unless you want to allow a couple of hours per round. It made very little difference, at least in ACBL-land. The ACBL's interpretation was that the law was satisfied by having a properly completed convention card. Questions were permitted; indeed, the state of jurisprudence at the time was far more tolerant of questions we would regard as suspect today. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Oct 16 14:01:54 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:01:54 UT Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <20021016130154.4220C2FD19@server3.fastmail.fm> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:58:47 +0200, "Herman De Wael" said: > How come nobody is asking what 2C meant ? > I know I am not entitled to know why he made the IC (did he not notice > my opening or is he thinking that 2>4 ?) but I'd still like to know > what their opening bid of 2C means. > After all, on this depend the reason for my partner accepting. If 2C > is natural (I doubt it) he could be defending against a change to 5C. > If it is strong, he might just be showing a very light, long suit, > and 6C is cold. But then why the strange 4C bid, which cannot be > forcing by any means. > I'm wondering why he was given the chance to bid 4C. That is what I would have bid on the previous round. -- Dave Kent > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Imps > > Dlr: S > > Vul: EW > > > > You, South hold: > > > > AJ85 > > KQJT872 > > 86 > > --- > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 4H > > 2C(1) 2S 3C 3S > > 4C Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) Insufficient, accepted by North. > > > > Your call. -- http://fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Oct 16 14:04:31 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:04:31 UT Subject: FW: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <20021016130431.6F6C42FD1A@server3.fastmail.fm> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:05:02 +0200, "J=FCrgen Rennenkampff" said: >=20 >=20 > [...] > > > > I checked the ACBL web site, and the only regulation I could find > > dealing with this is: >=20 > Congratulations! I can't find this even knowing it must be somewhere. > I do find lots of dead links and no search mechanism. Check out: http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm --=20 Dave Kent--=20 http://fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own From ogan@fas.harvard.edu Wed Oct 16 15:53:46 2002 From: ogan@fas.harvard.edu (ogan@fas.harvard.edu) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:53:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: The Kaplan Question In-Reply-To: <20021016090903.8388.84925.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20021016090903.8388.84925.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1034780026.3dad7d7a8e9bd@webmail.fas.harvard.edu> > I'm sure there are 'many bridge reasons' why East would want to know if > declarer thought his dummy had the trump queen even when holding it himself. > > Many are convoluted, most ridiculous. A great many can be composed whilst > waiting for the advent of the director. I'm pretty new to serious bridge, but this situation has confused me since I started. The idea that there can be something wrong with asking what opps' bidding has shown, no matter what I'm holding, could ever be wrong makes no sense to me. Is it "convoluted" or "ridiculous" to want to try to reconstruct declarer's hand based on all available information from the bidding? I just don't understand the argument. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 16 17:10:35 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 16 Oct 2002 09:10:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: <161002289.33035@webbox.com> ogan@fas.harvard.edu (apologies for referring to you in this somewhat impersonal fashion, but I'm afraid I don't know who you are) wrote: >I'm pretty new to serious bridge, but this situation has confused me since I started. The idea that there can be something wrong with asking what opps' bidding has shown, no matter what I'm holding, could ever be wrong makes no sense to me. I can understand that. It is a fundamental assumption in the Laws that information possessed by the opponents should be available in equal measure to you. Since you don't play their methods, the only ways in which this information can be made available to you are: they write it all down beforehand and you commit it to memory; or they impart it to you as the need arises at the table. Of these, the latter is considered the more practical in most situations. But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence is illegal communication with partner. Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices, something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the gravest possible offence", then anything that might be used as a means of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not allowed to transmit information to partner by means of questions. Also, you are not allowed to deceive the opponents except by a call or play (or, more strictly, if you do deceive your opponents in such a manner, redress may be given them). Hence, you are not allowed to deceive an opponent by means of questions - whether you do so wittingly or not. Because of these conflicts between rules, a compromise is generally reached: you may do anything to obtain knowledge of the enemy methods, provided that it does not: convey information to partner; deceive an opponent; cause offence; unduly prolong the game; or any one of a lot of other things that you're not allowed to do. Now, the opponents are supposed to respond fully and accurately to questions properly phrased. If they conceal information from you, as by giving wrong or incomplete answers to questions, then they have offended and they are subject to penalty; moreover, damage done you by their offence is redressed. But nowhere in the Laws is there any support whatsoever for what we will call the Gottcheiner Assumption, which is that if they break the rules by not telling you their methods, some immunity is thereby conferred on you for breaking the rules by asking misleading questions. It is not. >Is it "convoluted" or "ridiculous" to want to try to reconstruct declarer's hand based on all available information from the bidding? No. But some information may, through no fault of your own, not become available to you. It is an imperfect world, and as I have said, there are principles in conflict here. If you do not have enough information through your opponents' fault, and you are damaged thereby, then you may seek and will usually be given redress. But you may not seek further information except by means of questions that do not communicate with partner and do not deceive an opponent. It really is every bit as simple as that, and I am getting a bit weary of pointing this out. Whoever you are, ogan@fas, I am glad that you are among us, but I fear that after a while, you may find yourself echoing the words of the immortal Yogi Berra: "It's deja vu all over again". > I just don't understand the argument. Then the chairmanship of the Laws Commission of any major country is yours for the asking, provided that you can also show that you don't understand several others. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 16 18:01:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <161002289.33035@webbox.com> DALB wrote: > >I'm pretty new to serious bridge, but this situation has confused > me since I started. The idea that there can be something wrong > with asking what opps' bidding has shown, no matter what I'm > holding, could ever be wrong makes no > sense to me. > > I can understand that. It is a fundamental assumption in the > Laws that information possessed by the opponents should be available > in equal measure to you. Since you don't play their methods, > the only ways in which this information can be made available > to you are: they write it all down beforehand and you commit > it to memory; or they impart it to you as the need arises at > the table. Of these, the latter is considered the more practical > in most situations. > > But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; > among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence > is illegal communication with partner. Somehow the word "prearranged" has gone missing from this presumption. Don't tell me - hyperbole again. If you wish to analyse semantics then you should be comparing the "must" and "shall" of Laws 75A/C with the "shall not" and "may not" of of Laws 73b1 and L73d2. The Scope would seem to indicate that in case of conflict the "must" should prevail. That seems reasonable. If my opponents place me in a position where I cannot obtain proper disclosure through a neutral question then I have to ask a non-neutral one (or call a TD to the same effect). This is unfortunate but should be extremely rare. Tim From David Stevenson Wed Oct 16 17:40:54 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:40:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] L62B2 In-Reply-To: <004901c27492$4fbf9cc0$674ff9c1@olivier> References: <000101c27482$b5646020$cd9637d2@Desktop> <004901c27492$4fbf9cc0$674ff9c1@olivier> Message-ID: Olivier Beauvillain writes >right, >bad luck, >try to pick a partner who follow suit next time, Belladonna? This sounds like the Belladonna case to me! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 16 17:36:51 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:36:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <3DAD0B8C.50708@skynet.be> References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> <000201c27475$b3fa0da0$58ed193e@4nrw70j> <3DAD0B8C.50708@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >I am not clear what Grattan is saying here, and whatever it is, he is >wrong. That has really made my day! I love it! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Wally.Farley@hp.com Wed Oct 16 20:10:02 2002 From: Wally.Farley@hp.com (Farley, Wally) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:10:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED2@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> David Burn wrote: > Of course it isn't. I have never said that it was. Asking "please > explain the auction" or even "what is the meaning of five hearts?" > is not an infraction. Asking questions in any other form may > very well be an infraction, because it may convey information > to partner or it may cause a false inference to be drawn by an > opponent. David has made the case for disallowing the question "Does it show the queen of hearts?" when the asker holds that card. By the same argument, the question must be disallowed if the asker does *not* hold the card, lest partner be forced to alert and explain "Denies=20 the Queen of Hearts". I am severely uncomfortable with the situation=20 where an incomplete explanation must be left alone; repeating "Is=20 that *all* that 5H showed?" is likely to fall afoul of L74A2. I'm unhappy that the only remaining possibility is to call the director, but it seems that is where this discussion is headed. I am particularly unhappy that someone who had to squeeze a complete explanation out of his opponent was labelled a cheat. --=20 Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From rjfs48u@comcast.net Wed Oct 16 20:51:06 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:51:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cats References: <3DAD0C6F.6020903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008b01c2754d$5e9a5760$6601a8c0@james> One of my favourites as well (author, novel and subject). It's amazing how frequently classic science fiction references pop up in these discusssions. Does that say anything about the way we bid? Craig Senior (still lurking...just busy as a one armed paper hanger) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cats > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Nanki-Poo's listing brings to mind a small thing I learned recently. It > > seems that Robert Heinlein once (ca. 1950, iirc) wrote a novel involving > > time travel and a cat named Petronius the Arbiter. He was searching for > > a title (it was winter in Colorado) when one day he noted that his cat > > kept running to see what was on the other side of every exterior door in > > the house whenever one was opened. Mrs. Heinlein remarked "he's looking > > for the Door Into Summer," and thus the title was found. :-) > > > > > Actually one of my favourite books. I never made the connection > "arbiter" though. Let's make Petronius the patron cat of blml. > > (arbiter is the actual word used in Flanders to call the director) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk@ripe.net Wed Oct 16 21:18:21 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:18:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Cats In-Reply-To: <008b01c2754d$5e9a5760$6601a8c0@james> Message-ID: > > > Nanki-Poo's listing brings to mind a small thing I learned recently. It > > > seems that Robert Heinlein once (ca. 1950, iirc) wrote a novel involving > > > time travel and a cat named Petronius the Arbiter. He was searching for > > > a title (it was winter in Colorado) when one day he noted that his cat > > > kept running to see what was on the other side of every exterior door in > > > the house whenever one was opened. Mrs. Heinlein remarked "he's looking > > > for the Door Into Summer," and thus the title was found. :-) > > > > > > > > > Actually one of my favourite books. I never made the connection > > "arbiter" though. Let's make Petronius the patron cat of blml. Sure, and from this evening onwards, he can be reached at "petronius@rtlfb.org". Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From aplsi@starpower.net Wed Oct 16 22:13:57 2002 From: aplsi@starpower.net (APL Solutions Inc. (Eric Landau)) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:13:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021016164107.00b50a70@pop.starpower.net> At 05:08 AM 10/16/02, Norman wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >> >>BTW, this was, in fact, the position taken by Mr. Gerard in the >>article which reported the ruling. He writes a monthly column, >>"Appeals: A New View", in which he typically writes dissenting or >>alternative views of either commonly accepted principles of bridge >>jurisprudence or the outcome of actual cases. In the article >>originally cited (Roger: ACBL Bulletin, October 2002, p.100), he >>approved of the result of the case, but argued that the reasoning was >>too narrow -- that asking about the trump queen should not in general >>be construed as deceptive, and that the initial MI was not necessary >>to find no grounds for redress: "So the 'correct' way to handle >>these cases is to let the result stand, unless there is clear >>evidence that it was the asker's intent to deceive." > >So,as long as East claims that there was no intention to deceive, and >that any play by declarer and any inference drawn by decalrer was >completely due to declarer's failure to realise this, that's okay. > >Must remember that one. What is declarer supposed to do? Imagine that >there is no intent to deceive? If this is the case, he must play West >for the missing Queen, and Bingo! Score one trick to East. > >Am I being completely stupid, or does this give East carte blanche >(as it were) to do this with complete impunity whenever he holds the >Queen of Trumps? Provide he claims that his intention was not to >deceive, and he's believed, then he's laughing. Even though he was >being deceptive twice, once when he asked the question, once when he >lied about it afterwards. And he's got away with it. That is Mr. Gerard's position; it is not mine. But if it were accepted, it would be far from the only situation where the law is written so that a player who commits an infraction can get away with it if he is willing to lie about it outright and can do so believably. After reading the discussion, I'm leaning towards joining Herman's camp. East does not get carte blanche whenever he holds the queen of trump. East gets carte blanche when an opponent makes a call that, by partnership agreement, says something about the queen of trumps, he asks appropriately for an explanation, and the explanation fails to mention the queen of trumps -- whether or not he holds it. Because if we follow the Burn/Stevenson/Scorbie view, which says that he may not do this ("with complete impunity") when he holds the queen, he'd better not do it ever, lest he allow his opponent's infraction to reveal the location of the queen. Which is unsatisfactory, as even Burn/Stevenson/Scorbie are prepared to admit that he may have a valid bridge reason for needing to know when he doesn't hold the queen. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. aplsi@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cfgcs@eiu.edu Wed Oct 16 22:15:02 2002 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:15:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Bugbear Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20021016161133.00a8a9e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> I just got another message with the Bugbear worm attached. The message purported to be from Craig Senior, the address was fictitious (), and it came directly to me and not through the list, as best I can determine. The subject read "Re: Lying at the Bridge Table". The content said: In a team game it would seem that an IMP penalty would be to your benefit as well as to his detriment. Are you perhaps suggesting a penalty in VP's for his side? Craig Senior Are others still getting this regularly? Just in case this helps someone, Grant From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 16 23:29:19 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:29:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> <000201c27475$b3fa0da0$58ed193e@4nrw70j> <3DAD0B8C.50708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005601c27565$e758d320$63e6193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > Herman De Wael writes > > >I am not clear what Grattan is saying here, and > >whatever it is, he is wrong. > > That has really made my day! I love it! > -- > David Stevenson > +=+ Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 16 23:40:21 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:40:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED2@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> Message-ID: <005701c27565$e8223da0$63e6193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:10 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The Kaplan question I am particularly unhappy that someone who had to squeeze a complete explanation out of his opponent was labelled a cheat. > +=+ What was the necessity? Why did he need the information? There may have been no intent to cheat, but this does not constitute a defence if opponent is misled by a question asked unnecessarily or if it is deemed the question was put for partner's benefit. +=+ From Wally.Farley@hp.com Thu Oct 17 00:32:24 2002 From: Wally.Farley@hp.com (Farley, Wally) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:32:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED3@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: +=3D+ What was the necessity? Why did he need the information? There may have been no intent to cheat, but this does not constitute a defence if opponent is misled by a question asked unnecessarily or if it is deemed the question was put for partner's benefit. +=3D+ The opponent is certainly not blameless. I feel that the opponent who practically had to have teeth pulled to provide what was the defenders' *right*, a complete meaning of=20 the [particular bid in the] auction, was basically setting up an=20 Alcatraz Coup in the bidding. When either defender asks about the queen of hearts, he now has a 100% shot to finesse the other for the queen; if he gets it wrong, he gets it back in committee. Others have pointed out that the question of whether he knows that his partner does not have the queen may well be sufficient to the defense for them to find a missing ace, or to surmise they are all accounted for if he continues to slam. --=20 Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 17 01:29:51 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:29:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] Another Bugbear References: <5.1.0.14.1.20021016161133.00a8a9e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <004d01c27574$c6aedd40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> I just got it also, picked up and quarantined by Norton Anti-Virus - Marv > I just got another message with the Bugbear > worm attached. The message purported to be from Craig > Senior, the address was fictitious (), > and it came directly to me and not through the list, > as best I can determine. > The subject read "Re: Lying at the Bridge Table". > The content said: > > In a team game it would seem that an IMP penalty would be to your benefit > as well as to his detriment. Are you perhaps suggesting a penalty in VP's > for his side? > > Craig Senior > > Are others still getting this regularly? > Just in case this helps someone, > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 01:36:37 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 01:36:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED2@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> <005701c27565$e8223da0$63e6193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001001c27575$40df61c0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Wally wrote: > I am particularly unhappy that someone who had to squeeze a > complete explanation out of his opponent was labelled a cheat. He didn't "have to". All he had to do, all he should have done, was ask his opponents what their bidding meant. If they lied to him, and if he misdefended in consequence, avenues for redress were wide open to him. It's really got nothing to do with "justifiable bridge reason", though in the current climate I can accept the argument of a man who says: "The WBF expects me to protect myself, so I had better make sure that I do so by asking any relevant question." This is another one of those conflicts that I was talking about when I responded to ogan's message, and one that I confess I have not (because it would not have supported my arguments) considered until now. Neither has anybody else, which surprises me. This is not, however, because I do not believe that the conflict exists. It does, and I can understand players being wary of it and being confused by it. The Laws create these conflicts and do nothing to resolve them - that much is true, and that is why there is something to discuss. But the main point is this: you do not have to ask your opponents any more than you need to know; and - however great your need to know something, and however great your suspicion that the opponents have not in fact told you the truth - you *may not* ask your opponents anything that might fool them or tell partner anything that he did not know before you asked. If the opponents do not tell you what they know and you might need to know, when they should have told you, then they have misinformed you; the penalties and liability for score adjustment arising from misinformation are well understood. What Wally says above is what Herman and Alain and others have said before. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the duties of players and the functions of the Laws. Your duty at the table is never to "squeeze an explanation" out of your opponents. If they don't give you a full and accurate explanation when you ask at your proper turn, by means of properly constituted questions, for an explanation, then you may claim redress for any ensuing damage. What you may never do is ask improperly constituted questions. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 01:51:48 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 01:51:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED2@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> Message-ID: <001f01c27577$5f9bcfc0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Wally wrote: >David has made the case for disallowing the question "Does it show the queen of hearts?" when the asker holds that card. By the same argument, the question must be disallowed if the asker does *not* hold the card By George, he's got it! If the opponents' explanations neither vouchsafe nor deny possession of the queen of hearts, then if you misdefend because you do not know who has the queen of hearts, you may be entitled to redress. What you may not do is go blethering on about the queen of hearts when (a) you have it or (b) you do not. It is not for you to demonstrate that you know the opponents' methods better than they do; the only reason other than pure deception that the asker might have for enquiring about the queen of hearts when he had it himself is that he wanted to make his opponents feel uncomfortable about not giving him the correct explanation when they should have done. This is not, in my humble submission, a "demonstrable bridge reason". >I am particularly unhappy that someone who had to squeeze a complete explanation out of his opponent was labelled a cheat. And I am not especially enchanted with the notion that someone who asked where the queen of hearts could be when he knew very well where it was might not be labelled a cheat. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 02:13:17 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 02:13:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: Message-ID: <002801c2757a$60239600$213a23d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > Somehow the word "prearranged" has gone missing from this presumption. > Don't tell me - hyperbole again. It's all right. I have long ago realised the futility of attempting to tell you anything. > If you wish to analyse semantics then you should be comparing the > "must" and "shall" of Laws 75A/C with the "shall not" and "may not" of > of Laws 73b1 and L73d2. Well, "may not" is just short of "must not", so that if it were a question of weighing in the balance, law 75 would just be heavier. However... > The Scope would seem to indicate that in case of conflict the "must" > should prevail. That seems reasonable. Seems, Madam? Nay, it is. I know not "seems". > If my opponents place me in a > position where I cannot obtain proper disclosure through a neutral > question then I have to ask a non-neutral one No, you don't. It is not for you to enforce the Laws. If the opponents place you in a position where you cannot obtain proper disclosure, then you accept their improper disclosure and, if you have been damaged thereby, you obtain redress. You do not have to break the Laws regarding illegal communication, or deception by means other than a call or play, just because you think that the opponents have broken the Laws regarding disclosure of methods. They may not disclose their methods less than fully. But you may not ask non-neutral questions, and their failure in no way excuses yours. This is so obvious that I really find it impossible to believe that there can be any doubt about it at all. And yet... David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 03:53:48 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 03:53:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021016164107.00b50a70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006d01c27588$6ad15160$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > Which is unsatisfactory, as even > Burn/Stevenson/Scorbie are prepared to admit that he may have a valid > bridge reason for needing to know when he doesn't hold the queen. Whatever Stevenson and Scorbie are prepared to admit (and I should say that they make a welcome if surprising backing group), I do not think that my most recent comment supports Eric's view. All I said was: Also, you (and others) must get rid of the notion that anyone who has got the queen of trumps ever wants to know whether his opponents are in the middle of a bidding misunderstanding about that card. It never has, and it never will, make a blind bit of difference to the way anyone has ever defended a hand. which I think is tantamount to the view that no defender could possibly have a valid bridge reason for wanting to know who had the queen of trumps, even if this no one had it himself. Nobody except declarer ever cares a hoot about who has got the queen of trumps. I have read in this thread a number of arguments to the effect that if you have got the queen of trumps and you think that declarer might think that his partner has got the queen of trumps, then you might ask about the queen of trumps in order to do... well, something other than you might have done otherwise, though it is never entirely clear what. Someone advanced the argument that the likelihood of partner's having an ace was increased (or decreased, I cannot remember) if the opponents claimed to have the queen of trumps when you had it yourself. I do not think it unfair to say that these arguments have been advanced by people who are to bridge what Einstein was to water polo. The great physicist knew that water polo existed, though he did not know why. He was better equipped than water polo players to understand the laws that governed the motion of a water polo ball. But nobody ever gave him some swimming trunks and invited him to keep goal. If it ever happened that someone said: "I asked them everything I could ask them under David Burn's version of the Laws. They still didn't tell me what they knew about the queen of trumps, and purely because of that, I did the wrong thing in defence", then I would expect him to be given redress, as would we all. Wouldn't we? If so, wherein lies our difficulty? David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 17 07:34:21 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:34:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <4A256C55.0022C8AE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In my original post, I wrote: >>>Imps >>>Dlr: S >>>Vul: EW >>> >>>You, South hold: >>> >>>AJ85 >>>KQJT872 >>>86 >>>--- >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> 4H >>>2C(1) 2S 3C 3S >>>4C Pass Pass ? >>> >>>(1) Insufficient, accepted by North. >>> >>>Your call. [snip] Herman De Wael asked: >>How come nobody is asking what 2C meant ? >> >>I know I am not entitled to know why he made >>the IC (did he not notice my opening or is he >>thinking that 2>4 ?) but I'd still like to know >>what their opening bid of 2C means. >> >>After all, on this depend the reason for my >>partner accepting. If 2C is natural (I doubt it) >>he could be defending against a change to 5C. >> >>If it is strong, he might just be showing a very >>light, long suit, and 6C is cold. But then why >>the strange 4C bid, which cannot be forcing by >>any means. If West thought that South had opened Pass, then West's 2C would mean strong and artificial. If West thought that South had opened 1H, then West's 2C would mean a normal overcall. My original post continued: [snip] >>>However, you have an implicit agreement >>>that partner's sobriquet is "MadDog". >>>What are your remaining legal logical >>>alternatives in ACBL-land? Alain deduced: >AG : to cut a long story short, are you allowed >to field partner's psyche ? > >I won't call this a classical position, but surely >everything could have happened. I guess I'm allowed >to pass, as I raised partner once and it didn't >arise his interest. If partner has Kxxxxx spades >and out, they are cold for 6C. The fact that >partner has a strange sense of humor when bidding >doesn't mean I have to push them to the slam (or >merely game). Yes, at the table I was North, and the opponents were cold for 6C. Because pard knew of my penchant for tactical bidding, pard ethically rebid 4H rather than fielding my psyche with a Pass. Virtue was rewarded when the confused opponents let pard play in 4H, for which pard scored up 10 tricks opposite my North hand: KQxx x xxxx xxxx :-) Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 17 08:22:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:22:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <111002284.12609@webbox.com> <3DA6BA2C.1050500@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021014160624.00b695e0@pop.starpower.net> <000201c27475$b3fa0da0$58ed193e@4nrw70j> <3DAD0B8C.50708@skynet.be> <005601c27565$e758d320$63e6193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3DAE6546.3020305@skynet.be> grandeval wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > >>Herman De Wael writes >> >> >>>I am not clear what Grattan is saying here, and >>>whatever it is, he is wrong. >>> >> That has really made my day! I love it! >>-- >>David Stevenson >> >> > +=+ Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? +=+ > No, two of them ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 17 08:13:02 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:13:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED3@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> Message-ID: <007201c275b1$2cf4ff30$6583403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 12:32 AM Subject: RE: [blml] The Kaplan question I feel that the opponent who practically had to have teeth pulled to provide what was the defenders' *right*, a complete meaning of the [particular bid in the] auction, was basically setting up an Alcatraz Coup in the bidding. When either defender asks about the queen of hearts, he now has a 100% shot to finesse the other for the queen; if he gets it wrong, he gets it back in committee. +=+ He was creating a situation in which he would concede score adjustment if opponents went wrong because they had not been given essential information. +=+ Others have pointed out that the question of whether he knows that his partner does not have the queen may well be sufficient to the defense for them to find a missing ace, or to surmise they are all accounted for if he continues to slam. +=+ A defender who holds the Q has the information and does not need to ask. It is grossly improper for him to ask to ensure his partner will know. If he does ask with this intention, partner is precluded by law from using the information in the opponent's reply. The Director may conclude the information was not for the player's own benefit when he observes the possession of the Q. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 17 08:43:07 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:43:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021016164107.00b50a70@pop.starpower.net> <006d01c27588$6ad15160$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <007301c275b1$2e217140$6583403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "APL Solutions Inc. (Eric Landau)" Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > I do not think it unfair to say that these arguments > have been advanced by people who are to bridge > what Einstein was to water polo. The great physicist > knew that water polo existed, though he did not > know why. He was better equipped than water polo > players to understand the laws that governed the > motion of a water polo ball. But nobody ever gave > him some swimming trunks and invited him to keep > goal. > +=+ Einstein, of course, would have researched the rules and proprieties of the game before he wrote a thesis on their observance. This, perhaps, is what your doubters, David, are doing here; if so it seems they do not like the answers when given them. Someone muttered something about asking when you have the Q in order to lay the groundwork for the occasion when you ask not having it. On each separate occasion that a question is asked it may be deemed to convey UI to partner (and a misleading inference to opponent) regardless of history, because on each occasion you ask it is a natural supposition that you are seeking the information for which you ask. ~ G ~ +=+ From David.Barton@cwcom.net Thu Oct 17 09:08:11 2002 From: David.Barton@cwcom.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:08:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021016164107.00b50a70@pop.starpower.net> <006d01c27588$6ad15160$213a23d9@pbncomputer> <007301c275b1$2e217140$6583403e@endicott> Message-ID: <000601c275b4$5891abe0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> > Someone muttered something about asking when > you have the Q in order to lay the groundwork for the > occasion when you ask not having it. On each separate > occasion that a question is asked it may be deemed > to convey UI to partner (and a misleading inference to > opponent) regardless of history, because on each > occasion you ask it is a natural supposition that you > are seeking the information for which you ask. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Presumably then if a player without the Q asks and then subsequently declarer "guesses" correctly the defending side should automatically receive a score adjustment. Worth knowing!!!! David.Barton@cwcom.net From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 17 09:26:17 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:26:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED3@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> <007201c275b1$2cf4ff30$6583403e@endicott> Message-ID: <004f01c275b6$ddac9d10$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Grattan Endicott" > I feel that the opponent who practically had to have teeth pulled > to provide what was the defenders' *right*, a complete meaning of > the [particular bid in the] auction, was basically setting up an > Alcatraz Coup in the bidding. When either defender asks about > the queen of hearts, he now has a 100% shot to finesse the other > for the queen; if he gets it wrong, he gets it back in committee. > > +=+ He was creating a situation in which he would concede > score adjustment if opponents went wrong because they had > not been given essential information. +=+ > > Others have pointed out that the question of whether he knows that > his partner does not have the queen may well be sufficient to the > defense for them to find a missing ace, or to surmise they are all > accounted for if he continues to slam. > > +=+ A defender who holds the Q has the information and > does not need to ask. It is grossly improper for him to ask > to ensure his partner will know. If he does ask with this > intention, partner is precluded by law from using the > information in the opponent's reply. The Director may > conclude the information was not for the player's own > benefit when he observes the possession of the Q. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The moment you start asking (or not asking) specific questions it is very difficult to avoid giving partner UI. There is however a "fail safe" question which will give you every "right" in the world without any risk: "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" That calls for a complete description on everything that has been "announced" by the auction, and it is the explaining side's pity if afterwards it should appear that they have "forgotten" some detail which shows up to having been essential. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 17 09:13:56 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:13:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <005701c27565$e8223da0$63e6193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On 10/16/02, Grattan wrote: >+=+ What was the necessity? Why did he need the information? > There may have been no intent to cheat, but this does not > constitute a defence if opponent is misled by a question > asked unnecessarily or if it is deemed the question was > put for partner's benefit. +=+ It seems to me that the operative definition of "cheat" in a game context is "to break the rules in a game, examination, or contest, in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage" (Encarta Dictionary). That being the case, while it is certainly true that a player might find a director ruling against him if his opponent is misled by his question, that hardly makes the player a cheat. From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Oct 17 10:04:22 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:04:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED3@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> <007201c275b1$2cf4ff30$6583403e@endicott> Message-ID: <009101c275bc$6aec07b0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- > I feel that the opponent who practically had to have teeth pulled > to provide what was the defenders' *right*, a complete meaning of > the [particular bid in the] auction, was basically setting up an > Alcatraz Coup in the bidding. When either defender asks about > the queen of hearts, he now has a 100% shot to finesse the other > for the queen; if he gets it wrong, he gets it back in committee. > > +=+ He was creating a situation in which he would concede > score adjustment if opponents went wrong because they had > not been given essential information. +=+ > David Barton already asked this question but I'll try once more: does it mean that if a) declarer mentions nothing about the Q of trumps in his explanations b) a defender asks "with the queen of trumps or without" c) declarer successfully finesses the defender's partner for the queen will the defenders get redress? I have yet to see a TD who will adjust in these circumstances. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kandydatka nr 21... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f166d From David Stevenson Thu Oct 17 00:49:46 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:49:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Bugbear In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20021016161133.00a8a9e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20021016161133.00a8a9e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: Grant Sterling writes > I just got another message with the Bugbear >worm attached. The message purported to be from Craig >Senior, the address was fictitious (), >and it came directly to me and not through the list, >as best I can determine. > The subject read "Re: Lying at the Bridge Table". > The content said: > >In a team game it would seem that an IMP penalty would be to your benefit >as well as to his detriment. Are you perhaps suggesting a penalty in VP's >for his side? > >Craig Senior > > Are others still getting this regularly? > Just in case this helps someone, Nanki Poo just got the same. Yep, I am getting them regularly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 11:09:07 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 17 Oct 2002 03:09:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <171002290.11348@webbox.com> Konrad wrote: >David Barton already asked this question but I'll try once more: does it mean that if >a) declarer mentions nothing about the Q of trumps in his explanations >b) a defender asks "with the queen of trumps or without" >c) declarer successfully finesses the defender's partner for the queen >will the defenders get redress? No. >I have yet to see a TD who will adjust in these circumstances. Quite so. TDs who understand the rules are not all that easy to find. David Burn London, England From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Oct 17 11:45:33 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:45:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <171002290.11348@webbox.com> Message-ID: <00a301c275ca$53b8aa90$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > > Konrad wrote: > > >David Barton already asked this question but I'll try once more: > does it mean that if > > >a) declarer mentions nothing about the Q of trumps in his explanations > >b) a defender asks "with the queen of trumps or without" > >c) declarer successfully finesses the defender's partner for > the queen > > >will the defenders get redress? > > No. > Then it means that when DB is directing it pays off not to tell your opponents your full agreements just to see if the defender who asks questions is going to ask "with queen" or not. Then one has a 100% play to fing that card (either you find it or get redress). Only a villain would do that? Of course - but why should he get away with that? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kandydatka nr 21... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f166d From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 13:12:34 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 17 Oct 2002 05:12:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <171002290.18754@webbox.com> Konrad wrote: >Then it means that when DB is directing it pays off not to tell your opponents your full agreements just to see if the defender who asks questions is going to ask "with queen" or not. Then one has a 100% play to find that card (either you find it or get redress). >Only a villain would do that? Of course - but why should he get away with that? Because his opponents have committed an infraction. They have asked a question that is not proper; if he draws an inference from that, he is entitled to redress if that inference proves false. I suppose that, just as the Robin Hood syndrome leads Herman and Alain to think irrational thoughts, so our revulsion at the concept of entrapment and the actions of the agent provocateur lead us to think that if a player is seduced by his opponent into asking a whole series of questions, he should not be held liable if those questions break the rules. I can sympathise with these arguments. Despite what Tim West-Meads thinks, I am as human as the rest of you. But the plain and simple fact is this: no matter what your provocation, you must not break the rules. If your properly asked questions do not receive full and accurate answers, your remedy - and your only remedy - is to seek redress for damage done. You do not have the option of asking improper questions just because the proper ones don't seem to be working. And if you damage your own side's interests by asking such questions, you must suffer the consequences. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 17 13:18:35 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:18:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <161002289.14936@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021017075303.00b5e4c0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:08 AM 10/16/02, David wrote: >Herman wrote: > > >East should indeed have carte blanche, because if he has not, >then the fact that he does not ask reveals that he might have >the queen. And that is giving declarer an advantage arising from >his own infraction. > >Herman, you really must get rid of the notion that it is OK to >commit an infraction of your own in order to avoid damage from >an infraction by an opponent. > >Also, you (and others) must get rid of the notion that anyone >who has got the queen of trumps ever wants to know whether his >opponents are in the middle of a bidding misunderstanding about >that card. It never has, and it never will, make a blind bit >of difference to the way anyone has ever defended a hand. > >Moreover, if it ever were to make a difference, that does not >mean that you can ask questions about it. What it means is this: >you ask for an explanation of 5H; you are told (wrongly) that >it shows two aces; you misdefend as a consequence because you >do not know whether or not one of your opponents thinks that >the other one has got the queen of trumps. Now, if this fantastical >sequence of events actually happens (can you ever imagine saying >in cold blood "If only I'd known that he thought his partner >had the queen of trumps when I had it all the time, I'd have >defended differently?"), you call the tournament director and >you say: "My opponents have explained their methods inadequately, >and I feel that our side has been damaged as a result." But you >do not commit an infraction of your own. > >Once more: > >Whatever your opponents do, you must behave correctly. > >You may ask questions at your turn to call. But these questions >must conform to a prescribed format, must not amount to harassment, >and above all must never be asked either for the purpose of communicating >with partner or of deceiving an opponent. > >If, despite your best intentions, it is held that your question >could have communicated with partner, or could have deceived >an opponent, then you are subject to penalty and your score may >be adjusted. Infractions committed by the opponents are *not* >mitigating circumstances in judging infractions committed by >your side. That is a good, logical argument, but is not responsive to Herman's. Because it rests on a fundamental premise with which all (or at least most) of us agree: "it is [not] OK to commit an infraction of your own to avoid damage from an infraction by an opponent". The argument isn't over whether it's OK for E to commit an infraction; it's over whether what E did should be considered an infraction. David B. (along with David S. and Norman) obviously believe that it should (L73E); Herman (along with Mr. Gerard and the AC that heard the actual case) believe that it should not (L20F). IMHO, the jury is still out, although so far I'm finding Herman's argument more convincing. One side offers examples which at least suggest that the holder of the trump queen may have a genuine need to know what his opponents' actual agreement is; the other side merely asserts that this cannot be so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 13:39:22 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 17 Oct 2002 05:39:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <171002290.20362@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >IMHO, the jury is still out, although so far I'm finding Herman's argument more convincing. One side offers examples which at least suggest that the holder of the trump queen may have a genuine need to know what his opponents' actual agreement is; the other side merely asserts that this cannot be so. I assert only that I do not consider anything an "example" of what might constitute a "demonstrable bridge reason" unless the so-called example consists of, at a minimum, a 13-card hand and an auction. And I am frankly a little surprised that Eric considers what he has received so far to be anything resembling an example of when one might legitimately want to know that the opponents thought they had the queen of trumps, knowing oneself that they did not. Both sides have so far done nothing but make assertions. But when one side asserts that X exists, and the other side that X does not, it is irrational (as well as impractical) for the second side to have prove its case by showing that everything in the world is not-X. However, thanks to Roger's kindness, I have been able to read the original article, which has proved yet another confirming instance of one of my hypotheses. If there is a proposition p such that: p has to do with the rules of bridge, and Ron Gerard believes p, then p is false. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 17 13:41:10 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:41:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <161002289.14936@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021017082311.00b5c340@pop.starpower.net> At 07:08 AM 10/16/02, David wrote: >Whatever your opponents do, you must behave correctly. > >You may ask questions at your turn to call. But these questions >must conform to a prescribed format, must not amount to harassment, >and above all must never be asked either for the purpose of communicating >with partner or of deceiving an opponent. Once again, David asserts the unarguable but irrelevant. The opponents have a long auction to a slam, which includes a 4NT-5H sequence. Now if E had merely said, "Did 5H show the queen of trump?" we would (at least almost) all agree that that would violate L73E. But he didn't; he asked for a full review with explanations. That *was* "behav[ing] correctly" and "conform[ing] to [the] prescribed format". When the information about the queen of trumps was not forthcoming, he continued to "conform to [the] prescribed format" by asking about it specifically with a follow-up question, which got him the answer he was legally entitled to on the basis of his original request. So the question at issue remains whether a player holding the queen of trump who asks about it can be presumed to be doing so "for the purpose of communicating with partner or of deceiving an opponent". Which in turn depends on whether it is possible that he might have a valid "bridge reason" for obtaining the answer. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 17 13:51:52 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:51:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <171002290.11348@webbox.com> <00a301c275ca$53b8aa90$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <3DAEB268.7070200@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Then it means that when DB is directing it pays off > not to tell your opponents your full > agreements just to see if the defender > who asks questions is going to ask > "with queen" or not. Then one has a 100% > play to fing that card (either you find it > or get redress). > > Only a villain would do that? Of course - but > why should he get away with that? > That's not the point, as a matter of fact. Both parties can be quite innocent, in fact. Declarer can make an honest mistake, and omit something he does not think matters. Defender can make an honest mistake, trying to be helpful, not wishing to be a bridge-lawyer and simply clarify up some flaw in the explanation. He shouldn't, but he did. Now, after all that innocence, declarer suddenly realizes he has a 100% shot at finding the queen. But only if he can find directors like DB. And why should he get away with that ? > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kandydatka nr 21... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f166d > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 17 13:58:28 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:58:28 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021017085604.00b567a0@pop.starpower.net> A few minutes ago I wrote: > David B. (along with David S. and Norman) obviously believe that it should (L73E); Typo alert: that should have said "(L73F2)". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 17 14:11:22 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 17 Oct 2002 06:11:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <171002290.22282@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >Now, after all that innocence, declarer suddenly realizes he has a 100% shot at finding the queen. >But only if he can find directors like DB. >And why should he get away with that ? Declarer leads a suit towards dummy's king-jack, needing to lose only one trick to make his contract. The defender on his left, in all innocence, fumbles before playing a card. "He shouldn't, but he did." Now, after all this innocence, declarer suddenly realises that he has a 100% chance to make the contract. But only, presumably, if he can find directors unlike Herman. David Burn London, England From gester@lineone.net Thu Oct 17 15:02:48 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:02:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021016164107.00b50a70@pop.starpower.net> <006d01c27588$6ad15160$213a23d9@pbncomputer> <007301c275b1$2e217140$6583403e@endicott> <000601c275b4$5891abe0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <005501c275e6$a8bbc100$542a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > > > Someone muttered something about asking when > > you have the Q in order to lay the groundwork for the > > occasion when you ask not having it. On each separate > > occasion that a question is asked it may be deemed > > to convey UI to partner (and a misleading inference to > > opponent) regardless of history, because on each > > occasion you ask it is a natural supposition that you > > are seeking the information for which you ask. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > Presumably then if a player without the Q asks and then > subsequently declarer "guesses" correctly the defending > side should automatically receive a score adjustment. > Worth knowing!!!! > +=+ Am I understanding that you think declarer may not use information he acquires from defender's question? Which Law is that? Defender is not declarer's partner (although I have played with exceptions). ~ G ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Thu Oct 17 15:06:11 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:06:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: Message-ID: <005601c275e6$a9852b80$542a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > On 10/16/02, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ What was the necessity? Why did he need > > the information? > > There may have been no intent to cheat, but this does not > > constitute a defence if opponent is misled by a question > > asked unnecessarily or if it is deemed the question was > > put for partner's benefit. +=+ > > It seems to me that the operative definition of "cheat" in a game > context is "to break the rules in a game, examination, or contest, in an > attempt to gain an unfair advantage" (Encarta Dictionary). That being > the case, while it is certainly true that a player might find a director > ruling against him if his opponent is misled by his question, that > hardly makes the player a cheat. > +=+ That sounds like the point I was making. You do not need to call the player a cheat in order to get redress for his breach of law. +=+ From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 17 15:37:37 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:37:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <171002290.22282@webbox.com> References: <171002290.22282@webbox.com> Message-ID: <0BLcsiAxssr9EwSi@asimere.com> In article <171002290.22282@webbox.com>, David Burn writes > >Herman wrote: > >>Now, after all that innocence, declarer suddenly realizes he >has a 100% shot at finding the queen. >>But only if he can find directors like DB. >>And why should he get away with that ? > >Declarer leads a suit towards dummy's king-jack, needing to lose >only one trick to make his contract. > >The defender on his left, in all innocence, fumbles before playing >a card. "He shouldn't, but he did." the fumble in this position tends to deny possession of the Queen. Declarer should definitely play the King and shrug his shoulders if it's wrong. He'll be scoring 80%, he doesn't need any more. > >Now, after all this innocence, declarer suddenly realises that >he has a 100% chance to make the contract. > >But only, presumably, if he can find directors unlike Herman. > >David Burn >London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Thu Oct 17 16:18:56 2002 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:18:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: "David Burn" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 17/10/02 14:39 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] The Kaplan question Eric wrote: >IMHO, the jury is still out, although so far I'm finding Herman's argument more convincing. One side offers examples which at least suggest that the holder of the trump queen may have a genuine need to know what his opponents' actual agreement is; the other side merely asserts that this cannot be so. I assert only that I do not consider anything an "example" of what might constitute a "demonstrable bridge reason" unless the so-called example consists of, at a minimum, a 13-card hand and an auction. And I am frankly a little surprised that Eric considers what he has received so far to be anything resembling an example of when one might legitimately want to know that the opponents thought they had the queen of trumps, knowing oneself that they did not. *** your premise that somebody asking for something may only have interest in=20 the direct outcomes of the answer (where is the queen?) is wrong.=20 Fortunately you can't be sure whether the asking man in interested in the=20 data or in the metadata. for those who need to see in order to believe=20 it's possible, suppose you hold, NV/V, with the dealer on your right: KQJ1063 Q102 6 J84 and the bidding goes: 1H 1S 3S 4S 4NT - 5H - 6H ? would you not want to know whether the opener knows his partner doesn't=20 hold the HQ, before deciding between passing or overcalling 6S?=20 The same may occur in the play: you are in 3NT on the lead of the J of a=20 suit in which you hold AKQ. you may want to know if rho knows who hold AKQ = in order to choose to take the lead with some card or another one, or to=20 run the risk or not, to let rho take the lead later on. only a simple soul = would infer your only motivation can be to learn where is the ace. we were told not so long ago bridge was a cerebral sport; indeed=20 sometimes you want to know something, sometimes you want to know if=20 someone else knows something, or knows that you know...=20 there must be some mean to know what you need to know and are entitled to = know, without misleading anybody. isn't it?=20 jp rocafort ***=20 =20 Both sides have so far done nothing but make assertions. But when one side asserts that X exists, and the other side that X does not, it is irrational (as well as impractical) for the second side to have prove its case by showing that everything in the world is not-X. However, thanks to Roger's kindness, I have been able to read the original article, which has proved yet another confirming instance of one of my hypotheses. If there is a proposition p such that: p has to do with the rules of bridge, and Ron Gerard believes p, then p is false. David Burn London, England =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Oct 17 16:50:16 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:50:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <006d01c27588$6ad15160$213a23d9@pbncomputer> from "David Burn" at Oct 17, 2002 03:53:48 AM Message-ID: <200210171550.LAA17521@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> David Burn writes: > > Also, you (and others) must get rid of the notion that anyone > who has got the queen of trumps ever wants to know whether his > opponents are in the middle of a bidding misunderstanding about > that card. It never has, and it never will, make a blind bit > of difference to the way anyone has ever defended a hand. And that's nonsense. It's part of putting together a picture of the holdings in the other suits. Assuming that we're talking about a competent player, the knowledge that he has or does not have any given card is of potentially great import. From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 17 16:51:54 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:51:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? Message-ID: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> This actually happened yesterday. It's a little embarrassing, since I almost never commit mechanical infractions---I often make stupid calls and plays, but they're always legal. This time, though, it was the first board of the second session, right after lunch, so I'll just claim that it was because I was still busy digesting food. Anyway, I started the proceedings with a pass, and then LHO pointed out that my RHO was the dealer. We called the TD, who explained their options. They didn't accept the POOT, so TD told the dealer to make any call he wanted, and then I would be required to pass. So dealer pulls out the Stop card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat jokingly, "So do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" So what's the answer? -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 17 17:05:44 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:05:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? References: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001301c275f7$0cb67050$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:51 PM Subject: [blml] Required to pause? > > This actually happened yesterday. It's a little embarrassing, since I > almost never commit mechanical infractions---I often make stupid calls > and plays, but they're always legal. This time, though, it was the > first board of the second session, right after lunch, so I'll just > claim that it was because I was still busy digesting food. > > Anyway, I started the proceedings with a pass, and then LHO pointed > out that my RHO was the dealer. We called the TD, who explained their > options. They didn't accept the POOT, so TD told the dealer to make > any call he wanted, and then I would be required to pass. So dealer > pulls out the Stop card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat > jokingly, "So do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" > > So what's the answer? > > -- Adam No See Law 28A - you don't even have to make your pass call! regards Sven From jnichols@midtechnologies.com Thu Oct 17 17:18:05 2002 From: jnichols@midtechnologies.com (John Nichols) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:18:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD224D@al21.minfod.com> Just be sure that your pause falls within the timing requirements of the applicable skip bid regulations. You wouldn't want to burden your partner with UI! -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: blml@rtflb.org Cc: adam@irvine.com Sent: 10/17/02 10:51 AM Subject: [blml] Required to pause? This actually happened yesterday. It's a little embarrassing, since I almost never commit mechanical infractions---I often make stupid calls and plays, but they're always legal. This time, though, it was the first board of the second session, right after lunch, so I'll just claim that it was because I was still busy digesting food. Anyway, I started the proceedings with a pass, and then LHO pointed out that my RHO was the dealer. We called the TD, who explained their options. They didn't accept the POOT, so TD told the dealer to make any call he wanted, and then I would be required to pass. So dealer pulls out the Stop card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat jokingly, "So do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" So what's the answer? -- Adam _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 17 17:19:43 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:19:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <200210171550.LAA17521@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> References: <006d01c27588$6ad15160$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021017181610.02449890@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:50 17/10/2002 -0400, Ron Johnson wrote: >David Burn writes: > > > > Also, you (and others) must get rid of the notion that anyone > > who has got the queen of trumps ever wants to know whether his > > opponents are in the middle of a bidding misunderstanding about > > that card. It never has, and it never will, make a blind bit > > of difference to the way anyone has ever defended a hand. AG : who speaks of defending the hand ? If I hold QJx of trumps *and* the opponents bid a slam in full knowledge that they don't hold the queen (thus having no other direct loser), I could think of sacrificing. Not so if they don't know. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 17 17:25:01 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:25:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? In-Reply-To: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021017182033.02444a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:51 17/10/2002 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: >This actually happened yesterday. It's a little embarrassing, since I >almost never commit mechanical infractions---I often make stupid calls >and plays, but they're always legal. This time, though, it was the >first board of the second session, right after lunch, so I'll just >claim that it was because I was still busy digesting food. > >Anyway, I started the proceedings with a pass, and then LHO pointed >out that my RHO was the dealer. We called the TD, who explained their >options. They didn't accept the POOT, so TD told the dealer to make >any call he wanted, and then I would be required to pass. So dealer >pulls out the Stop card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat >jokingly, "So do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" AG : since your LHO isn't even required to wait until you make your bid (L28A), I think this is irrelevant. If you want a full reasoning, I suggest this : a) you are required to pause because partner hasn't any right to know whether you had a bidding problem or not. b) you can't possibly have a bidding problem when you already know what you have to do. c) ergo, no information is transmitted by a quick pass. BTW, he was right tu pull out the Stop card. Not doing so would enable him to transmit UI according to whether he does or not. Best regards, Alain. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 17 17:50:18 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:50:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <171002290.18754@webbox.com> Message-ID: <007501c275fd$947d23c0$df9468d5@default> [David Burn] If your properly asked questions do not receive full and accurate answers, your remedy - and your only remedy - is to seek redress for damage done. You do not have the option of asking improper questions just because the proper ones don't seem to be working. And if you damage your own side's interests by asking such questions, you must suffer the consequences. [Nigel Guthrie] David has convinced me A specific question is illegal because it may direct partner's bidding or play. Hence, although you suspect that 5H denies the trump queen, you must keep quiet. Of course, a with-it partner will then lead a trump, as the TD is bound to adjust in your favour. If the misexplanation makes no difference, should the TD still impose a PP on opponents? Suppose the opponent instead explains '2/5 "aces" where HK is an "ace" but denies HQ'. Should the TD still rule against opponents if 5H also denies something that a 6-bid would have shown e.g. "a working void"? IMO Richard Hill's... "Tell me more, tell me more" is OK as long as you do not continue... "Does he have a car?" But David Burns disagrees with us. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 17 18:24:13 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:24:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <171002290.18754@webbox.com> <007501c275fd$947d23c0$df9468d5@default> Message-ID: <009301c27602$0717af00$df9468d5@default> [David Burn] If your properly asked questions do not receive full and accurate answers, your remedy - and your only remedy - is to seek redress for damage done. You do not have the option of asking improper questions just because the proper ones don't seem to be working. And if you damage your own side's interests by asking such questions, you must suffer the consequences. [Nigel Guthrie] David has convinced me A specific question is illegal because it may direct partner's bidding or play. Hence, although you suspect that 5H denies the trump queen, you must keep quiet. Of course, a with-it partner will then lead a trump, as the TD is bound to adjust in your favour. If the misexplanation makes no difference, should the TD still impose a PP on opponents? Suppose the opponent instead explains '2/5 "aces" where HK is an "ace" but denies HQ'. Should the TD still rule against opponents if 5H also denies something that a 6-bid would have shown e.g. "a working void"? What is Alain Gottcheiner's view on that? IMO Richard Hills'... "Tell me more, tell me more" is OK as long as you do not continue... "Does he have a car?" But David Burn disagrees with us. [Resend mainly to correct name spelling] From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 17 20:00:20 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:00:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <171002290.22282@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DAF08C4.5020408@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Now, after all that innocence, declarer suddenly realizes he >> > has a 100% shot at finding the queen. > >>But only if he can find directors like DB. >>And why should he get away with that ? >> > > Declarer leads a suit towards dummy's king-jack, needing to lose > only one trick to make his contract. > > The defender on his left, in all innocence, fumbles before playing > a card. "He shouldn't, but he did." > > Now, after all this innocence, declarer suddenly realises that > he has a 100% chance to make the contract. > > But only, presumably, if he can find directors unlike Herman. > Almost convincing, David, but for two crucial differences with the original. In the original, the situation was created after an initial infraction by the person benefiting in the end. An "innocent" infraction, as I said, but an infraction nevertheless. Only through that infraction could the circumstances be created. In the original, the defender took a bridge action. Not a fully legal one, but a bridge action nevertheless. In your example, the deceiving action is non-technical bridge. So your analogy falters on two points. > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 17 20:17:17 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:17:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] CC error References: <4A256C4E.00087C61.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00a501c27611$d2272ea0$df9468d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] Is there some way of changing the law or rules of competition when the innocent party is sure to be damaged by calling the TD? In my original post, I drew attention to an unusual kind of situation (explained more fully below), where you know that reporting an opponent's law-infringement to the TD will damage your team's prospects. [Richard Hills] replied saying.. The mismarked card is a L40 irregularity, to which you have drawn attention. L9 *requires* the TD to be called after attention has been drawn to an irregularity {Nigel: expanded example] Their CC says they lead Jack from KJT but you [declarer] notice that LHO led Ten, so you ask him if he plays "Strong ten" and he reluctantly admits their CC does not reflect their actual carding conventions. You ask him to rectify his CC and he stares at you as if you are mad. When you start to call the TD, the other opponent smirks that he will do so before their next match. You suspect that they will not jeopardise their CC's chance of winning the "Booker" prize. Should you insist on calling the TD even although your team will suffer as a result? The point is that you are comfortably winning the penultimate match of a Swiss Teams, which you also have a chance of winning overall. Before this match there were four teams in contention who had not yet played each other: Team D (You) and Team C (with the CC error) both have 200 vps and are now matched. The two other teams (A & B) both have 201 vps are also currently matched. Suppose Team D (you) beat Team C by 15-5 and team B beats team A by 14-6. Now your team D plays against B (both 215 vps) and Team A (207 vps) plays team C (205 vps). If you just beat Team B (say 11-9) then Team A could leap-frog past you with a 20-0 win. Deprived of the advantage of their imaginative CC, you expect that team C would be hammered by team A. If you refrain from calling the TD, however, their match is likely to be closer. Even worse for you would be if the TD adjusted previous matches won by team C, thus increasing the scores of your other rivals. There are other rare scenarios with similar seemingly unfair outcomes. From rjfs48u@comcast.net Thu Oct 17 20:16:12 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:16:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Bugbear References: <5.1.0.14.1.20021016161133.00a8a9e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <004d01c27574$c6aedd40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006601c27611$a86d4450$6601a8c0@james> FWIW Norton proclaims me virus free, I haven't moved to nz (tho would love to visit someday) and that wasn't one of my messages nor did I participate in that thread. But obviously I'm in someone's address book and was the lucky winner of the identity spoof drawing. I have pcCillin running continuously plus McAfee firewall and a ahrdward firewall in our router, so bugbear should not come to visit here I hope. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another Bugbear > I just got it also, picked up and quarantined by Norton Anti-Virus - Marv > > > I just got another message with the Bugbear > > worm attached. The message purported to be from Craig > > Senior, the address was fictitious (), > > and it came directly to me and not through the list, > > as best I can determine. > > The subject read "Re: Lying at the Bridge Table". > > The content said: > > > > In a team game it would seem that an IMP penalty would be to your benefit > > as well as to his detriment. Are you perhaps suggesting a penalty in VP's > > for his side? > > > > Craig Senior > > > > Are others still getting this regularly? > > Just in case this helps someone, > > > > Grant > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 17 22:31:49 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:31:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <161002289.18633@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021017170115.00b6d590@pop.starpower.net> At 08:10 AM 10/16/02, David wrote: >Alain wrote: > > >AG : the problem with your thesis, David, is that asking is >not an infraction. > >Of course it isn't. I have never said that it was. Asking "please >explain the auction" or even "what is the meaning of five hearts?" >is not an infraction. Asking questions in any other form may >very well be an infraction, because it may convey information >to partner or it may cause a false inference to be drawn by an >opponent. > > >Asking for the sake of deception is an infraction. > >Certainly it is, and a serious one. But so is asking in a manner >that might deceive, even though to deceive was not your intention. > > > Asking because you weren't duly informed surely isn't. > >The problem with your thesis is that you are using the word "asking" >on two different levels. You have the right to ask "What does >five hearts mean?" But you do not have the right to ask: "What >in the hell does five hearts mean, you miserable excuse for a >misbegotten toad?" because it is an infraction to do anything >that might cause offence. Similarly, it is an infraction to ask: >"Does five hearts deny the queen of hearts?" > > >So, your last argument doesn't hold. > >Yes, it does. Your arguments, like Herman's, do not hold, both >because you confuse the levels on which you use your terms, and >because you have an understandable but wholly irrational belief >that if you have been offended against, you may in turn offend >(the "Robin Hood" syndrome to which I have referred). > > >You will only be able to call it an infraction if you prove >there was no bridge reason to ask. > >No, I won't. You may ask questions. But you may ask questions >only of a certain type, and that type can be categorised by the >word "neutral". We're discussing unusual circumstances here, debating whether they presumptively "legalize" an action that would be illegal under typical circumstances. The laws of bridge do not lend themselves to being reduced to simplistic, categorical rules (if they did, BLML probably wouldn't exist), but ISTM that that is what David is doing here. Consider... >You may not ask questions that offend, Of course you may. Humans are funny; one cannot be held responsible for knowing what would offend someone else. You may not, of course, ask a question that you expect will give offense, or that a reasonable person would assume might give offense (L74A2). >or questions >that inform, Of course you may. You may not, of course, ask for the purpose of communicating the information (L73B), and partner may not take any possible advantage from information obtained by virtue of your having asked (L73C). >or questions that deceive. Of course you may. You may not, of course, as Alain suggests, ask for the purpose of deceiving or, indeed, for any purpose which lacks a "demonstrable bridge reason" (L73F2). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 17 21:40:00 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:40:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021017082311.00b5c340@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c27625$77f7c7f0$fb83403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > > So the question at issue remains whether a player > holding the queen of trump who asks about it can be > presumed to be doing so "for the purpose of communicating > with partner or of deceiving an opponent". Which in > turn depends on whether it is possible that he might have > a valid "bridge reason" for obtaining the answer. > +=+ If the Director is summoned and protest made that the question was deceptive and caused protester to draw an incorrect inference the player who asked the question will be required to show that he did indeed have a bridge reason for asking it. There does not have to be any presumption - a set of circumstances exists in which if it becomes an issue the player may be required to show that he had a valid bridge reason for the question. The point that seems to have been little stressed in this correspondence is that defender has asked a question that is capable of misleading declarer. If in fact declarer is misled, the defender is required to show that he had good reason in bridge terms to ask the question which he knew could mislead. If he has no demonstrable bridge reason for his action in asking the question then the Director is required, say again 'required', to adjust the score under Law 73F2. Law 73F2 stands upon three legs: that the action could work to the player's benefit, that the player could know this was the case, and that having done it he is unable to show that he had a bridge reason for doing it. Aside from this there is a further question arising in parallel under Law 73D2: was the action an attempt to mislead? On another tack the player's question may convey UI to partner; if this is the case Law 73C applies and Law 16A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Oct 17 23:06:42 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:06:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <200210172206.SAA04995@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > I checked the ACBL web site, and the only regulation I could find > dealing with this is: > > Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of > the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's > call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is > conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage > of a call out of rotation has been approved. The above regulation is obsolete, per Gary Blaiss in 2000 August. I had been planning to post his email (with his permission) but have failed to do so until now. The new regulation was "published" in the Tech Files of ACBLscore. :-( According to Gary, the normal interpretation that "double of an insufficient bid is for penalty" is illegal for pairs who play negative doubles. This was confirmed in later correspondence to be Gary's belief, although I don't think it was ever confirmed directly with the C&C committee. ----- Begin Included Message ----- From: "Gary Blaiss" Cc: "Mike Flader" , "Kent Burghard" Subject: Fw: Re: Regulations Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:22:17 -0500 Hi Steve, The policy as it appears on the web site may still be the old policy. Unfortunately, we have not maintained those files (a situation we are attempting to rectify). The present Techfiles have the new policy as you have stated. "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are otherwise permitted." This policy was changed with the advice of the Competitions and Conventions Committee in the Spring of '98. I am behind in articles that it had been my intention to write - I need to get on the stick here!!!!! Hopefully, I can get Mike to include an explanation of the policy in a Ruling the Game article. I have a very simple interpertation that is exactly as you have stated. Using your example: An auction of North 1S, East 1C: N/S could have agreed that in this situation a one spade bid would show a raise of spades with 3-6 pts and 3 card support or any other natural meaning.They could also agree to continue to treat a double as negative and lower their strength requirements but they cannot play that the double has different fundamental meaning (different from their conventional meaning whether another conventional meaning or natural). However, if the one club bid was not accepted and East bid 2C or any overcall after which a double by South would be negative, they would have to continue to play as a negative double - could bot change the basic conventional meaning to natural or some other meaning. Another example would be a opening bid out of turn of 3H, a pair could not have the agreement that against an out of turn opening an acceptance with a double is a penalty double whereas normally they play takeout. However, a pair could agree that an immediate acceptance by overcalling 3S was a different strength than overcalling an in turn 3 H bid or a rejected out of turn bid that was eventually repeated. Hopefully, we can correct the web page and get a statement in the Bulletin in an article. Will try to do better in the future. gary ----- End Included Message ----- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 18 00:39:13 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:39:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? Message-ID: <4A256C55.00809C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >>TD told the dealer to make any call he wanted, and then I >>would be required to pass. So dealer pulls out the Stop >>card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat jokingly, "So >>do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" >> >>So what's the answer? >> >> -- Adam >No > >See Law 28A - you don't even have to make your pass call! > >regards Sven I draw a dancing-angel distinction. L28A does *not* prescribe correct procedure for Adam, it merely gives Adam's LHO greater latitude when defining LHO's correct procedure. Best wishes Richard From mikedod@gte.net Fri Oct 18 03:14:52 2002 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:14:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED3@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> <007201c275b1$2cf4ff30$6583403e@endicott> <004f01c275b6$ddac9d10$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <00a101c2764d$2ceacd20$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The moment you start asking (or not asking) specific questions > it is very difficult to avoid giving partner UI. > > There is however a "fail safe" question which will give you > every "right" in the world without any risk: > > "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" > > That calls for a complete description on everything that has been > "announced" by the auction, and it is the explaining side's pity if > afterwards it should appear that they have "forgotten" some detail > which shows up to having been essential. > > Sven Even this can run afoul of L73b1. When I repeat a query about an auction where the last bid is an ambigously described 5H bid, partner can easily deduce that I am probing for information on the queen. On the other hand, in jurisdictions where I must protect myself(ACBL), if I keep quiet and later ask for an adjustment, I will be told "Of course you should recognize RKC (What are you? A rank novice or a bridge lawyer?)-No damage, keep the deposit." I'll seem even sillier if I assume RKC and the oppenents were really playing 5H as two keys and nothing about the queen. I want redress because the opponent's description was accurate! Mike Dodson From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 18 03:28:56 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:28:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] CC error Message-ID: <4A256C56.000C5048.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Is there some way of changing the law or rules >of competition when the innocent party is sure >to be damaged by calling the TD? >In my original post, I drew attention to an >unusual kind of situation (explained more >fully below), where you know that reporting an >opponent's law-infringement to the TD will >damage your team's prospects. [expanded example snipped] My view is that sometimes bridge virtue has to be its own reward. In the final round of a Swiss teams, team C beat team D, but finished in second place as team A had scored a maximum 25 vps win against team B. However, team C overheard that teams A and B, realising that one of them needed a maximum win to run a place, had tossed a coin to determine which team got the maximum. Team C reported this to the TD. So the TD used L91B to disqualify teams A and B, and cancelled the results of all their matches. The previous opponents of A and B were given ave+ for the designated forfeit: * 18 vps, or * their average vps from other matches whichever was greater, as specified by local forfeit regulations. Did team C move up from 2nd to 1st? No, the rescoring caused by the forfeits meant that team C was leapfrogged by team E and team F, and therefore team C dropped to 3rd place. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 18 04:38:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:38:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 74B5 Message-ID: <4A256C56.0012B3BB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "(no subject)" Richard Hills wrote: >>At least in some bridge cultures, yes. From my >>reading of ACBL literature, over-suspiciousness >>seems to be endemic in ACBL-land bridge culture. Ed Reppert replied: >This works both ways. I was informed (by a >player new to duplicate) today that merely >asserting that the director should be called in >some situations, much less actually calling her, >is insulting and accusatory. > >And yes, I'm in ACBL-land. I believe that, in the case of some beginner opponents, *any* call for the TD is "discourteous" to them, and may deter them from ever playing bridge again. In such cases, I decide that L74B5 over-rules L9B1(a). In social conversation at the end of the round, I may tactfully mention standard procedure to my beginner opponents (carefully avoiding any nuance of blame). Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 18 06:44:44 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:44:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? Message-ID: <4A256C56.001E3C7F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mike Dodson wrote: [big snip] >jurisdictions where I must protect myself(ACBL) [big snip] Is the ACBL and WBF requirement to "protect yourself" merely a requirement to read the opponents' system card, or is it also a requirement to ask appropriate questions? Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction commenced: LHO Pard RHO 1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) (1) Weak (2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted The next player took over-optimistic action, and was carted out for a big penalty. The ACBL AC ruled that that player had failed to protect their side, as they had not asked a question about RHO's Pass. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 18 08:07:48 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:07:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] CC error References: <4A256C56.000C5048.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DAFB344.6050601@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >>Is there some way of changing the law or rules >>of competition when the innocent party is sure >>to be damaged by calling the TD? >>In my original post, I drew attention to an >>unusual kind of situation (explained more >>fully below), where you know that reporting an >>opponent's law-infringement to the TD will >>damage your team's prospects. >> > > [expanded example snipped] > > My view is that sometimes bridge virtue has to > be its own reward. > > In the final round of a Swiss teams, team C > beat team D, but finished in second place as > team A had scored a maximum 25 vps win against > team B. > > However, team C overheard that teams A and B, > realising that one of them needed a maximum win > to run a place, had tossed a coin to determine > which team got the maximum. Team C reported > this to the TD. > > So the TD used L91B to disqualify teams A and B, > and cancelled the results of all their matches. > The previous opponents of A and B were given > ave+ for the designated forfeit: > > * 18 vps, or > * their average vps from other matches > > whichever was greater, as specified by local > forfeit regulations. > > Did team C move up from 2nd to 1st? No, the > rescoring caused by the forfeits meant that > team C was leapfrogged by team E and team F, and > therefore team C dropped to 3rd place. > Which is an illustration of something other than what Richard is trying to illustrate. His example is quite good, and of course A and B ought to be disqualified. But the rule that says that now all A and B's results are changed to forfait scores is the one causing this anomaly. That rule is a bad one. Whyever should it be needed ? After all - those matches were played without any problems ? Indeed so in this case - but even if the reason for the disqualification was something that might have also occured on a previous round (or was proven - such as the line-up of a non-eligible player) - I do not believe that the opponents should lose their good or their bad results on those rounds. I've often said that bridge is too short to be played over just a few boards. A single results, even against world champions, over 6 boards means nothing. Only at the end of a long session will your score reflect your performance a bit better. Which is why any board played, against correct opposition or not, should count. > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Fri Oct 18 08:43:54 2002 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:43:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Bugbear References: <5.1.0.14.1.20021016161133.00a8a9e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <008501c2767a$1c765540$1d1afac1@olivier> I hope this message will not be stopped by the robot like previous ones != !! This virus has for first action : stop the Norton - Mac Afee anti virus program. So, to know if YOU are infected, just start your anti virus, if it stops = by itself after 5-10s then you are infected. What to do? 1) Update your anti virus 2) Load FxGbBear.exe (you can find it on the site http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/ in the orange zone) 3) Run it, it kills the virus but not it's root 4) run your anti virus, it will kill the virus'root. 5) send me a million $ or =E2=82=AC (optional) Cheers, Olivier P.S. Grant, if you don't see this mail on the list, please transfert it, = my messages are usually stopped by the robot (can somebody explain me why?) Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:15 PM Subject: [blml] Another Bugbear > I just got another message with the Bugbear > worm attached. The message purported to be from Craig > Senior, the address was fictitious (), > and it came directly to me and not through the list, > as best I can determine. > The subject read "Re: Lying at the Bridge Table". > The content said: > > In a team game it would seem that an IMP penalty would be to your benef= it > as well as to his detriment. Are you perhaps suggesting a penalty in VP= 's > for his side? > > Craig Senior > > Are others still getting this regularly? > Just in case this helps someone, > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 18 09:10:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <200210172206.SAA04995@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018100601.00aa63f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:06 17/10/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >According to Gary, the normal interpretation that "double of an >insufficient bid is for penalty" is illegal for pairs who play negative >doubles. AG : this is strange. It is illegal to have specific agreements over an IB. Playing penalty doubles when you accept the bid is no specific agreement, it is bridge logic. >N/S could have agreed that in this situation a one spade bid would show a >raise of spades with 3-6 pts and 3 card support or any other natural >meaning.They could also agree to continue to treat a double as negative and >lower their strength requirements but they cannot play that the double has >different fundamental meaning (different from their conventional >meaning whether another conventional meaning or natural). >However, if the one club bid was not accepted and East bid 2C or any >overcall after which a double by South would be negative, they would have to >continue to play as a negative double - could bot change the basic >conventional meaning to natural or some other meaning. AG : when you play 1NT-(2M)-2NT as general takeout, may you play 2NT-(2M)-2NT as such ? I'd say you may. And ff you may, by pure logic (rather than convention), then the double could be penalties in a situation where it would not usually be (2NT-3M-X is TO in my system). Best regards, Alain. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Oct 18 09:46:34 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:46:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? Message-ID: Adam Irvine: ...They didn't accept the POOT, so TD told the dealer to >>make >>any call he wanted, and then I would be required to pass. So dealer >>pulls out the Stop card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat >>jokingly, "So do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" > AG: > >BTW, he was right tu pull out the Stop card. Not doing so would enable him >to transmit UI according to whether he does or not. > ROTFL, really. I'm sitting here having a good old chuckle at the idea of the system discussion. "So, that's Stayman, Blackwood, and if there's a pass out of turn and I make a jump bid, it's stronger if I don't use the stop card." Most amusing. _________________________________________________________________ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 10:16:23 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 02:16:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <181002291.8184@webbox.com> Alain wrote: >Playing penalty doubles when you accept the bid is no specific agreement, it is bridge logic. Not really. It would be "logical" to play that if you want to make a negative double, you accept the insufficient bid and then double it. If you want to make a penalty double, you ask for the insufficient bid to be corrected, and then double that. You see, that way you will extract a larger penalty... But then, as Ron Johnson has kindly pointed out, I have very little idea what competent bridge players do. David Burn London, England From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Fri Oct 18 10:48:49 2002 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:48:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <181002291.8184@webbox.com> Message-ID: <00ee01c2768b$90aa3240$1d1afac1@olivier> > > Alain wrote: > > >Playing penalty doubles when you accept the bid is no specific > agreement, it is bridge logic. > > Not really. It would be "logical" to play that if you want to > make a negative double, you accept the insufficient bid and then > double it. If you want to make a penalty double, you ask for > the insufficient bid to be corrected, and then double that. You > see, that way you will extract a larger penalty... If they correct but they can pass instead! suppose you have a big double and found it's enough at this level, you just go through the "cash case" even it "could have been" better one level higher. We have a french proverb "Un tient vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras" Better cash a big penalty than nothing ... I experienced that before, they didn't corrected, i got a penalty lead and a bottom instead of a cold top, my partner didn't understood the ruling, what a pitty. Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > But then, as Ron Johnson has kindly pointed out, I have very > little idea what competent bridge players do. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 18 11:30:22 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:30:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <181002291.8184@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018122408.00aae4a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:16 18/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >Alain wrote: > > >Playing penalty doubles when you accept the bid is no specific >agreement, it is bridge logic. > >Not really. It would be "logical" to play that if you want to >make a negative double, you accept the insufficient bid and then >double it. If you want to make a penalty double, you ask for >the insufficient bid to be corrected, and then double that. You >see, that way you will extract a larger penalty... AG : except, of course, that your opponents might detect why you wish him to bid at a higher level, and decide not to do it. If the bidding goes : 2NT 2H I will assume that RHO wanted to open 2H (usually weak) ; he will surely not bid 3H over 2NT. But the reason why most people, in such a case, accept 2H and double it, is that they are not allowed to change their system and double 3H for penalties if their opponent dares to bid it. Play for the best possible result, not for the best result possible, said Skid. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 18 11:37:40 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:37:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018123127.00aa1480@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:46 18/10/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >Adam Irvine: >...They didn't accept the POOT, so TD told the dealer to >>>make >>>any call he wanted, and then I would be required to pass. So dealer >>>pulls out the Stop card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat >>>jokingly, "So do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" >AG: >> >>BTW, he was right tu pull out the Stop card. Not doing so would enable >>him to transmit UI according to whether he does or not. > >ROTFL, really. I'm sitting here having a good old chuckle at the idea of >the system discussion. "So, that's Stayman, Blackwood, and if there's a >pass out of turn and I make a jump bid, it's stronger if I don't use the >stop card." Most amusing. AG : don't roll to wide. I know a player who (most inconsciously) forgets to place the Stop card when he makes a strong bid. Perhaps he knows, in the heart of his heart, that it is more important to enforce the tempo when the bid is weak. I let him remark it, he looked puzzled, told me he would be careful, pulled the Stop before his first 2C opening ... and then forgot his resolve. I'm sure this was not for sake of occult communication, because on that day he was playing with me. But if you think such agreements don't exist (eg play 2H as either a strong 2 or a weak 2 in spades, which is reasonable ; pull the stop card and it's a weak 2, don't and it's a strong 2), you're quite naive. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Fri Oct 18 11:25:37 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:25:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021016133341.02326390@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002301c27690$f18b4680$8d1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "David Burn" ; Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > At 04:08 16/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: > AG : the problem with your thesis, David, is that > asking is not an infraction. Asking for the sake > of deception is an infraction. Asking because you > were'nt duly informed surely isn't. So, your last > argument doesn't hold. You will only be able to > call it an infraction if you prove there was no > bridge reason to ask. Big if. > +=+ Not "if you prove" but "if the player fails to persuade that he had a bridge reason". His explanation must be subject to a bridge judgement by the Director and, if it comes to that, by the appeals committee. ~ G ~ +=+ From Martin@SPASE.NL Fri Oct 18 12:12:37 2002 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:12:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A61C@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:38 > To: Norman Scorbie; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Required to pause? > > But if you think such agreements don't exist (eg play 2H as > either a strong > 2 or a weak 2 in spades, which is reasonable ; pull the stop > card and it's > a weak 2, don't and it's a strong 2), you're quite naive. > > Best regards, > > Alain. I even heard of a player opening Stop! 2S, explained by partner as weak. "Weak?" "Yes, if he hadn't used stop, it would have been strong..." -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From gester@lineone.net Fri Oct 18 11:45:36 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:45:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <181002291.8184@webbox.com> Message-ID: <000a01c27698$a5b7fc00$321e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The English detest a siesta > > Alain wrote: > > >Playing penalty doubles when you accept the > > bid is no specific agreement, it is bridge logic. > +=+ Alain might like to think he can get away with this without declaring it as part of his methods. I hope this is not what he thinks. It may not be unique to his partnership but it is not a universal truth that all competent players will or should anticipate.If both he and his partner would base their action on this expectation they have a special partnership understanding It should be on the CC and it is subject to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 18 12:45:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002801c2757a$60239600$213a23d9@pbncomputer> DALB wrote: > > If my opponents place me in a > > position where I cannot obtain proper disclosure through a neutral > > question then I have to ask a non-neutral one > > No, you don't. It is not for you to enforce the Laws. If the opponents > place you in a position where you cannot obtain proper disclosure, then > you accept their improper disclosure and, if you have been damaged > thereby, you obtain redress. Unless deemed unworthy of redress due to a lack of self-protection - as you pointed out. The combination of self-protection and not being allowed to ask does seem likely to reward improper disclosure > You do not have to break the Laws regarding > illegal communication, In the absence of screens even "correct" questions (or looking at a CC) can make UI available to partner - that doesn't make such questions (or looking) illegal. The "Kaplan" question was rendered illegal by Lille 98 - a fact I have acknowledged several times, while pointing out that I believe their decision to be flawed and unnecessary. > or deception by means other than a call or play, Opponent's draw inferences *at their own risk*. If, by improper disclosure, they create a situation where they are likely to draw incorrect inferences from necessary questions they increase those risks substantially. > just because you think that the opponents have broken the Laws regarding > disclosure of methods. They may not disclose their methods less than > fully. But you may not ask non-neutral questions, and their failure in > no way excuses yours. I may ask any questions necessary to achieve disclosure (L20F1). If these questions create UI for partner then L16 may apply - that's just something we have to live with. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 18 12:45:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <171002290.18754@webbox.com> DALB wrote: > I can sympathise with these arguments. Despite what Tim West-Meads > thinks, I am as human as the rest of you. I have no doubt as to your proven humanity, I merely lack the wherewithal to forgive you for it. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 18 12:45:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018100601.00aa63f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > AG : this is strange. It is illegal to have specific agreements over an > IB. Playing penalty doubles when you accept the bid is no specific > agreement, it is bridge logic. Surely under the ACBL rule it is mandatory. Negative doubles have not been approved for use over insufficient bids. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 18 13:21:14 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:21:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <000a01c27698$a5b7fc00$321e2850@pacific> References: <181002291.8184@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018141642.00a4abc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:45 18/10/2002 +0100, gester@lineone.net wrote: > > > > Alain wrote: > > > > >Playing penalty doubles when you accept the > > > bid is no specific agreement, it is bridge logic. > > >+=+ Alain might like to think he can get away >with this without declaring it as part of his methods. >I hope this is not what he thinks. It may not be >unique to his partnership but it is not a universal >truth that all competent players will or should >anticipate.If both he and his partner would base >their action on this expectation they have a special >partnership understanding It should be on the CC >and it is subject to regulation. AG : unless it is obvious to play so, which it is perhaps not. This raises another interesting question : in determining whether some inference of a call should have been explained according to L75C, may we use some kind of 75% rule, ie if 75% of the asking player's peers grasp the inference without being told, it didn't need to be exlpained ? Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 18 13:24:49 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:24:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FED2@cacexc02.americas.c pqcorp.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021018081501.00ab8cc0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:10 PM 10/16/02, Farley wrote: >David Burn wrote: > > > Of course it isn't. I have never said that it was. Asking "please > > explain the auction" or even "what is the meaning of five hearts?" > > is not an infraction. Asking questions in any other form may > > very well be an infraction, because it may convey information > > to partner or it may cause a false inference to be drawn by an > > opponent. > > > >David has made the case for disallowing the question "Does it show >the queen of hearts?" when the asker holds that card. By the same >argument, the question must be disallowed if the asker does *not* >hold the card, lest partner be forced to alert and explain "Denies >the Queen of Hearts". I am severely uncomfortable with the situation >where an incomplete explanation must be left alone; repeating "Is >that *all* that 5H showed?" is likely to fall afoul of L74A2. I'm >unhappy that the only remaining possibility is to call the director, >but it seems that is where this discussion is headed. > >I am particularly unhappy that someone who had to squeeze a complete >explanation out of his opponent was labelled a cheat. David has gone much further than that. There is a very good case for disallowing "Does it show the queen of hearts?" when one holds that card. It is misleading because the asker should presumptively know the answer, and it's entirely reasonable to find that "I was trying to find out whether they were having a bidding misunderstanding" is not a sufficient "bridge reason" for asking, particularly when the question could have been phrased in a way that would not be similarly deceptive. But a player holding the queen of hearts (leaving aside for the moment the fact that the actual question at issue was about the queen of *trump* in an RKC auction where it may not have been clear what the opponents thought the presumed trump suit was) *doesn't* presumptively know the answer to "Does it deny the queen of hearts?" or the even better, more neutral, "Does it say anything about the queen of hearts?", and David would disallow the latter as well. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 13:40:51 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 05:40:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: <181002291.20451@webbox.com> Eric sent an... >--- Original Message --- >From: Eric Landau >To: "David Burn" >Date: 10/18/02 12:12:29 PM I think this may have been a laudable attempt not to send a reply both to me and to the list. Eric may simply then have deleted the wrong addressee. But at least he was trying. Alain, can you *please* do likewise? Your messages are interesting, but if I have to read any more of them twice, I shall instead not read any of them at all. Having said that, Eric wrote: [DB] >But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence is illegal communication with partner. >Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices, something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the gravest possible offence", then anything that might be used as a means of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not allowed to transmit information to partner by means of questions. [EL] >Come on, David. "The gravest possible offense" is *intentional* illegal communication with partner. But that's not been at all an issue in this thread. Come on yourself, Eric. You know as well as I do that intent is never an issue. What matters is not what you meant to do; what matters is whether what you do is the same thing as someone who meant to do wrong. >What we're talking about here is the everyday garden variety of "illegal communication", which isn't really illegal at all Of course it is. Law 73B1 says: Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. Whereas you are (almost) correct in saying that there are forms of illegal communication which are not "the gravest possible offence", that does not mean that there are some forms of illegal communication that are not an offence at all. So serious are such offences that *anything* which follows as a consequence of *any* communication between partners other than by calls or plays must be annulled, and any advantage therefrom removed. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 13:45:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 05:45:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <181002291.20757@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >I have no doubt as to your proven humanity, I merely lack the wherewithal to forgive you for it. I have been studying these words for a good twenty minutes now, and I confess that although I am fairly certain that I recognise each of them individually, I have not the faintest idea what would prompt anyone to put them in that order. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 14:05:40 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 06:05:40 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: <181002291.21940@webbox.com> TWM wrote: [DB] >If the opponents place you in a position where you cannot obtain proper disclosure, then you accept their improper disclosure and, if you have been damaged thereby, you obtain redress. [TWM] >Unless deemed unworthy of redress due to a lack of self-protection - as you pointed out. The combination of self-protection and not being allowed to ask does seem likely to reward improper disclosure. That may in certain circumstances be a difficulty. In the cases in question, of course, there is no such possibility. Let us remind ourselves that (in the Belgian case) we are dealing with a man who: knew exactly what methods his opponents were playing; could not possibly be damaged by what he knew in any case to be inadequate disclosure; had - in short - no reason whatever to go burbling on about keycard Blackwood and the queen of trumps other than a desire to make his opponents feel uncomfortable and to hear the sound of his own voice. Then, when his pointless ramblings caused an opponent to draw a false inference, he hid behind the "defence" that he wouldn't have had to twitter on like a canary if his opponents had told him they were playing something he knew they were playing in any case, and about which he had no need whatsoever to ask them anything. Quite incredibly, this non-argument appears to have won the sympathy not only of the Belgian jury but of a number of contributors here. Perhaps he should enter the Eurovision Song Contest. In the American case, the position is not quite as clear, for there was some confusion about what suit might be trumps. But there was, once again, absolutely no reason whatsoever for the questioner to do anything but keep his mouth shut. >In the absence of screens even "correct" questions (or looking at a CC) can make UI available to partner That is true, but irrelevant. I have said already that in the absence of screens, one cannot apply all the Laws consistently all the time. This does not mean, however, that because correct questions may cause problems, you are allowed to ask incorrect questions. >that doesn't make such questions (or looking) illegal. True. Correct questions are legal. Incorrect questions are not. >The "Kaplan" question was rendered illegal by Lille 98 - a fact I have acknowledged several times, while pointing out that I believe their decision to be flawed and unnecessary. Are they clinging to their crosses? >Opponents draw inferences *at their own risk*. If, by improper disclosure, they create a situation where they are likely to draw incorrect inferences from necessary questions they increase those risks substantially. This is simply the Robin Hood syndrome in another guise. It is never necessary to ask an illegal question. >I may ask any questions necessary to achieve disclosure (L20F1). No, you may not. You may not, for example, ask this question: "What does the auction mean, you oaf?" Nor may you ask this question: "Am I correct in thinking that you have both shown weakness in spades?" David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 14:15:14 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 06:15:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <181002291.22515@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >But a player holding the queen of hearts (leaving aside for the moment the fact that the actual question at issue was about the queen of *trump* in an RKC auction where it may not have been clear what the opponents thought the presumed trump suit was) *doesn't* presumptively know the answer to "Does it deny the queen of hearts?" or the even better, more neutral, "Does it say anything about the queen of hearts?", and David would disallow the latter as well. I think that there may be a "not" missing from the first five words of the above. But Eric is absolutely right. I would indeed not allow anyone to ask any question at all containing the words "queen of hearts". The only questions I would allow anyone to ask are of these forms: Format 1 [words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation of..." followed by [words meaning] "...the auction" or "...the call of X" (in a context where it is permitted to ask about a specific call); Format 2 The same as Format 1, with the words "an explanation of" replaced by "some more information about". David Burn London, England From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Oct 18 14:50:14 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:50:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <200210172206.SAA04995@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The English detest a siesta > > From: Adam Beneschan > > I checked the ACBL web site, and the only regulation I could find > > dealing with this is: > > > > Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions > > > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of > > the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's > > call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is > > conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage > > of a call out of rotation has been approved. > > The above regulation is obsolete, per Gary Blaiss in 2000 August. I > had been planning to post his email (with his permission) but have > failed to do so until now. > > The new regulation was "published" in the Tech Files of ACBLscore. :-( > > According to Gary, the normal interpretation that "double of an > insufficient bid is for penalty" is illegal for pairs who play negative > doubles. This was confirmed in later correspondence to be Gary's > belief, although I don't think it was ever confirmed directly with the > C&C committee. > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > From: "Gary Blaiss" > Cc: "Mike Flader" , > "Kent Burghard" > Subject: Fw: Re: Regulations > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:22:17 -0500 > > Hi Steve, > > The policy as it appears on the web site may still be the old policy. > Unfortunately, we have not maintained those files (a situation we are > attempting to rectify). > The present Techfiles have the new policy as you have stated. > > "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an > opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are > otherwise permitted." > > This policy was changed with the advice of the Competitions and Conventions > Committee in the Spring of '98. I am behind in articles that it had been my > intention to write - I need to get on the stick here!!!!! > > Hopefully, I can get Mike to include an explanation of the policy in a > Ruling the Game article. > > I have a very simple interpertation that is exactly as you have stated. > Using your example: > An auction of > North 1S, East 1C: > N/S could have agreed that in this situation a one spade bid would show a > raise of spades with 3-6 pts and 3 card support or any other natural > meaning.They could also agree to continue to treat a double as negative and > lower their strength requirements but they cannot play that the double has > different fundamental meaning (different from their conventional > meaning whether another conventional meaning or natural). > However, if the one club bid was not accepted and East bid 2C or any > overcall after which a double by South would be negative, they would have to > continue to play as a negative double - could bot change the basic > conventional meaning to natural or some other meaning. > > Another example would be a opening bid out of turn of 3H, a pair could not > have the agreement that against an out of turn opening an acceptance with a > double is a penalty double whereas normally they play takeout. However, a > pair could agree that an immediate acceptance by overcalling 3S was a > different strength than overcalling an in turn 3 H bid or a rejected out of > turn bid that was eventually repeated. > > Hopefully, we can correct the web page and get a statement in the Bulletin > in an article. > > Will try to do better in the future. > > gary > > > > ----- End Included Message ----- Such an approach is difficult for directors and more difficult for players. It is silly. When an irregular call has occurred it often is difficult to assign a meaning to it within the context of a standing agreement... yet it effectively constitutes a different auction sequence that might be defended. And as such, assigning 'different meanings' would not be 'changing system' but would be making the system 'bigger'. As an irregular call is an infraction and can also be a mistake in the sense that a regular call can be a mistake for what good reason is there in forbidding the NOS from having methods that might capitalize? Now, I have seen cases on this list where the OS has capitalized via their infraction and that their gain must stand, and those most knowledgeable on this list have argued that it must be that way and that it is the right way. To me this is backwards. regards roger pewick From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 18 15:17:07 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:17:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Communicating with blml In-Reply-To: <181002291.20451@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018161520.00aaa1c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:40 18/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >I think this may have been a laudable attempt not to send a reply >both to me and to the list. Eric may simply then have deleted >the wrong addressee. But at least he was trying. Alain, can you >*please* do likewise? Your messages are interesting, but if I >have to read any more of them twice, I shall instead not read >any of them at all. AG : does this mean one shouldn't use the 'reply to all' function ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 18 15:18:06 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:18:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question In-Reply-To: <181002291.20451@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018161713.00aa9a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:40 18/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >Come on yourself, Eric. You know as well as I do that intent >is never an issue. What matters is not what you meant to do; >what matters is whether what you do is the same thing as someone >who meant to do wrong. AG : if intent was not an issue, L73C would not be necessary. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 18 15:22:14 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:22:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <181002291.22515@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018162034.00aadbb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:15 18/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >But a player holding the queen of hearts (leaving aside for >the moment the fact that the actual question at issue was about >the queen of *trump* in an RKC auction where it may not have >been clear what the opponents thought the presumed trump suit >was) *doesn't* presumptively know the answer to "Does it deny >the queen of hearts?" or the even better, more neutral, "Does >it say anything about the queen of hearts?", and David would >disallow the latter as well. > >I think that there may be a "not" missing from the first five >words of the above. > >But Eric is absolutely right. I would indeed not allow anyone >to ask any question at all containing the words "queen of hearts". >The only questions I would allow anyone to ask are of these forms: > > >Format 1 >[words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation of..." followed >by [words meaning] "...the auction" or "...the call of X" (in >a context where it is permitted to ask about a specific call); > >Format 2 >The same as Format 1, with the words "an explanation of" replaced >by "some more information about". AG : in this case, as with any asking bid, one should surely admit a question like "what is your pattern of responses to bid X", which here would let the player know what he wants, without suggesting anything about him holding or not holding the HQ. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 18 15:12:10 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <200210181412.KAA18989@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : this is strange. It is illegal to have specific agreements over an IB. Why is it illegal (unless the SO adopts a regulation making it illegal)? If I want to agree "negative doubles over sufficient bids, penalty doubles over insufficient bids," what rule is violated (provided, of course, negative double is a legal convention)? Isn't that the same as "negative doubles of spade overcalls, penalty doubles of heart overcalls?" > Playing penalty doubles when you accept the bid is no specific agreement, > it is bridge logic. Gary seems to disagree, or at least he did as of two years ago. > AG : when you play 1NT-(2M)-2NT as general takeout, may you play > 2NT-(2M)-2NT as such ? I'd say you may. I think it would depend on the SO's convention regulations. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 18 15:24:26 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <200210181424.KAA19176@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > AG : this is strange. It is illegal to have specific agreements over an > > IB. Playing penalty doubles when you accept the bid is no specific > > agreement, it is bridge logic. > > Surely under the ACBL rule it is mandatory. Negative doubles have not > been approved for use over insufficient bids. Actually the convention charts don't say that. The GCC and higher charts allow all conventional doubles; no restriction as to sufficient or insufficient bids. The additional regulation I quoted may, of course, apply. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 18 15:29:34 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <200210181429.KAA19255@cfa183.harvard.edu> > > >Playing penalty doubles when you accept the > > > bid is no specific agreement, it is bridge logic. > From: > +=+ Alain might like to think he can get away > with this without declaring it as part of his methods. > I hope this is not what he thinks. It may not be > unique to his partnership but it is not a universal > truth that all competent players will or should > anticipate. If both he and his partner would base > their action on this expectation they have a special > partnership understanding No argument from me so far. > It should be on the CC But this is entirely up to the SO. There are many, many partnership agreements that are not required to be on the CC. > and it is subject to regulation. Presumably under authority of L40D. Hmmm... I wonder whether L40D gives the SO authority to make certain conventions mandatory: "If you play in our game, you must use all bids of 4NT as 4-ace Blackwood. Natural 4NT is not allowed." Legal? From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Oct 18 15:39:04 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:39:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Communicating with blml References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018161520.00aaa1c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00bc01c276b4$1d28a8f0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Burn" ; Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:17 PM Subject: [blml] Communicating with blml > At 05:40 18/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: > > >I think this may have been a laudable attempt not to send a reply > >both to me and to the list. Eric may simply then have deleted > >the wrong addressee. But at least he was trying. Alain, can you > >*please* do likewise? Your messages are interesting, but if I > >have to read any more of them twice, I shall instead not read > >any of them at all. > > AG : does this mean one shouldn't use the 'reply to all' function ? > Nope. We use to "Reply to all" function all right but then we go and remove anything but the BLML address from the "To:" and "CC:" fields. It would be better if the BLML configuration had the "reply-to" field set to BLML rather than BLML plus the sender of the original post but this issue comes up regularly and no one ever managed to get this changed. Like progressive taxes in Poland. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pieniadze przez SMS? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f166a From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 16:21:27 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 08:21:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] RE: Communicating with blml Message-ID: <181002291.30087@webbox.com> Alain wrote: >From: Alain Gottcheiner >To: "David Burn" , blml@rtflb.org >Date: 10/18/02 2:17:07 PM >AG : does this mean one shouldn't use the 'reply to all' function ? Yes, it does. If you do this, the list server will send a message both to me and to the list (see headers above). I don't know what you use to send emails, but I am sure that you can do one of two things: use "reply to", delete the sender's name, and put the list's name instead; or use "reply all" and delete the sender's name (and any other names that may appear in the To field or the CC field), leaving only the list's name. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 18 16:35:29 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:35:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: Communicating with blml - recommendation that works for me References: <181002291.30087@webbox.com> Message-ID: <003401c276bb$ffeefed0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: [blml] RE: Communicating with blml > > Alain wrote: > > >From: Alain Gottcheiner > >To: "David Burn" , blml@rtflb.org > >Date: 10/18/02 2:17:07 PM > > >AG : does this mean one shouldn't use the 'reply to all' function > ? > > Yes, it does. If you do this, the list server will send a message > both to me and to the list (see headers above). > > I don't know what you use to send emails, but I am sure that > you can do one of two things: use "reply to", delete the sender's > name, and put the list's name instead; or use "reply all" and > delete the sender's name (and any other names that may appear > in the To field or the CC field), leaving only the list's name. > > David Burn > London, England In my address book I have entered "blml" with the desired address. When I reply to some post I just hit "reply", select the "to" address in the reply and overwrite this with "blml" (without the quotes of course). (The fact that Jesper has his e-mail address set to blml@something makes Outlook express ask me each time I send to select among available alternatives which blml address I want to use, but that is no big deal. I am so used to blml as the name now, or I would probably have selected another simple one for my address book) Sven From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 18 16:40:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <181002291.20757@webbox.com> > >I have no doubt as to your proven humanity, I merely lack the > wherewithal to forgive you for it. > > I have been studying these words for a good twenty minutes now, > and I confess that although I am fairly certain that I recognise > each of them individually, I have not the faintest idea what > would prompt anyone to put them in that order. There is an old saying, I regret I cannot remember its origin. To err is human, to forgive divine. Best wishes, Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 18 16:40:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <181002291.21940@webbox.com> > [DB] > >If the opponents place you in a position where you cannot obtain > proper disclosure, then you accept their improper disclosure > and, if you have been damaged thereby, you obtain redress. > > [TWM] > >Unless deemed unworthy of redress due to a lack of self-protection > - as you pointed out. The combination of self-protection and > not being allowed to ask does seem likely to reward improper > disclosure. > > That may in certain circumstances be a difficulty. In the cases > in question, of course, there is no such possibility. Let us > remind ourselves that (in the Belgian case) we are dealing with > a man who: > > knew exactly what methods his opponents were playing; > could not possibly be damaged by what he knew in any case to > be inadequate disclosure; > had - in short - no reason whatever to go burbling on about keycard > Blackwood and the queen of trumps other than a desire to make > his opponents feel uncomfortable and to hear the sound of his > own voice. If these are the facts then you and I would both adjust. You because the question was deceptive, me because the question was both unnecessary and deceptive. > Then, when his pointless ramblings caused an opponent to draw > a false inference, he hid behind the "defence" that he wouldn't > have had to twitter on like a canary if his opponents had told > him they were playing something he knew they were playing in > any case, and about which he had no need whatsoever to ask them > anything. Quite incredibly, this non-argument appears to have > won the sympathy not only of the Belgian jury but of a number > of contributors here. Perhaps he should enter the Eurovision > Song Contest. I imagine the Belgian jury deemed the question necessary. > In the American case, the position is not quite as clear, for > there was some confusion about what suit might be trumps. But > there was, once again, absolutely no reason whatsoever for the > questioner to do anything but keep his mouth shut. > > >In the absence of screens even "correct" questions (or looking > at a CC) can make UI available to partner > > That is true, but irrelevant. I have said already that in the > absence of screens, one cannot apply all the Laws consistently > all the time. This does not mean, however, that because correct > questions may cause problems, you are allowed to ask incorrect > questions. > > >that doesn't make such questions (or looking) illegal. > > True. Correct questions are legal. Incorrect questions are not. > > >The "Kaplan" question was rendered illegal by Lille 98 - a fact > I have acknowledged several times, while pointing out that I > believe their decision to be flawed and unnecessary. > > Are they clinging to their crosses? Somehow I doubt it. That my opinion is probably regarded as irrelevant is unlikely to stop me from voicing it. > >Opponents draw inferences *at their own risk*. If, by improper > disclosure, they create a situation where they are likely to > draw incorrect inferences from necessary questions they increase > those risks substantially. > > This is simply the Robin Hood syndrome in another guise. It is > never necessary to ask an illegal question. True - obviously. But a question that would be illegal in the face of full disclosure *may* become necessary (and thus IMO legal) in the face of inadequate disclosure. > >I may ask any questions necessary to achieve disclosure (L20F1). > > No, you may not. You may not, for example, ask this question: > "What does the auction mean, you oaf?" Of course I may ask this question - providing only that I limit it to the select group of people who will not take offence. Personally I find it hard to imagine any circumstances where the "you oaf" is necessary. > Nor may you ask this question: > "Am I correct in thinking that you have both shown weakness in > spades?" The question is highly likely to create UI and may lead to an adjustment. I can imagine a situation (such as just prior to leading against 6N after a complex and poorly explained auction) where the UI would be irrelevant and the question reasonable (and completely non-deceptive). Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 18 16:50:28 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:50:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: <181002291.21940@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DB02DC4.20403@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > TWM wrote: > > [DB] > >>If the opponents place you in a position where you cannot obtain >> > proper disclosure, then you accept their improper disclosure > and, if you have been damaged thereby, you obtain redress. > > [TWM] > >>Unless deemed unworthy of redress due to a lack of self-protection >> > - as you pointed out. The combination of self-protection and > not being allowed to ask does seem likely to reward improper > disclosure. > > That may in certain circumstances be a difficulty. In the cases > in question, of course, there is no such possibility. Let us > remind ourselves that (in the Belgian case) we are dealing with > a man who: > > knew exactly what methods his opponents were playing; Ehhhm, no - not "exactly". He knew this was the most likely system, but he could not be 100% certain. You never can. But he certainly was in a position where the TD, if he hadn't posed the follow-up question, would have said - but you knew they played RKCB, did you not? So he might be ruled against for not protecting himself - catch 22. But in some sense of course, you are right: > could not possibly be damaged by what he knew in any case to > be inadequate disclosure; > had - in short - no reason whatever to go burbling on about keycard > Blackwood and the queen of trumps other than a desire to make > his opponents feel uncomfortable and to hear the sound of his > own voice. > > Then, when his pointless ramblings caused an opponent to draw > a false inference, he hid behind the "defence" that he wouldn't > have had to twitter on like a canary if his opponents had told > him they were playing something he knew they were playing in > any case, and about which he had no need whatsoever to ask them > anything. Quite incredibly, this non-argument appears to have > won the sympathy not only of the Belgian jury but of a number > of contributors here. Perhaps he should enter the Eurovision > Song Contest. > Ehhm - just me, not the Belgian jury. They ruled against him. [rest snipped] > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 18 16:51:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:51:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: Communicating with blml References: <181002291.30087@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DB02E04.9080907@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Alain wrote: > > >>From: Alain Gottcheiner >>To: "David Burn" , blml@rtflb.org >>Date: 10/18/02 2:17:07 PM >> > >>AG : does this mean one shouldn't use the 'reply to all' function >> > ? > > Yes, it does. If you do this, the list server will send a message > both to me and to the list (see headers above). > > I don't know what you use to send emails, but I am sure that > you can do one of two things: use "reply to", delete the sender's > name, and put the list's name instead; or use "reply all" and > delete the sender's name (and any other names that may appear > in the To field or the CC field), leaving only the list's name. > We can do one third thing. Set the list up to "reply to list". Are there still any votes against that ? Is there still any technical reason against that ? > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 17:31:31 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 09:31:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: <181002291.34291@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >Ehhm - just me, not the Belgian jury. They ruled against him. Good Lord. Hard on the heels of the revelation that, contrary to popular opinion, there are famous Belgians comes the news that there are also sane ones. It is almost too much for one day. David Burn London, England From henk@ripe.net Fri Oct 18 17:39:07 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:39:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] RE: Communicating with blml In-Reply-To: <3DB02E04.9080907@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Herman De Wael wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > Alain wrote: > > > > > >>From: Alain Gottcheiner > >>To: "David Burn" , blml@rtflb.org > >>Date: 10/18/02 2:17:07 PM > >> > > > >>AG : does this mean one shouldn't use the 'reply to all' function > >> > > ? > > > > Yes, it does. If you do this, the list server will send a message > > both to me and to the list (see headers above). > > > > I don't know what you use to send emails, but I am sure that > > you can do one of two things: use "reply to", delete the sender's > > name, and put the list's name instead; or use "reply all" and > > delete the sender's name (and any other names that may appear > > in the To field or the CC field), leaving only the list's name. > > > > > We can do one third thing. Set the list up to "reply to list". > > Are there still any votes against that ? You might want to send a private response. > Is there still any technical reason against that ? My mail reader allows you to select (a) the list, (b) the poster or (c) both when replying to a mail, and can override any "Reply-To:" field if the user wants that. After that, it is a matter of pressing the right button. When a mail arrives that might be spam, it is filed in a separate folder for the moderator (that's me), whenever I have time, I go through this folder, remove spam and forward everything else. Fake return addresses may cause mails to be labelled as spam. In that case, there will be a delay between posting and distribution. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 17:55:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Oct 2002 09:55:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <181002291.35754@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >There is an old saying, I regret I cannot remember its origin. >To err is human, to forgive divine. There is indeed. Not all that old, actually: To what base ends, and by what abject ways Are mortals urged through sacred lust of praise. Ah, ne'er so dire a thirst of glory boast, Nor in the Critic let the Man be lost. Good nature and good sense must ever join. To err is human; to forgive, divine. Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism The only reason I know this, of course, is that I am what the same author described as: A bookful blockhead, ignorantly read, With loads of learned lumber in his head. Fixed like a plant on his peculiar spot To draw nutrition, propagate, and rot. David Burn London, England From toddz@worldnet.att.com Fri Oct 18 18:46:23 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:46:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <181002291.22515@webbox.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:15 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] The Kaplan question > > The only questions I would allow anyone to ask are of > these forms: > > Format 1 > [words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation > of..." followed > by [words meaning] "...the auction" or "...the call of X" (in > a context where it is permitted to ask about a specific call); > > Format 2 > The same as Format 1, with the words "an explanation > of" replaced by "some more information about". What is wrong with the following questions, all questions assuming sufficiently inadequate disclosure: (RKC after a highly artificial auction) "Which suit is 'trump' for the purpose of RKC?" (For what it's worth, I have played with agreements that allow RKC bids based on a suit other than trump.) "What would bid X have meant if it were made instead of bid Y?" Any further question regarding negative inferences. "Do you play convention W?" "Do your teammates play convention Z?" -Todd From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 18 19:06:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: Is there an official policy on the alerting of Stayman when playing under such regulations? The stated policies on the web indicate that it is. However, I have been told that: There are no recent hand records from a WBF event that show Stayman as being alerted. If one checks the hand records one will see that when a bid is made and it is not alerted at the table but should have been, there is a little note that tells us that it should have been. (The same is said of the recent European championships). Thanks, Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 19:33:17 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:33:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <000e01c276d4$d4f27900$213a23d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > Is there an official policy on the alerting of Stayman when playing under > such regulations? The stated policies on the web indicate that it is. > However, I have been told that: > There are no recent hand records from a WBF event that show Stayman as > being alerted. If one checks the hand records one will see that when a > bid is made and it is not alerted at the table but should have been, there > is a little note that tells us that it should have been. > (The same is said of the recent European championships). There are some regulations that tell you how to alert when screens are in use. You put the alert card on the bidding tray in the segment where your screen-mate places his bids. To acknowledge the alert, he picks it up and gives it back to you. This makes a noise that can be heard for miles, and defeats one of the main purposes of screens, which is that partner should not be aware that you have alerted. So no one bothers with it. The actual alerting regulations are these: If a conventional call occurs such that your screen-mate knows what it means, you wave your hand a bit. If a conventional call occurs such that your screen-mate does not know what it means, you wave your hand a lot. Stayman hardly merits a gesture sufficient to dislodge a fly from the hand with which you make it. David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 18 21:19:23 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] RE: Communicating with blml Message-ID: <200210182019.QAA24352@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > We can do one third thing. Set the list up to "reply to list". > > Are there still any votes against that ? > Is there still any technical reason against that ? Mail loops. Think about what happens when someone uses one of those "vacation" messages with reply to the group. Or when there are certain kinds of mailer errors. If rtflb.org has adequate protection against mail loops, then setting the Reply-To address to the group would be OK with me. If not, then please record my vote against. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 18 20:44:26 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:44:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <000f01c276e4$4a4d5bc0$ea4b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:06 PM Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > Is there an official policy on the alerting of Stayman > when playing under such regulations? The stated policies > on the web indicate that it is. > +=+ By regulation Stayman is alertable in WBF events. There is also a requirement that players in WBF events "are expected to protect themselves to a large extent". If a player came to an appeals committee claiming to be damaged because opponent failed to alert Stayman we would take his temperature. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 18 21:15:51 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:15:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <181002291.35754@webbox.com> Message-ID: <001001c276e4$4bac4f80$ea4b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question > > The only reason I know this, of course, is > that I am what the same author described as: > > A bookful blockhead, ignorantly read, > With loads of learned lumber in his head. > Fixed like a plant on his peculiar spot > To draw nutrition, propagate, and rot. > > David Burn > London, England > "In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast; In doubt his mind or body to prefer, Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err, Alike in ignorance, his reason such, Whether he thinks too little, or too much." From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 18 21:22:58 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:22:58 +0100 Subject: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: <181002291.34291@webbox.com> Message-ID: <001101c276e4$4c5d5000$ea4b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question > > Herman wrote: > > >Ehhm - just me, not the Belgian jury. They ruled against him. > > Good Lord. Hard on the heels of the revelation that, contrary > to popular opinion, there are famous Belgians comes the news > that there are also sane ones. It is almost too much for one > day. > +=+ Well, don't get too euphoric - I'm in no mood for it. My stationary Citroen has just upped and smacked the rear end of a red Astro that was reversing briskly from its parking place. Dislocated the C5's off front fender. From behind my neighbour's Astro doesn't look so healthy either. ~ G ~ +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 18 22:01:22 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:01:22 +0100 Subject: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: <181002291.34291@webbox.com> <001101c276e4$4c5d5000$ea4b87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000c01c276e9$83aff6c0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > From behind my neighbour's > Astro doesn't look so healthy either. Is this a new range of cars? May we expect to see the Vauxhall Blackwood, the Chrysler Drury, the Volvo Trelde and (may angels and ministers of grace defend us) the Renault Ghestem? David Burn London, England From SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com Fri Oct 18 22:11:39 2002 From: SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com (SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:11:39 EDT Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <171.15c4ae02.2ae1d30b@aol.com> Greetings, everyone, My thanks to you, Grattan, and to David Burn for your replies on this, which were in line with my expectation and, I am sure (from the discussion elsewhere that has involved Tim and myself) Tim's as well. I am sorry to read of your Citroen being damaged by an Astro that was clearly not alerted and wish it a speedy and inexpensive recovery. Yes, this is my first posting to this entertaining and informative group, and it probably won't be my last! :o)) Best wishes from Barrie Partridge From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 18 22:13:31 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:13:31 -0700 Subject: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:01:22 BST." <000c01c276e9$83aff6c0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <200210182113.OAA31220@mailhub.irvine.com> David Burn wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > From behind my neighbour's > > Astro doesn't look so healthy either. > > Is this a new range of cars? May we expect to see the Vauxhall > Blackwood, the Chrysler Drury, the Volvo Trelde and (may angels and > ministers of grace defend us) the Renault Ghestem? How about the Chevrolet CRASH? -- Adam From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Oct 18 22:21:04 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <181002291.8184@webbox.com> from "David Burn" at Oct 18, 2002 02:16:23 AM Message-ID: <200210182121.RAA22953@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> David Burn writes: > > > But then, as Ron Johnson has kindly pointed out, I have very > little idea what competent bridge players do. > Well I suppose using words like nonsense in a reply might just give that impression. Pity there's no way to retract posts that don't come out as intended. I apologize unconditionally for any offence caused. Even if I often disagree with your opinions I respect them. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 18 23:35:45 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:35:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <005601c275e6$a9852b80$542a2850@pacific> Message-ID: On 10/17/02, gester@lineone.net wrote: >+=+ That sounds like the point I was making. You do not >need to call the player a cheat in order to get redress for >his breach of law. +=+ I would go farther. Not only do you not need to do it, it is *wrong* to do it - which is I think the point Wally Farley was making. :-) From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 18 23:59:17 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:59:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: <000e01c27625$77f7c7f0$fb83403e@endicott> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021017082311.00b5c340@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021018175425.00ac6ab0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:40 PM 10/17/02, Grattan wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > So the question at issue remains whether a player > > holding the queen of trump who asks about it can be > > presumed to be doing so "for the purpose of communicating > > with partner or of deceiving an opponent". Which in > > turn depends on whether it is possible that he might have > > a valid "bridge reason" for obtaining the answer. > > >+=+ If the Director is summoned and protest made that >the question was deceptive and caused protester to draw >an incorrect inference the player who asked the question >will be required to show that he did indeed have a >bridge reason for asking it. There does not have to be any >presumption - a set of circumstances exists in which if it >becomes an issue the player may be required to show >that he had a valid bridge reason for the question. > The point that seems to have been little stressed >in this correspondence is that defender has asked a >question that is capable of misleading declarer. If in >fact declarer is misled, the defender is required to >show that he had good reason in bridge terms to ask >the question which he knew could mislead. If he has >no demonstrable bridge reason for his action in >asking the question then the Director is required, say >again 'required', to adjust the score under Law 73F2. > Law 73F2 stands upon three legs: that the action >could work to the player's benefit, that the player >could know this was the case, and that having done it >he is unable to show that he had a bridge reason for >doing it. Aside from this there is a further question >arising in parallel under Law 73D2: was the action an >attempt to mislead? > On another tack the player's question may convey >UI to partner; if this is the case Law 73C applies and >Law 16A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This is the most sensible thing that has been written in this thread since I raised what I thought was a side-issue of "two aces" and that nasty queen of trumps. Let's see if it can settle the original question. We can stipulate the following: (a) Defender's question was capable of misleading declarer. (b) Declarer was in fact misled. (c) The action could work to the player's benefit ("on balance" is required here, but met). (d) The player could know that this ((a) and (c)) was the case. (e) The action was not an attempt to mislead. We are reduced to "the player who asked the question will be required to show that he did indeed have a bridge reason for asking it". When I wrote the reply to David B. cited above, I replied to the assertion that the question was ipso facto illegal by saying that it "depends on whether it is possible that he might have a valid 'bridge reason' for obtaining the answer". Grattan and I are in total agreement. So what have we learned from all this? I think we've actually achieved some consensus, albeit not an overwhelming one. We have rejected the AC's reasoning (at least as Mr. Gerard reported it): we do not believe that the mere fact that the information was withheld in reply to the original, correctly formulated line of questioning, by itself, is sufficient to establish a valid bridge reason for asking for it. We shall never know whether justice was done, because it would appear that the key question was never asked. We perforce reject even more forefully Mr. Gerard's "new view" opinion; he would actually encourage *always* asking under the circumstances (with or without the queen, of course). And we've all picked up some practical advice: if you find yourself in the situation faced by that lady in Washington and you really want to know what five hearts said about the queen of trump, you'd better know who's going to be on the appeals committee. If it's David B., David S. and Norman, you'd better keep your mouth shut. If it's Ron Gerard and the folks on the Washington committee, feel free to ask away. If it's Grattan, Alain, Herman and me, be prepared to convince us that you had a legitimate reason for wanting to know the answer. And, to make it all complete, we may actually have learned something about (gasp!) the subject of the thread. For if we do indeed agree that the mere fact of information withheld doesn't justify asking a question without a valid bridge reason for wanting to get the answer, that settles Mr. Kaplan's hash, does it not? It's been a very nice discussion, folks, and I thank you all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 19 01:20:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 01:20:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <200210182121.RAA22953@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Message-ID: <001301c27705$6e211980$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Ron Johnson wrote: > Well I suppose using words like nonsense in a reply might just > give that impression. Pity there's no way to retract posts that > don't come out as intended. > I apologize unconditionally for any offence caused. Even if I often > disagree with your opinions I respect them. Oh, I wasn't offended in the least. Please don't be concerned, and thank you for your gracious apology. I am a cantankerous soul, especially when things seem to be getting a long way away from the point. And I talk a lot of nonsense - some of it deliberately, to provoke counter-arguments that I can hope to understand, but most of it vaingloriously. It is the case, I grant, that there may be times when people genuinely need to know things and, rather than call the TD or (worse) hope to get a committee adjustment, they try to discover what they need to know at the table by asking questions that, strictly, they should not ask. It is also the case that the rules will occasionally "fix" those people, who are confused anyway because of the various conflicts that I have described. "Am I supposed to alert? To ask a question? If I don't, will I be ruled against because I have given misinformation? not protected myself? If I do, will I be ruled against for giving unauthorised information? for deceiving an opponent?" And it is also the case that people will simply find themselves burbling to no purpose, just as they will find themselves hesitating for no reason. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto, as they say in Barnsley. Like most players, I prefer to try to sort things out at the time if I can. I have turned up to play bridge, after all, not to attend appeals. The position in which the people I have described above are placed is not their fault. It is the fault of the rules, which (by and large) are no good, because they are not actually rules but starting points for negotiation. But when it comes to what should be done, rather than what is done, I am firmly of this opinion: if people break the rules, they do so at their peril, and the defence that "he hit me first" is no defence at all outside the playground. As I said earlier this evening, I wave my hand around a lot behind a screen rather than follow the correct alerting procedure - but if an opponent claims damage because he did not see my "alert", I simply concede that I did not alert properly. Almost all of the people on this list are very good players, or very good directors, or very highly placed officials, or two (or even three) of those. As a player, there is a tendency to think that the rules are occasionally stupid; as a director, there is a tendency to think that the players are occasionally stupid; and you cannot be a highly placed official without the belief that just about everybody else is stupid. But if what I have said above is true, then this is entirely understandable: if the "rules" of bridge are no more than a set of starting points for negotiation, then players, directors, and officials will obviously start from different places. A clear instance of this has actually occurred during the "Kaplan question" discussion. I called for examples of an actual hand where a player's decision might be influenced by whether or not the opponents might or might not have shown the queen of trumps despite not having it (for the player himself had it). I received by return of post two such examples, which had this in common: you had what you might regard as a likely trump trick (in a holding that included the queen), but you might nevertheless consider a sacrifice, and whether or not you should save depended on whether or not the opponents might have budgeted for losing that trump trick anyway. As a player, I would unhesitatingly say that anyone who saved against a slam with what might be a surprise trump trick needed his head examined, for possession rather than condition. But as a director (which I have never been), I could imagine that I would accept an argument to the effect that in a particular set of circumstances, a player might want to know whether his opponents each thought (wrongly) that the other had the queen of trumps, and that the player was entitled to do his best to discover whether or not this was the case. As an official (which I have been, and still am), I would know that no general rule could possibly cover all combinations of cards and auctions that might arise; but I would create some general rules anyway and hope for the best. Those general rules would, as an all-pervading starting point, say: do not do anything with the cards in your hand except bid them and play them; above all, do not (except through legal calls or plays) tell anyone else either a truth or a lie about a single one of them. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 19 01:59:08 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 01:59:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021017082311.00b5c340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021018175425.00ac6ab0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001c01c2770a$bacbec60$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: >The point that seems to have been little stressed >in this correspondence is that defender has asked a >question that is capable of misleading declarer. If in >fact declarer is misled, the defender is required to >show that he had good reason in bridge terms to ask >the question which he knew could mislead. If he has >no demonstrable bridge reason for his action in >asking the question then the Director is required, say >again 'required', to adjust the score under Law 73F2. A thought has occurred to me. Suppose that, just before leading towards dummy's king-jack, declarer asks his left-hand opponent "Wasn't that your wife I saw leaving with the barman?" Has he grounds for redress if his LHO now fumbles before playing low without the ace? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 19 02:10:45 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 02:10:45 +0100 Subject: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: <200210182113.OAA31220@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002b01c2770c$5a03b320$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Adam wrote: > How about the Chevrolet CRASH? Nah. Those must be commonplace anyway. The first time I set foot in the United States, I was met at the airport by a colleague who explained to me, when I exhibited some signs of nervousness, that "We can't drive worth a damn. But our roads are so big that we don't have to." David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 19 06:28:08 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 06:28:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018161713.00aa9a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007701c27730$50f711e0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > >Come on yourself, Eric. You know as well as I do that intent > >is never an issue. What matters is not what you meant to do; > >what matters is whether what you do is the same thing as someone > >who meant to do wrong. > > AG : if intent was not an issue, L73C would not be necessary. Yes, it would. You are not supposed to transmit unauthorised information, just as you are not supposed to steal. But it is necessary to point out that the recipient of unauthorised information may not derive benefit therefrom, just as it is necessary to point out that the recipient of stolen goods may not sell them in his turn, for if he does, he will go to gaol. Otherwise, given the current level of jurisprudence, people might start to believe that if X has committed a crime, then so can Y, and (whereas this argument is ridiculous in the first place), apply it to the case where X is partner rather than an opponent. David Burn Wormwood Scrubs, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Oct 19 06:42:46 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 06:42:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: Message-ID: <008201c27732$5a7b5ee0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: [DB] > No, you may not. You may not, for example, ask this question: > "What does the auction mean, you oaf?" [TWM] > Of course I may ask this question - providing only that I limit it to the > select group of people who will not take offence. Personally I find it > hard to imagine any circumstances where the "you oaf" is necessary. Curious. I find it hard to imagine any circumstances in which it isn't. But we play in different circles, Tim and I. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Oct 19 20:36:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000f01c276e4$4a4d5bc0$ea4b87d9@4nrw70j> Thanks to both Grattan and David for the confirmation. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 20 09:43:51 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 09:43:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018161713.00aa9a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007701c27730$50f711e0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004501c27815$b2686e70$2427e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question > Otherwise, given the current level of jurisprudence, > people might start to believe that if X has committed > a crime, then so can Y, and (whereas this argument > is ridiculous in the first place), apply it to the case > where X is partner rather than an opponent. > > David Burn > Wormwood Scrubs, England > +=+ " Children of the future age, Reading this indignant page, Know that in a former time Love! sweet love! was thought a crime." From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 20 17:33:14 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:33:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question In-Reply-To: <007701c27730$50f711e0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018161713.00aa9a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007701c27730$50f711e0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <007701c27730$50f711e0$213a23d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Alain wrote: > >> >Come on yourself, Eric. You know as well as I do that intent >> >is never an issue. What matters is not what you meant to do; >> >what matters is whether what you do is the same thing as someone >> >who meant to do wrong. >> >> AG : if intent was not an issue, L73C would not be necessary. > >Yes, it would. You are not supposed to transmit unauthorised >information, just as you are not supposed to steal. But it is necessary >to point out that the recipient of unauthorised information may not >derive benefit therefrom, just as it is necessary to point out that the >recipient of stolen goods may not sell them in his turn, for if he does, >he will go to gaol. This is not so, provided he has bought them before dawn in Petticoat Lane (or so my local fence assures me). > Otherwise, given the current level of jurisprudence, >people might start to believe that if X has committed a crime, then so >can Y, and (whereas this argument is ridiculous in the first place), >apply it to the case where X is partner rather than an opponent. > >David Burn >Wormwood Scrubs, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nancy@dressing.org Sun Oct 20 16:44:07 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:44:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <000f01c2784f$86970970$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2782D.FF69CB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the = third round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still = sitting out! Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2782D.FF69CB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in = the=20 third round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still = sitting=20 out!  Can we rescue this?  Thanks, Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2782D.FF69CB20-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 02:40:41 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:40:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: <4A256C59.0007E20D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: >>You are not supposed to transmit unauthorised >>information, just as you are not supposed to steal. [snip] Not so. Because the Laws wrote: >inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a >call or play is made does not in itself constitute a >violation of propriety Therefore, transmission of UI is not necessarily comparable to stealing. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 03:06:33 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:06:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <4A256C59.000A4057.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Gary Blaiss wrote: [big snip] >>Another example would be a opening bid out of >>turn of 3H, a pair could not have the agreement >>that against an out of turn opening an acceptance >>with a double is a penalty double whereas >>normally they play takeout. >> >>However, a pair could agree that an immediate >>acceptance by overcalling 3S was a different >>strength than overcalling an in turn 3H bid or a >>rejected out of turn bid that was eventually >>repeated. >> >>Hopefully, we can correct the web page and get a >>statement in the Bulletin in an article. >> >>Will try to do better in the future. Roger Pewick replied: >Such an approach is difficult for directors and >more difficult for players. It is silly. When an >irregular call has occurred it often is difficult >to assign a meaning to it within the context of a >standing agreement... yet it effectively >constitutes a different auction sequence that might >be defended. And as such, assigning 'different >meanings' would not be 'changing system' but would >be making the system 'bigger'. > >As an irregular call is an infraction and can also >be a mistake in the sense that a regular call can >be a mistake for what good reason is there in >forbidding the NOS from having methods that might >capitalize? [snip] Last Sunday, this auction occurred (imps, nil vul): LHO Pard RHO Me 1H Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 2C Pass Pass 2D 3C Pass 3NT Dble 3H The TD was called, and pard chose to accept the insufficient 3H call and Pass. Pard had perpetrated the Undouble Convention, warning me not to double 3NT if RHO bid it a second time. As it was the first time that this auction (or any similar auction) had occurred with this partner, I did not have an explicit or implicit agreement that pard was employing the Undouble Convention. But if pard and I visit ACBL-land, and this auction occurs again there, do we have an illegal agreement? Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Oct 21 04:15:23 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:15:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] What makes a bid conventional? Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021020230652.01a4ed78@mail.comcast.net> South bids 1S, North bids 2NT (Jacoby, showing four trumps and a game force), South bids 2S. Their agreement is that 3S shows no singleton or void, and 17 or more HCP. May South bid 3S without barring North? That is, would 3S be a convention or a treatment? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 05:09:32 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:09:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <4A256C59.001582FD.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >>The only questions I would allow anyone to ask >>are of these forms: >> >> >>Format 1 >>[words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation >>of..." followed by [words meaning] "...the >>auction" or "...the call of X" (in a context >>where it is permitted to ask about a specific >>call); >> >>Format 2 >>The same as Format 1, with the words "an >>explanation of" replaced by "some more >>information about". >> >>David Burn >>London, England The Laws permit a third format; L20F1 states: >questions may be asked about [snip] >relevant calls available but not made That is, the Laws themselves rule that non-generic questions are in some circumstances legal. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 05:21:04 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:21:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <4A256C59.00169108.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain Gottcheiner asked: [snip] >This raises another interesting question : in >determining whether some inference of a call >should have been explained according to L75C, >may we use some kind of 75% rule, ie if 75% of >the asking player's peers grasp the inference >without being told, it didn't need to be >explained? If 75% of a player's peers habitually revoke, does that make revokes legal? Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 21 05:26:17 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:26:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] What makes a bid conventional? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021020230652.01a4ed78@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021020230652.01a4ed78@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: In article <5.1.1.6.0.20021020230652.01a4ed78@mail.comcast.net>, David J. Grabiner writes >South bids 1S, North bids 2NT (Jacoby, showing four trumps and a game >force), South bids 2S. Their agreement is that 3S shows no singleton or >void, and 17 or more HCP. > >May South bid 3S without barring North? That is, would 3S be a convention >or a treatment? > IMO, the 2S IB is an attempt to make the lowest bid (showing extras). Since 3S is natural and it contains no significantly different meaning I'd allow the change without penalty. I may be howled down. cheers john > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 05:38:25 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:38:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <4A256C59.001827C5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: >There are some regulations that tell you >how to alert when screens are in use. You >put the alert card on the bidding tray in >the segment where your screen-mate places >his bids. To acknowledge the alert, he >picks it up and gives it back to you. > >This makes a noise that can be heard for >miles, and defeats one of the main >purposes of screens, which is that partner >should not be aware that you have alerted. >So no one bothers with it. > >The actual alerting regulations are these: > >If a conventional call occurs such that >your screen-mate knows what it means, you >wave your hand a bit. >If a conventional call occurs such that >your screen-mate does not know what it >means, you wave your hand a lot. [snip] The ABF has sensibly formalised hand-waving. In Aussie events played with screens, four giant Alert cards are stapled to the four corners of the screen. Making sure that your screenmate has noticed that you have pointed to your Alert card, is all that the ABF requires for a valid screen- based Alert. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 05:46:10 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:46:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] RE: Communicating with blml Message-ID: <4A256C59.0018DCD8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >Mail loops. Think about what happens when someone uses one of >those "vacation" messages with reply to the group. Or when there >are certain kinds of mailer errors. > >If rtflb.org has adequate protection against mail loops, then setting >the Reply-To address to the group would be OK with me. If not, then >please record my vote against. Record my vote against also. Now that all active blmlers are aware of the netiquette forbidding duplicate messages, there should be only occasional problems with the current blml communication default. As well as mail loops, changing the default will exacerbate the much more serious error of sending private email responses accidentally to the entire list. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 05:57:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:57:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <4A256C59.0019E5FE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [big snip] >>"Do your teammates play convention Z?" >> >>-Todd You are entitled to know about the opponents' methods; however, the Lawful definition of "Opponent" is: >A player of the other side; a member of >the partnership to which one is opposed. Since the definition uses the word "partnership" in the singular, rather than the phrase "partnership in a pair event, partnerships in a team event", I would rule that your opponents' team- mates are *not* also your opponents. Compare and contrast the Lawful definition of "Contestant", which *is* specifically written to include a team as a contestant. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 06:24:13 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:24:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] What makes a bid conventional? Message-ID: <4A256C59.001C5980.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Grabiner wrote: >>South bids 1S, North bids 2NT (Jacoby, showing four >>trumps and a game force), South bids 2S. Their >>agreement is that 3S shows no singleton or void, >>and 17 or more HCP. >> >>May South bid 3S without barring North? That is, >>would 3S be a convention or a treatment? The Laws definition of "Convention" states: >an agreement as to overall strength does not make a >call a convention. Therefore, the 17 or more HCP does not make 3S a convention. The "no singleton or void" agreement is trickier to resolve. Is that >a meaning other than willingness to play in the >denomination named or not? Counter-question: Is a 1NT opening which shows no singleton or void a conventional call? Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 21 06:26:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:26:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 74B5 In-Reply-To: <4A256C56.0012B3BB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 10/18/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In social conversation at the end of the round, I >may tactfully mention standard procedure to my >beginner opponents (carefully avoiding any nuance >of blame). It was in conversation at the end of the round that the incident I reported occurred. Perhaps my social skills are lacking, or perhaps new players are entirely too sensitive. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 21 06:37:00 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:37:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 74B5 References: Message-ID: <005e01c278c3$fba14040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > It was in conversation at the end of the round that the incident I > reported occurred. Perhaps my social skills are lacking, or perhaps new > players are entirely too sensitive. Pfui! Jeezus, Ed, your social skills are beyond reproach! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 21 06:29:41 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:29:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? In-Reply-To: <4A256C56.001E3C7F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 10/18/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial >discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction >commenced: > >LHO Pard RHO >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) > >(1) Weak >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted > >The next player took over-optimistic action, and >was carted out for a big penalty. > >The ACBL AC ruled that that player had failed to >protect their side, as they had not asked a >question about RHO's Pass. I wonder what The Bridge World had to say about it. For me, it looks like the AC was nuts. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Mon Oct 21 10:36:38 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:36:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question [So far off topic it ain't true] Message-ID: >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >This is not so, provided he has bought them before dawn in Petticoat >Lane (or so my local fence assures me). Then your local fence is leading you up the garden path. Bermondsey market was where you could, historically, get away with this. The legal loophole that allowed it is, alas, now closed (or so my local fence assures me when he gets a borrow of Jeffrey's phone card). _________________________________________________________________ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 21 11:13:06 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:13:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? References: Message-ID: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? > On 10/18/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial > >discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction > >commenced: > > > >LHO Pard RHO > >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) > > > >(1) Weak > >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted What is the problem? You don't alert a pass that shows "strength" less than say 6hcp? > > > >The next player took over-optimistic action, and > >was carted out for a big penalty. > > > >The ACBL AC ruled that that player had failed to > >protect their side, as they had not asked a > >question about RHO's Pass. Why should he have to ask? The pass without an alert limits the combined values with opener to 24hcp - indicating that his side holds at least 16hcp but not neccessarily more - that is all there is to it? > > I wonder what The Bridge World had to say about it. For me, it looks > like the AC was nuts. For me it looks like thr AC rejected an attempt to save from a self-inflicted disaster? Or is there more to this story than is evident from the posting? Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Oct 21 12:12:22 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:12:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? References: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <00f501c278f4$1eced520$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:29 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? > > > > On 10/18/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > >Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial > > >discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction > > >commenced: > > > > > >LHO Pard RHO > > >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) > > > > > >(1) Weak > > >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted > > What is the problem? You don't alert a pass that shows > "strength" less than say 6hcp? But you do alert a pass that systemically shows 6+points. Normally when repsonder passes & they re-open opener is not allowed to double with a trump stack as he may find his partner with 0 PC. When a pass shows 6+points systemically - he can do it. The opponents should know that we have at least 18 PC (rather than 12) for our 1NT - (p) - p sequence, don't you think? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Uwielbiam, gdy mnie odwiedzasz... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1663 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 21 12:37:33 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:37:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? Message-ID: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> Please send your replies also to Yves, originator of this problem. This is the bidding: West North East South Pass Pass 1Di Pass 1NT 3Cl South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly over 1Di. Of course North disagrees. So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) Misbid or not ? FWIW - the CC does mention Ghestem (which we know includes 1Di-3Cl for the majors). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 21 12:49:31 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:49:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <4A256C59.00169108.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021021134657.024558e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:21 21/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner asked: > >[snip] > > >This raises another interesting question : in > >determining whether some inference of a call > >should have been explained according to L75C, > >may we use some kind of 75% rule, ie if 75% of > >the asking player's peers grasp the inference > >without being told, it didn't need to be > >explained? > >If 75% of a player's peers habitually revoke, >does that make revokes legal? AG : the response might shock you : yes. If some event occurs, which would make the ordinary player revoke (I can only think of one : somebidy said "plum", while playing a grape), some directors could wish to rule no infraction. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 21 12:56:25 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:56:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021021135421.0244e320@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:37 21/10/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Please send your replies also to Yves, originator of this problem. > >This is the bidding: > >West North East South > Pass Pass >1Di Pass 1NT 3Cl > >South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. > >South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly over 1Di. >Of course North disagrees. >So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) AG : I know of some who do (after all, clubs are RHO's suit) >Misbid or not ? AG : MI, if they can't prove otherwise. As usual. (still don't want to take special measures against Ghestemic errors ?) >FWIW - the CC does mention Ghestem (which we know includes 1Di-3Cl for the >majors). From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Oct 21 12:48:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sven wrote: > Why should he have to ask? The pass without an alert limits > the combined values with opener to 24hcp - indicating that > his side holds at least 16hcp but not neccessarily more - that > is all there is to it? Surely not. An unalerted pass places 15-23 (at most) HCP with the opening side (assuming Strong NT). A pass alerted as promising 6+ points means about 21-27 points there. The risk profile for entering the auction is surely different in the 2 scenarios. There may be locations where pass promising values is so common that self-protection is expected but, while fairly common around here, I would not expect it to be in that category. Tim ps. Deliberate non-alerts of this value showing pass are a great way to get tops. From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 21 12:58:25 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:58:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? References: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <00f501c278f4$1eced520$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <009d01c278f9$2a069720$70d8fea9@WINXP> ......... > > > >LHO Pard RHO > > > >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) > > > > > > > >(1) Weak > > > >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted > > > > What is the problem? You don't alert a pass that shows > > "strength" less than say 6hcp? > > > But you do alert a pass that systemically shows 6+points. Certainly. Is that what he meant? In such a system I have a couple of questions: What do you respond to a 1NT opening if you have less than 6hcp? How strong can the pass be? (12hcp?) What do you call if you have such strength that you should try for a game or even a slam? Certainly not pass??? > Normally when repsonder passes & they re-open > opener is not allowed to double with a trump stack > as he may find his partner with 0 PC. > > When a pass shows 6+points systemically - he can > do it. The opponents should know that we have > at least 18 PC (rather than 12) for our 1NT - (p) - p > sequence, don't you think? Sure, and under Law21B1 (etc.?) there is clearly misinformation against which opponents have no duty to "protect" themselves by asking unless there is a demonstrable reason for them to do so. Such reasons include a note to that effect on the front page of a CC and habits in the environment where this event took place to which opponents should be familiar. But without alert opponents should be prepared for the opener and his partner holding up to 24 hcp between them, and any action which leads to a disaster on their remaining 16hcp I would still rule self-inflected, even without the alert. Sven From henk@ripe.net Mon Oct 21 13:01:41 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:01:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021021135421.0244e320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 13:37 21/10/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Please send your replies also to Yves, originator of this problem. > > > >This is the bidding: > > > > West North East South > > Pass Pass > > 1Di Pass 1NT 3Cl > > > >South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. > > > >South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly over 1Di. > >Of course North disagrees. > >So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) > > AG : I know of some who do (after all, clubs are RHO's suit) I've seen people who play 1C-P-1N-2/3C as conventional and that is already rare, but never 1D-P-1N-2C/3C. > >Misbid or not ? > > AG : MI, if they can't prove otherwise. As usual. I'd rule misbid, this sounds as if south mixed up conventions and auctions where they apply. There is also a practical problem: this auction doesn't fit anywhere on the convention card and most people don't list natural actions in their system notes, so how can NS ever prove that they play 3C as natural? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From david-martin@talk21.com Mon Oct 21 13:09:42 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:09:42 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd> I have sent an e-mail with an attachment directly to Nancy that contains a number of fixes for movement errors including hers. If anyone else is interested in getting a copy then they can download it from David Stevenson's website. The address is http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm. Regards David ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: Bridge Laws Sent: 20 October 2002 16:44 Subject: [blml] movement problem At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the third round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting out! Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Oct 21 13:11:48 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:11:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? References: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <00f501c278f4$1eced520$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <009d01c278f9$2a069720$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <002101c278fb$0e91dd40$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? > ......... > > > > >LHO Pard RHO > > > > >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) > > > > > > > > > >(1) Weak > > > > >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted > > > > > > What is the problem? You don't alert a pass that shows > > > "strength" less than say 6hcp? > > > > > > But you do alert a pass that systemically shows 6+points. > > Certainly. Is that what he meant? Yes. I don't play this system but this is a popular solution. > > In such a system I have a couple of questions: > What do you respond to a 1NT opening if you have less than 6hcp? You try some razzmatazz - you transfer into a 4 card suit (or a doubleton!) you bid stayman, you might even bid 3NT (with xxx xxxx xxx xxx at favorable vulnarebility - I did it twice in my life always with good result). Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Uwielbiam, gdy mnie odwiedzasz... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1663 From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Oct 21 13:26:02 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:26:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? References: Message-ID: <002b01c278fd$0c367630$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > There is also a practical problem: this auction doesn't fit anywhere on > the convention card and most people don't list natural actions in their > system notes, so how can NS ever prove that they play 3C as natural? > > Henk > It is their problem. When you play a convention then you either learn it or suffer the consequences when you have a mix-up. As a TD I wouldn't even think about accepting an explanation along the "how can we ever prove it" lines. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Uwielbiam, gdy mnie odwiedzasz... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1663 From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 21 13:27:38 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:27:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd> Message-ID: <00b701c278fd$3e5ebb90$70d8fea9@WINXP> I tried to answer Nancy here on blml, but my reply was stopped with the following feedback: QUOTE: Your mail to 'blml' with the subject Re: [blml] movement problem Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has a suspicious header Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. UNQUOTE I have no idea what tripped this action, I certainly did nothing special when replying ande i know that my machine is clean. Could it have been something in the original post (from Nancy) that upset things? Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem > I have sent an e-mail with an attachment directly to Nancy that contains a > number of fixes for movement errors including hers. If anyone else is > interested in getting a copy then they can download it from David > Stevenson's website. The address is http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm. > > Regards > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nancy T Dressing > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: 20 October 2002 16:44 > Subject: [blml] movement problem > > > At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the third > round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting out! > Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 20 21:22:26 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:22:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <000f01c2784f$86970970$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <003801c27876$69a88100$70d8fea9@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C27887.2BC8C050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the following I identify the pairs that are moving by the table = number where they started in round 1, and I assume that pairs move to higher numbered tables. (If they move in = the other direction you will have to change many pair and board numbers, but the solution is = essentially the same). I further assume that the following is a description on seated pairs and = boards played at tables 13, 14 and 15 during the first three rounds: 1: T 13, P 13 boards 25&26 / T 14 P 14 boards 27&28 / T 15 (sitout) P 15 = boards 29&30 2: T 13, P 12 boards 27&28 / T 14 P 13 boards 1&2 / T 15 (sitout) P = 14 boards 29&30 3: T 13, P 11 boards 1&2 / T 14 P 12 boards 3&4 / T 15 (sitout) P = 13 boards 29&30 If this is so then what you can do is to reinsert boards 29&30 at table = 12 in round 4 (where they should have been by that time) and have the following arrangements at = tables 13 through 15: 4: T 13, P 10 boards 1&2 / T 14 P 11 boards 3&4 / T 15 (sitout) P 12 = boards 5&6 You will then apply Law 15 and cancel the results at tables 13 and 14 in = round 4 (NOT round 3 !!!) because the seated pairs have already played them, and you will also = have to cancel the results=20 from the table and the round where the moving pairs 11, 12 and 13 are = scheduled to play the boards (1 - 4) which they incorrectly played in rounds 2 and 3. Finally, to the extent that moving pairs 13 and/or 14 looked at the = cards and/or the score records for boards 29 and/or 30 at the sitout table you will also have to cancel = their results from the rounds=20 where they are scheduled to play such boards.=20 I think that is the lot. regards Sven ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: [blml] movement problem At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the = third round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still = sitting out! Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C27887.2BC8C050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the following I identify the pairs = that are=20 moving by the table number where they started in round 1,
and I assume that pairs move to higher = numbered=20 tables. (If they move in the other direction you will
have to change many pair and board = numbers, but the=20 solution is essentially the same).
 
I further assume that the following is = a=20 description on seated pairs and boards played at tables
13, 14 and 15 during the first three=20 rounds:
 
1: T 13, P 13 boards = 25&26 / T=20 14 P 14 boards 27&28 / T 15 (sitout) P 15 boards 29&30
2: T 13, P 12 boards = 27&28 / T=20 14 P 13 boards 1&2    / T 15 (sitout) P 14 = boards=20 29&30
3: T 13, P 11 boards=20 1&2    / T 14 P 12 boards=20 3&4     / T 15 (sitout) P 13 boards=20 29&30
 
If this is so then what you can do is to reinsert boards 29&30 = at table=20 12 in round 4 (where they
should have been by that time) and have the following arrangements = at=20 tables 13 through 15:
 
4: T 13, P 10 boards 1&2 = / T=20 14 P 11 boards 3&4 / T 15 (sitout) P 12 boards=20 5&6
 
You will then apply Law 15 and cancel the results at tables 13 = and 14=20 in round 4 (NOT round 3 !!!)
because the seated pairs have already played them, and you will = also have=20 to cancel the results
from the table and the round where the moving pairs 11, 12 and 13 = are=20 scheduled to play the
boards (1 - 4) which they incorrectly played in rounds 2 and = 3.
 
Finally, to the extent that moving pairs 13 and/or 14 looked at the = cards=20 and/or the score records
for boards 29 and/or 30 at the sitout table you will also have to = cancel=20 their results from the rounds
where they are scheduled to play such boards.
 
I think that is the lot.
 
regards Sven
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 = 5:44=20 PM
Subject: [blml] movement = problem

At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered = in the=20 third round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still = sitting=20 out!  Can we rescue this?  Thanks, Nancy
 
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C27887.2BC8C050-- From henk@ripe.net Mon Oct 21 13:32:24 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:32:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] movement problem In-Reply-To: <00b701c278fd$3e5ebb90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > I tried to answer Nancy here on blml, but my reply was stopped > with the following feedback: > > QUOTE: > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > Re: [blml] movement problem > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Message has a suspicious header > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. > UNQUOTE > > I have no idea what tripped this action, I certainly did nothing > special when replying ande i know that my machine is clean. > Could it have been something in the original post (from Nancy) > that upset things? It was in the queue waiting for my approval, I cannot discover anything in the header either, so I've approved it. Henk > > Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Martin" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:09 PM > Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem > > > > I have sent an e-mail with an attachment directly to Nancy that contains a > > number of fixes for movement errors including hers. If anyone else is > > interested in getting a copy then they can download it from David > > Stevenson's website. The address is http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm. > > > > Regards > > > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > To: Bridge Laws > > Sent: 20 October 2002 16:44 > > Subject: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the > third > > round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting out! > > Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From henk@ripe.net Mon Oct 21 13:50:57 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:50:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: <002b01c278fd$0c367630$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > > There is also a practical problem: this auction doesn't fit anywhere on > > the convention card and most people don't list natural actions in their > > system notes, so how can NS ever prove that they play 3C as natural? > > > > Henk > > > > It is their problem. When you play a convention > then you either learn it or suffer the consequences > when you have a mix-up. But they don't play this "convention". My system notes don't list, for example, the sequence 1 D - Pass - 1 NT - 2 S though everybody will agree that it is natural. Now suppose I confuse this auction with 1 D - 1 N - Pass - 2 S which is a transfer to clubs. My partner will still explain the auction as spades, CC and systemnotes won't say anything about it so I cannot prove a MB, even though we're all reasonably sure that it is one. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From david-martin@talk21.com Mon Oct 21 14:00:58 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:00:58 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <019901c27902$080f2160$1975073e@davicaltd> Sven I suggest that you take a look at my fix as this does not require any boards to be cancelled. Regards David ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: blml Sent: 20 October 2002 21:22 Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem In the following I identify the pairs that are moving by the table number where they started in round 1, and I assume that pairs move to higher numbered tables. (If they move in the other direction you will have to change many pair and board numbers, but the solution is essentially the same). I further assume that the following is a description on seated pairs and boards played at tables 13, 14 and 15 during the first three rounds: 1: T 13, P 13 boards 25&26 / T 14 P 14 boards 27&28 / T 15 (sitout) P 15 boards 29&30 2: T 13, P 12 boards 27&28 / T 14 P 13 boards 1&2 / T 15 (sitout) P 14 boards 29&30 3: T 13, P 11 boards 1&2 / T 14 P 12 boards 3&4 / T 15 (sitout) P 13 boards 29&30 If this is so then what you can do is to reinsert boards 29&30 at table 12 in round 4 (where they should have been by that time) and have the following arrangements at tables 13 through 15: 4: T 13, P 10 boards 1&2 / T 14 P 11 boards 3&4 / T 15 (sitout) P 12 boards 5&6 You will then apply Law 15 and cancel the results at tables 13 and 14 in round 4 (NOT round 3 !!!) because the seated pairs have already played them, and you will also have to cancel the results from the table and the round where the moving pairs 11, 12 and 13 are scheduled to play the boards (1 - 4) which they incorrectly played in rounds 2 and 3. Finally, to the extent that moving pairs 13 and/or 14 looked at the cards and/or the score records for boards 29 and/or 30 at the sitout table you will also have to cancel their results from the rounds where they are scheduled to play such boards. I think that is the lot. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: [blml] movement problem At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the third round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting out! Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Mon Oct 21 14:03:27 2002 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:03:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <002f01c27902$40135720$164565d5@swipnet.se> Dear Nancy, I have not seen david Martin=B4s solution to your problem, but I have seen that of Sven Pran. It is a better solution than his. See = the book "Movements", pages 135 to 136. You need not spoil anything. Just go on for seven rounds. In the eighth you call a normal move but make a few changes: 1) Set up a = board table between tables 7 and 8. 2) Move the board sets on the table higher than 7 one table down extra. = One set of boards will thus be on the borard table. 3) Tables 1 and 14 = share boards for the remaining rounds. 4) You can play 13 rounds. With 14 and a half tables I recommend Pivot Mitchell as descibed in the same book on pages 97 and up. Then you will get the = same number of results on all boards whenever you curtail the movement. With 14 and a half tables pairs 1 to 13 are stationary the normal way. = Pair 14 is placed at table 14 NS, pairs 15 to 28 at table 1 to 14 EW and = pair 29 sits out. At table 14 you put a guide card saying NS move to = table 1; EW first have a sit-out and then move to this table (14) NS.=20 Boards move the normal way. With an even number of playing tables (as = 14) the moving pairs skip a table after half the rounds (after riund 7 = with 29 pairs). With an odd number of tables there is no skip. If you want to know more mail to hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se Good luck! From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 21 14:15:31 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:15:31 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem In-Reply-To: <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd> References: <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd> Message-ID: <6ysvQ3Bz3$s9Ew5P@asimere.com> In article <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd>, David Martin writes >I have sent an e-mail with an attachment directly to Nancy that contains a >number of fixes for movement errors including hers. If anyone else is >interested in getting a copy then they can download it from David >Stevenson's website. The address is http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm. > >Regards > >David > > I'm quite well known for using bizarre movements. I find David's book of "Movements I wouldn't want to use" particularly helpful in this respect :) cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 21 14:31:51 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:31:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <019901c27902$080f2160$1975073e@davicaltd> Message-ID: <00e501c27906$377b0910$70d8fea9@WINXP> I did, Ough!!! (but thanks!) However, although I haven't studied your material in detail I fail to see how you can avoid cancelling some boards once boards 29&30 have been subject to sitout two rounds too many and boards 1-4 have been played by incorrect pair combinations. After the second round you can no longer just swap boards like you would have done if the error was discovered earlier? Anyway, this is just hypothetical for me (us). Happily we almost never play Mitchell any more in Norway, at least not in the clubs I know about, and the few times I have been in charge with Mitchell movements the players need so detailed instructions that I cannot remember last time we got into trouble. What do we play? Howell with up to 7 tables (in each greoup) Barometer (boards dealt and duplicated in advance) with any number of tables. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:00 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem > Sven > > I suggest that you take a look at my fix as this does not require any boards > to be cancelled. > > Regards > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sven Pran > To: blml > Sent: 20 October 2002 21:22 > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > In the following I identify the pairs that are moving by the table number > where they started in round 1, > and I assume that pairs move to higher numbered tables. (If they move in the > other direction you will > have to change many pair and board numbers, but the solution is essentially > the same). > > I further assume that the following is a description on seated pairs and > boards played at tables > 13, 14 and 15 during the first three rounds: > > 1: T 13, P 13 boards 25&26 / T 14 P 14 boards 27&28 / T 15 (sitout) P 15 > boards 29&30 > 2: T 13, P 12 boards 27&28 / T 14 P 13 boards 1&2 / T 15 (sitout) P 14 > boards 29&30 > 3: T 13, P 11 boards 1&2 / T 14 P 12 boards 3&4 / T 15 (sitout) P 13 > boards 29&30 > > If this is so then what you can do is to reinsert boards 29&30 at table 12 > in round 4 (where they > should have been by that time) and have the following arrangements at tables > 13 through 15: > > 4: T 13, P 10 boards 1&2 / T 14 P 11 boards 3&4 / T 15 (sitout) P 12 boards > 5&6 > > You will then apply Law 15 and cancel the results at tables 13 and 14 in > round 4 (NOT round 3 !!!) > because the seated pairs have already played them, and you will also have to > cancel the results > from the table and the round where the moving pairs 11, 12 and 13 are > scheduled to play the > boards (1 - 4) which they incorrectly played in rounds 2 and 3. > > Finally, to the extent that moving pairs 13 and/or 14 looked at the cards > and/or the score records > for boards 29 and/or 30 at the sitout table you will also have to cancel > their results from the rounds > where they are scheduled to play such boards. > > I think that is the lot. > > regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nancy T Dressing > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:44 PM > Subject: [blml] movement problem > > > At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the > third round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting > out! Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Oct 21 15:09:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <009d01c278f9$2a069720$70d8fea9@WINXP> Minor apologies for exaggerating the HCP potential with declarer - for some reason I imagined a X after 1N. > But without alert opponents should be prepared for the opener > and his partner holding up to 24 hcp between them, and any > action which leads to a disaster on their remaining 16hcp I > would still rule self-inflected, even without the alert. This seems terribly unfair. Sure the player knows that opps may have 24 points - but he "expects" the points not in his hand and not promised by declarer to be evenly split between the other hands. I mean 1N-p-p-X with an 18 count is fine after a normal 3rd hand pass - and psychotic if you know opps have 15+ opposite 6+. There is a big difference between risking a number and setting oneself up for one. Tim From david-martin@talk21.com Mon Oct 21 15:14:30 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:14:30 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <01e701c2790c$45c37100$1975073e@davicaltd> Hi Hans Long time no speak! My solution is exactly the same as yours except that it is expressed in algebraic terms (with an example) so that it can be applied to any even number of tables. BTW, you can play 14 rounds provided that you don't mind having an irregular last round with some revenges and board sharing. Fix number 11 in my set gives an example of this. Regards David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hallén" To: Sent: 21 October 2002 14:03 Subject: [blml] movement problem Dear Nancy, I have not seen david Martin´s solution to your problem, but I have seen that of Sven Pran. It is a better solution than his. See the book "Movements", pages 135 to 136. You need not spoil anything. Just go on for seven rounds. In the eighth you call a normal move but make a few changes: 1) Set up a board table between tables 7 and 8. 2) Move the board sets on the table higher than 7 one table down extra. One set of boards will thus be on the borard table. 3) Tables 1 and 14 share boards for the remaining rounds. 4) You can play 13 rounds. With 14 and a half tables I recommend Pivot Mitchell as descibed in the same book on pages 97 and up. Then you will get the same number of results on all boards whenever you curtail the movement. With 14 and a half tables pairs 1 to 13 are stationary the normal way. Pair 14 is placed at table 14 NS, pairs 15 to 28 at table 1 to 14 EW and pair 29 sits out. At table 14 you put a guide card saying NS move to table 1; EW first have a sit-out and then move to this table (14) NS. Boards move the normal way. With an even number of playing tables (as 14) the moving pairs skip a table after half the rounds (after riund 7 with 29 pairs). With an odd number of tables there is no skip. If you want to know more mail to hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se Good luck! _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Oct 21 15:27:23 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:27:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? In-Reply-To: <00f501c278f4$1eced520$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> References: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021021101403.02ee9e40@mail.fscv.net> >Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial >discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction >commenced: > >LHO Pard RHO >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) > >(1) Weak >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted Interesting thread. I think anyone who has played a weak NT much will agree that it is suicidal not to start a run out with a weak hand opposite a weak NT opener. I've never formalized the strength at which we run as shape, intermediates, etc. can have a lot of bearing on whether it is right, but certainly if I am afraid of a penalty double I bid 2C (nonforcing Stayman looking for a place to play) before the penalty double comes if I can. I expect the 5-6 point break is about where most will do it with or without discussion or agreement. It always seemed like just good Bridge judgement to me though I may pass a point lighter than this. Walt From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Oct 21 15:52:23 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] What makes a bid conventional? Message-ID: <200210211452.KAA22241@cfa183.harvard.edu> > David Grabiner wrote: > >>South bids 1S, North bids 2NT (Jacoby, showing four > >>trumps and a game force), South bids 2S. Their > >>agreement is that 3S shows no singleton or void, > >>and 17 or more HCP. > >> > >>May South bid 3S without barring North? That is, > >>would 3S be a convention or a treatment? > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The Laws definition of "Convention" states: > > >an agreement as to overall strength does not make a > >call a convention. > > Therefore, the 17 or more HCP does not make 3S a > convention. Indeed. > The "no singleton or void" agreement is trickier to > resolve. Is that > > >a meaning other than willingness to play in the > >denomination named Yes, of course it is. The 3S bid no doubt shows willingness to play in spades, but it _also_ shows something about the distribution. > or not? Counter-question: Is a 1NT opening which > shows no singleton or void a conventional call? According to a literal reading of the definition, yes, of course. However, don't we have an interpretation telling us (in effect) that the definition is not to be read literally? I think it may have come from Lille or possibly the subsequent WBFLC meeting. The question is whether to extend this interpretation to the case David G. asks about. My personal opinion would be 'no', but it wouldn't be ridiculous to rule 'yes' as John does. It really depends on how literally one wants to read the definition and on how close an analogy one thinks an opening 1NT bid is to the sequence in question, and reasonable people will disagree on such questions. There are several ways the Laws could be changed to provide unambiguous rulings in such cases. Perhaps the simplest is to remove the dependency on "conventional" from L27. I am fairly sure this is already in Grattan's notebook; certainly the subject has come up before on BLML. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 21 16:01:15 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:01:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021021134657.024558e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DB416BB.2060304@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:21 21/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >> Alain Gottcheiner asked: >> >> [snip] >> >> >This raises another interesting question : in >> >determining whether some inference of a call >> >should have been explained according to L75C, >> >may we use some kind of 75% rule, ie if 75% of >> >the asking player's peers grasp the inference >> >without being told, it didn't need to be >> >explained? >> >> If 75% of a player's peers habitually revoke, >> does that make revokes legal? > > > AG : the response might shock you : yes. If some event occurs, which > would make the ordinary player revoke (I can only think of one : > somebidy said "plum", while playing a grape), some directors could wish > to rule no infraction. > There were less than 75% revokes on the aces of clubs and spades in Paris, but enough for the players to not ask for rulings on those (for those who don't know the story - the first batch of symmetric cards was not good - the black aces were far too similar). > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Oct 21 17:19:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021021101403.02ee9e40@mail.fscv.net> > Interesting thread. > > I think anyone who has played a weak NT much will agree that it is > suicidal not to start a run out with a weak hand opposite a weak NT > opener. Running too early is poor tactics on some hands. With xxx,x,xxx,xxxxxx you are sure the "best" spot is 2C (2nd best 1N undoubled). Forcing yourself to run to 3C is a bit strange. If you play transfers you can't escape to 2D either. Early action on weak hands with a long minor will often add 300 to what opps can take. I still remember a hand from my misspent youth (partner was a runner). 1N would have been 300, 2D (where we played in a 4-2) was 1400. Had I, as the 1N bidder, tried 3C I might have got out for 800. Many weak NTers have escape mechanisms that come into play only after a X and they seldom take immediate action on flat weak hands. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 21 18:34:54 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:34:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 74B5 In-Reply-To: <005e01c278c3$fba14040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/20/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Pfui! Jeezus, Ed, your social skills are beyond reproach! Thank you, sir. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 21 23:16:08 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:16:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <4A256C59.0078FCCA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: >There were less than 75% revokes on the aces of >clubs and spades in Paris, but enough for the >players to not ask for rulings on those (for >those who don't know the story - the first >batch of symmetric cards was not good - the >black aces were far too similar). Okay, in Paris the SO violated Law 1, so the players countered by violating Law 9. The legal solution, of course, was for the players to request that the SO rectified its violation of Law 1. In Paris, the players did make such a request, and the SO did provide non-symmetric cards for one match. But then the SO reverted to the flawed symmetric cards for unfathomable reasons. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 21 23:24:24 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:24:24 +0100 Subject: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question References: <200210182113.OAA31220@mailhub.irvine.com> <002b01c2770c$5a03b320$213a23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003701c27950$c2ceea00$fb4de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:10 AM Subject: Re: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question > Adam wrote: > > > How about the Chevrolet CRASH? > > Nah. Those must be commonplace anyway. The first time I > set foot in the United States, I was met at the airport by a > colleague who explained to me, when I exhibited some > signs of nervousness, that "We can't drive worth a damn. > But our roads are so big that we don't have to." > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ This seems right. When I drove in the USA I did not ever manage to hit anything. Nor did a tree, house or Astra, collide with me. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 22 00:14:57 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:14:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Memories of Las Vegas Message-ID: <4A256C59.007E5FBB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> On his website, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >Two incidents in the BAM event might be worth noticing. In >one case a player lost his temper and shouted and shouted >at the TD. He was allowed to continue playing, which >surprised me - he would have been ejected anywhere else in >the world. I wonder whether he was even penalized? I agree that shouting at a TD is reprehensible. However, I believe that shouting at an opponent is just as reprehensible, and should attract the same penalty of ejection. >At around the same time I saw an E/W pair moving along the >field. They were about seven or so minutes late for six >consecutive rounds, but nothing seemed to be done. Perhaps >the TDs did not realize? Not so: the pair following them >were understandably very upset and had complained to the >TDs, and then to a more senior TD. Why was this pair not >made to play more quickly? My understanding is that ACBL-land culture has a cavalier attitude to punctuality. Most ACBL events do not require pre-entry, so never start on time. And it is common for major knockout matches to finish in the wee hours. >What worries me most, and worries a lot of people to whom >I have been talking, is that both these pairs were top >class pairs. Would a player be allowed to shout at a TD, or >to hold up and completely upset a following pair, if he was >not a top player? The rumour mill suggests that neither >pair was even penalised. I agree with David Stevenson that top class players should, by noblesse oblige, obey the rules more strictly than non- experts. Top class players, and Law & Ethic Committees dealing with their infractions, should remember that they are role models. [snip] >I have seen (and heard) some things that worry me. I also >wonder about the training. In England every TD used in any >national competition is required to go on a training >weekend every two years, but I do not seem able to find out >how often ACBL TDs have training days. Perhaps the ACBL should encourage its leading TDs to subscribe to blml and/or the Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin? >Now for a pleasant example: every so often a Director has >to deal with an offensive player, and it was a pleasure to >see the calm with which Susan Patricelli dealt with a player >standing in front of her and screaming in her face. It is >very difficult to remain calm in such situations and I was >extremely impressed. So, there are some excellent things. > >Anyway, everything is fresh. I have seen very little of TDs >at the table, so it is too soon to judge. I hope to come back >for future Nationals: perhaps you can ask me then what my >view is about ACBL TDs. To provide cross-cultural perspective, perhaps an ACBL blmler player/TD who has visited EBU-land could give a plus-and-minus assessment of EBU TDs? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 22 01:08:52 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 02:08:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd> <00b701c278fd$3e5ebb90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000e01c2790c$b8b085e0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000d01c2795f$343f1a80$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Sven Pran" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > I got the same message when I sent in the question. It finally appeared on > the list but I wondered why it was stopped. Perhaps a precaution against > viruses or bugbear? I don't think it was so specific, but I noticed one detail when I examined the headers: The message appeared to be multi part messages, that is rather unusual for messages appearing here on blml as far as I have noticed, and I wonder if that can have been the reason. So, when you made up your message do you know if you somehow can have split it into two separate segments of some kind? regards Sven > > Nancy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > I tried to answer Nancy here on blml, but my reply was stopped > > with the following feedback: > > > > QUOTE: > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > > > Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > Message has a suspicious header > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > notification of the moderator's decision. > > UNQUOTE > > > > I have no idea what tripped this action, I certainly did nothing > > special when replying ande i know that my machine is clean. > > Could it have been something in the original post (from Nancy) > > that upset things? > > > > Sven > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Martin" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:09 PM > > Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > I have sent an e-mail with an attachment directly to Nancy that contains > a > > > number of fixes for movement errors including hers. If anyone else is > > > interested in getting a copy then they can download it from David > > > Stevenson's website. The address is http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > David > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > Sent: 20 October 2002 16:44 > > > Subject: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > > > At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the > > third > > > round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting > out! > > > Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 22 01:36:07 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 02:36:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <002f01c27902$40135720$164565d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <001301c27963$03474200$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hallén" To: Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: [blml] movement problem Dear Nancy, I have not seen david Martin´s solution to your problem, but I have seen that of Sven Pran. It is a better solution than his. See the book "Movements", pages 135 to 136. You need not spoil anything. Just go on for seven rounds. ....................................................................... It is a mathematical impossibility to avoid some cancellations in a Mitchell tournament with 15 tables scheduled for 15 rounds with 30 boards if something like what Nancy asked us about happens: During the first three rounds boards 29&30 have been left unplayed at table 15. There are now 12 rounds left for these boards to be played at 14 tables. The only way to accomplish that is to extend the tournament with two extra rounds, bringing the total number of rounds up to 17, for which there are not sufficient boards available. The other 28 boards have all been played in these three initial rounds, and we need to have each of them unplayed for one round if no player shall see any of them more than once. But again we do not have more than 12 rounds left, so also for this purpose we need two more rounds than is available. Thus whichever way we look at this case there will have to be some unscheduled sitouts during the event. I certainly do not claim that my solution is the best possible, but it is simple to arrange. And I do claim that a complete recovery with no "lost" boards is impossible. (The picdture changes completely of course if the schedule is for a truncated Mitchell movement, but that means that the schedule includes completely cancelled rounds compared to a full schedule.) Sven ........ (snip) From nancy@dressing.org Tue Oct 22 01:43:23 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:43:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd> <00b701c278fd$3e5ebb90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000e01c2790c$b8b085e0$6401a8c0@hare> <000d01c2795f$343f1a80$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000a01c27964$06a5e0e0$6401a8c0@hare> The message was written exactly like this one, with a clause like this, but was a little longer. Is this where you think it was split? Thanks, Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > To: "Sven Pran" > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:18 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > I got the same message when I sent in the question. It finally appeared > on > > the list but I wondered why it was stopped. Perhaps a precaution against > > viruses or bugbear? > > I don't think it was so specific, but I noticed one detail when I examined > the headers: > > The message appeared to be multi part messages, that is rather unusual > for messages appearing here on blml as far as I have noticed, and I > wonder if that can have been the reason. > > So, when you made up your message do you know if you somehow can > have split it into two separate segments of some kind? > > regards Sven > > > > > Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:27 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > I tried to answer Nancy here on blml, but my reply was stopped > > > with the following feedback: > > > > > > QUOTE: > > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > > > > > Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > > > Message has a suspicious header > > > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > > notification of the moderator's decision. > > > UNQUOTE > > > > > > I have no idea what tripped this action, I certainly did nothing > > > special when replying ande i know that my machine is clean. > > > Could it have been something in the original post (from Nancy) > > > that upset things? > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David Martin" > > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:09 PM > > > Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > > > > I have sent an e-mail with an attachment directly to Nancy that > contains > > a > > > > number of fixes for movement errors including hers. If anyone else is > > > > interested in getting a copy then they can download it from David > > > > Stevenson's website. The address is http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > > Sent: 20 October 2002 16:44 > > > > Subject: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > > > > > > At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in the > > > third > > > > round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting > > out! > > > > Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From David Stevenson Tue Oct 22 01:16:27 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:16:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question - fail safe (no UI)? In-Reply-To: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <008601c278ea$734fdf90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <$HsOwMCbjJt9EwSa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran writes >> On 10/18/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial >> >discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction >> >commenced: >> > >> >LHO Pard RHO >> >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) >> > >> >(1) Weak >> >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted >What is the problem? You don't alert a pass that shows >"strength" less than say 6hcp? More than, not less than. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Oct 22 01:18:58 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:18:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan Question In-Reply-To: <004501c27815$b2686e70$2427e150@endicott> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021018161713.00aa9a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007701c27730$50f711e0$213a23d9@pbncomputer> <004501c27815$b2686e70$2427e150@endicott> Message-ID: <8XWOUaCylJt9EwSI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ " Children of the future age, > Reading this indignant page, > Know that in a former time > Love! sweet love! was thought a crime." Still is if your wife catches you. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Oct 22 01:34:37 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:34:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? In-Reply-To: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5nNPoIDd0Jt9Ewx1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Adam Beneschan writes > >This actually happened yesterday. It's a little embarrassing, since I >almost never commit mechanical infractions---I often make stupid calls >and plays, but they're always legal. This time, though, it was the >first board of the second session, right after lunch, so I'll just >claim that it was because I was still busy digesting food. > >Anyway, I started the proceedings with a pass, and then LHO pointed >out that my RHO was the dealer. We called the TD, who explained their >options. They didn't accept the POOT, so TD told the dealer to make >any call he wanted, and then I would be required to pass. So dealer >pulls out the Stop card and then opens 3D. I asked, somewhat >jokingly, "So do I still have to hesitate before I pass?" > >So what's the answer? It depends on the Stop card regs for the jurisdiction. But the answer is Yes for the majority of regs because no-one has thought of writing them otherwise. It is interesting that this question is asked, however much in fun, because to anyone like myself who has played in jurisdictions that usually follow the Stop card regs it would take a major effort not to automatically pause - ad it is not worth the effort. Of course, the regs give 10 seconds extra to LHO [and if he calls quickly, to CHO] which they have a right to. --------- Sven Pran writes >See Law 28A - you don't even have to make your pass call! Funny - it does not say that in my Law book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Oct 22 01:44:55 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:44:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <000f01c276e4$4a4d5bc0$ea4b87d9@4nrw70j> References: <000f01c276e4$4a4d5bc0$ea4b87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <0HbMAVDH+Jt9Ewyu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> grandeval writes >From: "Tim West-meads" >+=+ By regulation Stayman is alertable in WBF events. >There is also a requirement that players in WBF events >"are expected to protect themselves to a large extent". If >a player came to an appeals committee claiming to be >damaged because opponent failed to alert Stayman >we would take his temperature. There was a case at the YC where the sequence was W N E S 1H 1NT P 2C 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it was Stayman. He then asked West what the responses to Stayman were. West declined to answer. Note: before we re-hash the old business about whether a player is allowed to find out what the responses are it is obvious to me that he is for the purpose of finding out what the convention is. In Australia, foe example, where there are two types of normal responses to Stayman he could ask which. But of course he would ask East because he would be still finding out the meaning of 2C. In England there is no such problem: there are only one set of responses in the general consciousness. So the TD was called, and a lot of insulting comments flew around, and the board continued: W N E S 1H 1NT P 2C X P 2D X 2H X 2S X AP This went off, and West appealed. If he had known the responses, he claimed, he would not have doubled 2C. The AC returned his deposit. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Minke Tue Oct 22 01:24:19 2002 From: Minke (Nanki Poo) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:24:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5HGPQyCzqJt9Ewze@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In article , Tim West-meads >There is an old saying, I regret I cannot remember its origin. > >To err is human, to forgive divine. To err is human, to be perfect feline. Mrow *MK* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From David Stevenson Tue Oct 22 01:54:07 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:54:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] movement problem In-Reply-To: <00e501c27906$377b0910$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <019901c27902$080f2160$1975073e@davicaltd> <00e501c27906$377b0910$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >Happily we almost never play Mitchell any more in Norway, at >least not in the clubs I know about, and the few times I have >been in charge with Mitchell movements the players need so >detailed instructions that I cannot remember last time we got into >trouble. > >What do we play? Howell with up to 7 tables (in each greoup) >Barometer (boards dealt and duplicated in advance) with any >number of tables. In local clubs on their ordinary evenings? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Oct 22 01:52:15 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:52:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >Please send your replies also to Yves, originator of this problem. Well, if you had given me Yves' eddress I would have done so! >This is the bidding: P P 1D P 1N 3C >South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. > >South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly >over 1Di. >Of course North disagrees. >So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) >Misbid or not ? It depends on whether N/S have an agreement that it is Ghestem or not. Sure, it is difficult to demonstrate one way or the other, but we shall try. First we ask both North and South some questions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 22 02:19:36 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:19:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <00df01c278fa$db06ac80$1975073e@davicaltd> <00b701c278fd$3e5ebb90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000e01c2790c$b8b085e0$6401a8c0@hare> <000d01c2795f$343f1a80$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000a01c27964$06a5e0e0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <004401c27969$16063df0$70d8fea9@WINXP> No such "split" in this message We better leave it there, I assume Henk will have noticed our last messages and be aware of the possibility that this might be the reason for the problem. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > The message was written exactly like this one, with a clause like this, but > was a little longer. Is this where you think it was split? Thanks, Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > > To: "Sven Pran" > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:18 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > I got the same message when I sent in the question. It finally appeared > > on > > > the list but I wondered why it was stopped. Perhaps a precaution > against > > > viruses or bugbear? > > > > I don't think it was so specific, but I noticed one detail when I > examined > > the headers: > > > > The message appeared to be multi part messages, that is rather unusual > > for messages appearing here on blml as far as I have noticed, and I > > wonder if that can have been the reason. > > > > So, when you made up your message do you know if you somehow can > > have split it into two separate segments of some kind? > > > > regards Sven > > > > > > > > Nancy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > To: "blml" > > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:27 AM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > > > > I tried to answer Nancy here on blml, but my reply was stopped > > > > with the following feedback: > > > > > > > > QUOTE: > > > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > > > > > > > Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > > > > > Message has a suspicious header > > > > > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > > > notification of the moderator's decision. > > > > UNQUOTE > > > > > > > > I have no idea what tripped this action, I certainly did nothing > > > > special when replying ande i know that my machine is clean. > > > > Could it have been something in the original post (from Nancy) > > > > that upset things? > > > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "David Martin" > > > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:09 PM > > > > Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have sent an e-mail with an attachment directly to Nancy that > > contains > > > a > > > > > number of fixes for movement errors including hers. If anyone else > is > > > > > interested in getting a copy then they can download it from David > > > > > Stevenson's website. The address is > http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2002 16:44 > > > > > Subject: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At a recent game, in a 14 1/2 table movement, it was discovered in > the > > > > third > > > > > round that the boards (29-30) on the sit-out table are still sitting > > > out! > > > > > Can we rescue this? Thanks, Nancy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > blml mailing list > > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 22 02:32:39 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:32:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? Message-ID: <4A256C5A.0007250A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Konrad wrote: >>It is their problem. When you play a convention >>then you either learn it or suffer the consequences >>when you have a mix-up. Henk replied: >But they don't play this "convention". My system >notes don't list, for example, the sequence > > 1 D - Pass - 1 NT - 2 S > >though everybody will agree that it is natural. Now >suppose I confuse this auction with > > 1 D - 1 N - Pass - 2 S > >which is a transfer to clubs. My partner will still >explain the [first] auction as spades, CC and system >notes won't say anything about it so I cannot prove >a MB, even though we're all reasonably sure that it >is one. In Henk's example, proving a misbid will only be impossible if the TD is Herman De Wael. Other TDs will be satisfied by the evidence of Henk's partner saying, "2S is natural," and by Henk saying, "Oops, I got confused," and by the non-appearance of an agreement to play transfer overcalls on Henk's CC. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 22 02:34:34 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:34:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? References: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> <5nNPoIDd0Jt9Ewx1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <004c01c2796b$2d510060$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Required to pause? ............. > Sven Pran writes > > >See Law 28A - you don't even have to make your pass call! > > Funny - it does not say that in my Law book. > It says in my book: A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass. The only way I can understand this is that if you are required to pass then your LHO may make his call without waiting for your (required) pass. I have seen this practised with the player placing a single pass bid card in front of him and then just leaning back. I have also seen such players making some gesture indicating to LHO "just go ahead". IF you (as TD) see a player making his call according to L28A without waiting for the required pass do you then require the "bypassed" player to produce his pass (subsequently) anyway? (I am talking about a player required to pass for the rest of the auction, not just once - in which case it makes sense to request the pass bid card to be present) Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 22 02:35:54 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:35:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <019901c27902$080f2160$1975073e@davicaltd> <00e501c27906$377b0910$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <005401c2796b$5cf7a3f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > Sven Pran writes > > >Happily we almost never play Mitchell any more in Norway, at > >least not in the clubs I know about, and the few times I have > >been in charge with Mitchell movements the players need so > >detailed instructions that I cannot remember last time we got into > >trouble. > > > >What do we play? Howell with up to 7 tables (in each greoup) > >Barometer (boards dealt and duplicated in advance) with any > >number of tables. > > In local clubs on their ordinary evenings? Yes. Sven From nancy@dressing.org Tue Oct 22 02:44:43 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 21:44:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <019901c27902$080f2160$1975073e@davicaltd> <00e501c27906$377b0910$70d8fea9@WINXP> <005401c2796b$5cf7a3f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <005101c2796c$986a7e20$6401a8c0@hare> What about 14 1/2 tables??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > Sven Pran writes > > > > >Happily we almost never play Mitchell any more in Norway, at > > >least not in the clubs I know about, and the few times I have > > >been in charge with Mitchell movements the players need so > > >detailed instructions that I cannot remember last time we got into > > >trouble. > > > > > >What do we play? Howell with up to 7 tables (in each greoup) > > >Barometer (boards dealt and duplicated in advance) with any > > >number of tables. > > > > In local clubs on their ordinary evenings? > > Yes. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 22 02:51:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:51:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <4A256C5A.0008E449.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: >If some event occurs, which would >make the ordinary player revoke (I >can only think of one : somebody said >"plum", while playing a grape), some >directors could wish to rule no >infraction. There was an extensive thread some time ago on the correct interpretation of L46B3(a). After winning a club trick in dummy, declarer next called for dummy's "ace". Declarer's RHO assumed that the club ace had been called for, and played a club. However, declarer had pointed at dummy's spade ace. The majority of blml ruled that RHO had been careless, and RHO's club was therefore a penalty card. David Burn and I were strange bedfellows in the minority, ruling that instead declarer had committed the irregularity. Grattan, one for your notebook? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 22 08:36:26 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:36:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <019901c27902$080f2160$1975073e@davicaltd> <00e501c27906$377b0910$70d8fea9@WINXP> <005401c2796b$5cf7a3f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <005101c2796c$986a7e20$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <001101c2799d$bb8fe030$70d8fea9@WINXP> - is equivalent to 15 tables (and is too much for Howell, while barometer works fine). Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > What about 14 1/2 tables??? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 9:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Stevenson" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:54 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] movement problem > > > > > > > Sven Pran writes > > > > > > >Happily we almost never play Mitchell any more in Norway, at > > > >least not in the clubs I know about, and the few times I have > > > >been in charge with Mitchell movements the players need so > > > >detailed instructions that I cannot remember last time we got into > > > >trouble. > > > > > > > >What do we play? Howell with up to 7 tables (in each greoup) > > > >Barometer (boards dealt and duplicated in advance) with any > > > >number of tables. > > > > > > In local clubs on their ordinary evenings? > > > > Yes. > > > > Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Oct 22 09:37:14 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:37:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Factoring Message-ID: In Borel/Chéron there is an interesting essay by Borel on the so-called 'Problème des Partis', which deals with the question of how to divide the stakes in a game that ends prematurely. The problem was first considered by Pascal. The underlying logic is the same as that required in the factoring adjustment. Jürgen From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 22 09:42:04 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:42:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> Hi David, David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>Please send your replies also to Yves, originator of this problem. >> > > Well, if you had given me Yves' eddress I would have done so! > > It was among the headers - a reply to all would have found him. >>This is the bidding: >> > > P P 1D P > 1N 3C > > >>South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. >> >>South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly >>over 1Di. >>Of course North disagrees. >>So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) >>Misbid or not ? >> > > It depends on whether N/S have an agreement that it is Ghestem or not. > No, David, it does not depend on that - we have to decide on that. As you are quite well aware, they will claim they don't - and we won't listen to that claim. So it's up to us to decide about this. > Sure, it is difficult to demonstrate one way or the other, but we > shall try. First we ask both North and South some questions. > And I believe I have given all the answers to all the questions you might care to ask, except for their shoe sizes. Anything else you care to ask them ? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Tue Oct 22 10:02:45 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:02:45 -0400 Subject: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question In-Reply-To: <003701c27950$c2ceea00$fb4de150@endicott> References: <200210182113.OAA31220@mailhub.irvine.com> <002b01c2770c$5a03b320$213a23d9@pbncomputer> <003701c27950$c2ceea00$fb4de150@endicott> Message-ID: <1u4arucidgdi1835acfmqqcj0i563pe46s@4ax.com> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:24:24 +0100, you wrote: > >Grattan Endicott+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is >that they can't see the problem." > ['The Scandal of Father Brown'] >==================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: "bridge laws mailing list" >Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:10 AM >Subject: Re: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question > > >> Adam wrote: >> >> > How about the Chevrolet CRASH? >> >> Nah. Those must be commonplace anyway. The first time I >> set foot in the United States, I was met at the airport by a >> colleague who explained to me, when I exhibited some >> signs of nervousness, that "We can't drive worth a damn. >> But our roads are so big that we don't have to." >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ This seems right. When I drove in the USA I did not >ever manage to hit anything. Nor did a tree, house or Astra, >collide with me. ~ G ~ +=+ > Depends where you are. NYC and Philadelphia traffic is every bit as bad as anything I experienced around London or Birmingham. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 22 11:26:47 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:26:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] CC error Message-ID: <017401c279b5$8adbd760$179868d5@default> [Richard Hills] Did team C move up from 2nd to 1st? No, the rescoring caused by the forfeits meant that team C was leapfrogged by team E and team F, and therefore team C dropped to 3rd place. [Herman De Wael] Which is an illustration of something other than what Richard is trying to illustrate. [Nigel Guthrie] Arrow's Paradox? [Sorry Herman for sending this to you as well as the list -- pressed send prematurely] From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 22 12:06:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:06:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta References: <200210181429.KAA19255@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <020c01c279bb$147bd420$179868d5@default> Steve Willner: Hmmm... I wonder whether L40D gives the SO authority to make certain conventions mandatory: "If you play in our game, you must use all bids of 4NT as 4-ace Blackwood. Natural 4NT is not allowed." Legal? Nigel Guthrie: There are many such UK examples, if you define a natural call as one that (a) obviously describes the strength and shape of your hand. (b) You are happy to play if partner passes. I For many years weak twos were banned. You had to play twos as conventional and forcing. II For many years a natural 3N based on a strong but not necessarily solid suit with outside stops was banned. III A notrump opener defined as a flat 9-11 HCP is another completely natural bid against which some SOs have an insane prejudice. Other SOs can probably supply 100s of examples. From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Oct 22 12:22:59 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:22:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] System restrictions Message-ID: <00ea01c279bd$64191360$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Hi, Can anyone explain to me why all the systemic restrictions are of the form "one mustn't play the system(convention) X" rather than "you are allowed to play a system (convention) X only with your opponents permission"? I may *want* to play against, say, a strong pass system believing that my average expectation is higher against such systems that against "normal" ones but I am deprived of the opportunity. Why? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Co moze moc Urzad Skarbowy? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f166f From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 22 13:00:50 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:00:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] System restrictions References: <00ea01c279bd$64191360$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <3DB53DF2.6060302@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Hi, > > Can anyone explain to me why > all the systemic restrictions > are of the form "one mustn't > play the system(convention) X" > rather than > "you are allowed to play > a system (convention) X only > with your opponents permission"? > > I may *want* to play against, say, > a strong pass system believing > that my average expectation is > higher against such systems > that against "normal" ones > but I am deprived of the opportunity. > Why? > Well, you can play against them, just pick out the tournaments where they are allowed. I think the main reason is protecting the "field". It's no use banning systems if they are going to be used at some other table. You might be disallowed from playing something by your direct opponent, while your "opponent" at some other table scores a good result compared to you because his table mates allowed him to use a method that you were not allowed to use. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Co moze moc Urzad Skarbowy? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f166f > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 22 13:34:19 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 22 Oct 2002 05:34:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] System restrictions Message-ID: <221002295.20060@webbox.com> Konrad wrote: >I may *want* to play against, say, >a strong pass system believing >that my average expectation is >higher against such systems >that against "normal" ones >but I am deprived of the opportunity. >Why? Now, here's an idea for a tournament. You bring along a convention card that your *opponents* have to play. There would probably have to be some restriction on what you were allowed to compel the opponents to open 7NT with, but that would be about all. Of course, the opponents do the same for you. At least that would get rid of alerts, explanations, Kaplan questions, and the rest - if you don't know their system, it's your fault. David Burn London, England From henk@ripe.net Tue Oct 22 14:07:56 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:07:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: <221002295.20060@webbox.com> Message-ID: On 22 Oct 2002, David Burn wrote: > > Konrad wrote: > > >I may *want* to play against, say, > >a strong pass system believing > >that my average expectation is > >higher against such systems > >that against "normal" ones > >but I am deprived of the opportunity. > >Why? > > Now, here's an idea for a tournament. You bring along a convention > card that your *opponents* have to play. There would probably > have to be some restriction on what you were allowed to compel > the opponents to open 7NT with, but that would be about all. I've done this, when filling out a section of a not too serious event with another TD. Our only agreement was that we'd play our opponent's CC. This led to some funny situations, in particular when convention X was crossed out on the opponent's card, they asked us if we played X and got the honest reply "Well, I see you decided that we aren't". They still don't believe us... Henk > > > Of course, the opponents do the same for you. At least that would > get rid of alerts, explanations, Kaplan questions, and the rest > - if you don't know their system, it's your fault. > > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From tom.cornelis@pi.be Mon Oct 21 16:08:21 2002 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:08:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement Message-ID: <003501c27913$b2334840$733f23d5@cornelis> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C27924.755D5670 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Cornelis=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 1:19 PM Subject: Score disagreement Hi all, a few weeks ago I came along the following problem. At a certain table, = NS and EW couldn't agree on how many tricks they've made. They both = thought to have made a trick the other pair didn't, but they both = couldn't remember what happened. Of course the hands were already = shuffled (each hand separately) and put back in the boards. It caused a = lot of mayhem so I went to look what was going on. After finding out = what the problem was, and asking whether they had already shuffled the = hands or whether they could reconstruct the hand, I looked up an = appropriate Law, but couldn't find on. I decided to award each pair the = score the other pair was claiming and give them an additional 10% = penalty. Somehow I feel I took a doubtful decision. Maybe I should have = awarded them them each an average minus. But as I said, I couldn't find = an appropriate Law. Is there one? Should there be one? Thanks in advance four your respones. Greetings, Tom. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C27924.755D5670 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Tom = Cornelis=20
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Score disagreement

Hi all,
 
a few weeks ago I came along the = following problem.=20 At a certain table, NS and EW couldn't agree on how many tricks they've = made.=20 They both thought to have made a trick the other pair didn't, but = they both=20 couldn't remember what happened. Of course the hands were already = shuffled (each=20 hand separately) and put back in the boards. It caused a lot of mayhem = so I went=20 to look what was going on. After finding out what the problem was, and = asking=20 whether they had already shuffled the hands or whether they could = reconstruct=20 the hand, I looked up an appropriate Law, but couldn't find on. I = decided to=20 award each pair the score the other pair was claiming and give them an=20 additional 10% penalty. Somehow I feel I took a doubtful decision. Maybe = I=20 should have awarded them them each an average minus. But as I said, I = couldn't=20 find an appropriate Law. Is there one? Should there be one?
 
Thanks in advance four your = respones.
 
Greetings,
 
Tom.
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C27924.755D5670-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 22 14:50:08 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:50:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta In-Reply-To: <4A256C5A.0008E449.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021022154226.0246f860@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:51 22/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Alain wrote: > > >If some event occurs, which would > >make the ordinary player revoke (I > >can only think of one : somebody said > >"plum", while playing a grape), some > >directors could wish to rule no > >infraction. > >There was an extensive thread some >time ago on the correct interpretation >of L46B3(a). > >After winning a club trick in dummy, >declarer next called for dummy's "ace". > >Declarer's RHO assumed that the club >ace had been called for, and played a >club. > >However, declarer had pointed at >dummy's spade ace. > >The majority of blml ruled that RHO >had been careless, and RHO's club was >therefore a penalty card. AG : don't remember that thread, but I would rule without qualms that the club Ace was played (L46B3a), and that the player followed suit. Gestures aren't one of the legal ways to designate a card, so the SA was not called. The TD might, if he feels like being kind, that the gesture in the direction of the SA was an attempt at a correction without pausing for thought (like : Ace - no, that one). Then RHO may take one's card back (L47) and its identity is UI to declarer. >David Burn and I were strange >bedfellows in the minority, ruling >that instead declarer had committed >the irregularity. AG : make us three. Nobody, by the way, compels the defender to look at declarer's gestures. It is even the contrary (L74C5). The defender's assumption that the card named was the card played was 100% valid. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 22 15:07:19 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:07:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: <00ea01c279bd$64191360$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021022155443.02463140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:22 22/10/2002 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Hi, > > Can anyone explain to me why >all the systemic restrictions >are of the form "one mustn't >play the system(convention) X" >rather than >"you are allowed to play >a system (convention) X only >with your opponents permission"? AG : time limit, perhaps ? If you play a dozen such conventions, how many time do your opponents need to settle their (non-)agreement about each of them ? If the OS requires advance communication, this might be solved. >I may *want* to play against, say, >a strong pass system believing >that my average expectation is >higher against such systems >that against "normal" ones >but I am deprived of the opportunity. >Why? AG : an interesting related case is just happening to us. In Belgium, systems for T4 competitions have to be put on the Federation's website, but as it is the 1st year this is done, some problems arised. We knew one pair was playig an intricated system, perhaps the most unfamiliar in Belgium, and of course it is just their CC that was not where it should be. They said they sent the file as required, but at least they forgot to check that their CC was on the site within the time limit. In principle, we should be allowed to deny them use of their system. One of our pairs (guess who ?) are system freaks, ans the other see eachother too seldom to be able to devise a defense in a short time. The solution was obvious : we made a gentlemen's agreement that they play their system, but we arrange the lineups in such a way that only one pair of us play against them. (the principles used when playing against a yellow system, except that theirs isn't yellow). Our acceptance is not unlike Konrad's suggestion, and I hope it might be used in the future. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 22 15:14:40 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:14:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: References: <221002295.20060@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021022161310.0246eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:07 22/10/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On 22 Oct 2002, David Burn wrote: > > > > > Konrad wrote: > > > > >I may *want* to play against, say, > > >a strong pass system believing > > >that my average expectation is > > >higher against such systems > > >that against "normal" ones > > >but I am deprived of the opportunity. > > >Why? > > > > Now, here's an idea for a tournament. You bring along a convention > > card that your *opponents* have to play. There would probably > > have to be some restriction on what you were allowed to compel > > the opponents to open 7NT with, but that would be about all. > >I've done this, when filling out a section of a not too serious event with >another TD. Our only agreement was that we'd play our opponent's CC. >This led to some funny situations, in particular when convention X was >crossed out on the opponent's card, they asked us if we played X and got >the honest reply "Well, I see you decided that we aren't". They still >don't believe us... AG : O=BDK : since you aren't allowed to check your CC (which happens to be= =20 theirs), how do you know what to play ? From henk@ripe.net Tue Oct 22 15:12:57 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:12:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021022161310.0246eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 15:07 22/10/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >On 22 Oct 2002, David Burn wrote: > > > > > > > > Konrad wrote: > > > > > > >I may *want* to play against, say, > > > >a strong pass system believing > > > >that my average expectation is > > > >higher against such systems > > > >that against "normal" ones > > > >but I am deprived of the opportunity. > > > >Why? > > > > > > Now, here's an idea for a tournament. You bring along a convention > > > card that your *opponents* have to play. There would probably > > > have to be some restriction on what you were allowed to compel > > > the opponents to open 7NT with, but that would be about all. > > > >I've done this, when filling out a section of a not too serious event wi= th > >another TD. Our only agreement was that we'd play our opponent's CC. > >This led to some funny situations, in particular when convention X was > >crossed out on the opponent's card, they asked us if we played X and got > >the honest reply "Well, I see you decided that we aren't". They still > >don't believe us... > > AG : O=BDK : since you aren't allowed to check your CC (which happens to = be > theirs), how do you know what to play ? By looking at their CC when it is my turn to bid ;-) Henk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From david-martin@talk21.com Tue Oct 22 15:22:27 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:22:27 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <01df01c279d6$ee429b60$b0ff7ad5@davicaltd> Sven wrote: > > It is a mathematical impossibility to avoid some cancellations in a Mitchell > tournament with 15 tables scheduled for 15 rounds with 30 boards if > something > like what Nancy asked us about happens: > > During the first three rounds boards 29&30 have been left unplayed at table > 15. > There are now 12 rounds left for these boards to be played at 14 tables. The > only way to accomplish that is to extend the tournament with two extra > rounds, > bringing the total number of rounds up to 17, for which there are not > sufficient > boards available. > > The other 28 boards have all been played in these three initial rounds, and > we > need to have each of them unplayed for one round if no player shall see any > of > them more than once. But again we do not have more than 12 rounds left, so > also for this purpose we need two more rounds than is available. > > Thus whichever way we look at this case there will have to be some > unscheduled > sitouts during the event. I certainly do not claim that my solution is the > best > possible, but it is simple to arrange. And I do claim that a complete > recovery > with no "lost" boards is impossible. > > (The picdture changes completely of course if the schedule is for a > truncated > Mitchell movement, but that means that the schedule includes completely > cancelled rounds compared to a full schedule.) > > Sven > ####### Both Hans-Olof's and my solution involve not playing the boards that have remained unplayed for three rounds in error. Thus, we can now have only 14 rounds (with some revenges and board sharing on the final round) or 13 rounds with no revenges or sharing. The whole point though is that no (valid) result that has already been obtained needs to be cancelled and nobody needs to sit out for more than one round or miss any other board sets. ####### From jnichols@midtechnologies.com Tue Oct 22 15:58:17 2002 From: jnichols@midtechnologies.com (John Nichols) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:58:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD224F@al21.minfod.com> Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot determine a bridge result on the hand. Here you have two. Since both sides have shuffled their hands before agreeing on the score treat them both as offenders and give them the worst score that was at all probable (which is the score their opponents are stating). I would not have charged them the extra 10% unless it is a continuing problem or they were particularly out of line. You say it "caused a lot of mahem" though -- you were there and I wasn't. How did they take your ruling? -----Original Message----- From: Tom Cornelis To: BLML Sent: 10/21/02 10:08 AM Subject: [blml] Score disagreement ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Cornelis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 1:19 PM Subject: Score disagreement Hi all, a few weeks ago I came along the following problem. At a certain table, NS and EW couldn't agree on how many tricks they've made. They both thought to have made a trick the other pair didn't, but they both couldn't remember what happened. Of course the hands were already shuffled (each hand separately) and put back in the boards. It caused a lot of mayhem so I went to look what was going on. After finding out what the problem was, and asking whether they had already shuffled the hands or whether they could reconstruct the hand, I looked up an appropriate Law, but couldn't find on. I decided to award each pair the score the other pair was claiming and give them an additional 10% penalty. Somehow I feel I took a doubtful decision. Maybe I should have awarded them them each an average minus. But as I said, I couldn't find an appropriate Law. Is there one? Should there be one? Thanks in advance four your respones. Greetings, Tom. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 22 16:10:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:10:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021022161310.0246eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021022170407.0246b230@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:12 22/10/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > At 15:07 22/10/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >On 22 Oct 2002, David Burn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Konrad wrote: > > > > > > > > >I may *want* to play against, say, > > > > >a strong pass system believing > > > > >that my average expectation is > > > > >higher against such systems > > > > >that against "normal" ones > > > > >but I am deprived of the opportunity. > > > > >Why? > > > > > > > > Now, here's an idea for a tournament. You bring along a convention > > > > card that your *opponents* have to play. There would probably > > > > have to be some restriction on what you were allowed to compel > > > > the opponents to open 7NT with, but that would be about all. > > > > > >I've done this, when filling out a section of a not too serious event= with > > >another TD. Our only agreement was that we'd play our opponent's CC. > > >This led to some funny situations, in particular when convention X was > > >crossed out on the opponent's card, they asked us if we played X and= got > > >the honest reply "Well, I see you decided that we aren't". They still > > >don't believe us... > > > > AG : O=BDK : since you aren't allowed to check your CC (which happens to= be > > theirs), how do you know what to play ? >By looking at their CC when it is my turn to bid ;-) AG : it all depends of the way regulations are written : a) if you are allowed to look *at their CC only*, fine b) if you *are not allowed to look at yours*, it doesn't work, because=20 theirs is yours Remains me of this well-known question in the Exam for Soccer umpiring : "Can one be offside on the middle line ?" Answer : no, because a) lines are part of the areas they limit b) one isn't offside within one's own half of the field The answer would be different if the law were worded "one may only be=20 offside within the opponents' half" Splitting hairs ? Isn't this what we're on blml for ? Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 22 16:11:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:11:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement In-Reply-To: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD224F@al21.minfod.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021022171042.0246f300@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:58 22/10/2002 -0500, John Nichols wrote: >Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot determine a bridge result on >the hand. Here you have two. Since both sides have shuffled their hands >before agreeing on the score treat them both as offenders and give them the >worst score that was at all probable (which is the score their opponents are >stating). AG : what if both sides claim a socre which is worst for their side than the other's claim ? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 22 16:52:32 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Red alert: was Re: [blml] The Kaplan Question Message-ID: <200210221552.LAA14359@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > When I drove in the USA I did not > ever manage to hit anything. Nor did a tree, house or Astra, > collide with me. ~ G ~ +=+ I once had a co-worker whose car was hit by a building when she picked an unfortunate place to park. (This happened in the USA.) From jnichols@midtechnologies.com Tue Oct 22 17:14:08 2002 From: jnichols@midtechnologies.com (John Nichols) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:14:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD2250@al21.minfod.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Alain Gottcheiner >To: John Nichols; 'BLML ' >Sent: 10/22/02 10:11 AM >Subject: RE: [blml] Score disagreement >At 09:58 22/10/2002 -0500, John Nichols wrote: >>Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot determine a bridge result on >>the hand. Here you have two. Since both sides have shuffled their hands >>before agreeing on the score treat them both as offenders and give them the >>worst score that was at all probable (which is the score their opponents are >stating). >AG : what if both sides claim a socre which is worst for their side than >the other's claim ? Then I award each side the score they claim. I also suggest that they have a bit less to drink before the next game! From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 22 18:46:40 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:46:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? In-Reply-To: <004c01c2796b$2d510060$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 10/22/02, Sven Pran wrote: >The only way I can understand this is that if you are required >to pass then your LHO may make his call without waiting for >your (required) pass. This is not the same thing as "you are not even required to make your pass call". From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 22 22:55:29 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:55:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <01df01c279d6$ee429b60$b0ff7ad5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <002f01c27a15$bc617280$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 4:22 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem > Sven wrote: > > > > > It is a mathematical impossibility to avoid some cancellations in a > Mitchell > > tournament with 15 tables scheduled for 15 rounds with 30 boards if > > something > > like what Nancy asked us about happens: .............. > > Sven > > > ####### Both Hans-Olof's and my solution involve not playing the boards > that have remained unplayed for three rounds in error. Thus, we can now > have only 14 rounds (with some revenges and board sharing on the final > round) or 13 rounds with no revenges or sharing. The whole point though is > that no (valid) result that has already been obtained needs to be cancelled > and nobody needs to sit out for more than one round or miss any other board > sets. ####### And you end up with a truncated tournament in which some pairs avoid meeting the strongest opponents while other pairs lose the favour of meeting the weakest opponents. Do you consider that "fair"? Compared to a complete schedule you cancel 14 or 28 results (depending upon whether you keep 14 or only 13 rounds) while with my suggestion you cancel only 6 results (if I managed to do my sums correct). None of the suggestions involves cancelling valid results that have already been obtained on any board, so that argument is irrelevant, but frankly it is my opinion that the better solution is the one that maintain the original schedule undisturbed as much as possible. People are there to play bridge, and as I said above, I need to cancel only 6 results from the original schedule. Can you match that? regards Sven From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Oct 23 00:07:39 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 01:07:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: <00ea01c279bd$64191360$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> References: <00ea01c279bd$64191360$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <89mbrucbqrf15hbug5fkqeq4u58nbqujo4@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:22:59 +0200, "Konrad Ciborowski" wrote: > Can anyone explain to me why >all the systemic restrictions >are of the form "one mustn't >play the system(convention) X"=20 >rather than >"you are allowed to play >a system (convention) X only >with your opponents permission"? Probably because of a wish to avoid that the opponents feel that they have some sort of social obligation to allow things that they really would prefer not to play against. Saying "no" to an opponent who asks whether he may do something is for many people not a pleasant thing to do. So the rules and the TD need to be the ones to say "no" on behalf of all those nice people who do not like to say "no" themselves. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 00:36:10 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:36:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] System restrictions Message-ID: <4A256C5A.00804FAF.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Henk wrote: >I've done this, when filling out a section of a >not too serious event with another TD. Our only >agreement was that we'd play our opponent's CC. > >This led to some funny situations, in particular >when convention X was crossed out on the >opponent's card, they asked us if we played X >and got the honest reply "Well, I see you >decided that we aren't". They still don't >believe us... A funny situation which could have occurred would be if Henk's partnership had come across another pair who had decided to employ the same "system". This would be a variant of the Liar's Paradox; which of the two partnerships would be in breach of L40E1 for failing to provide a CC? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 06:18:51 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:18:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] The English detest a siesta Message-ID: <4A256C5B.001BD8FF.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: [snip] >Gestures aren't one of the legal ways to designate a card, [snip] Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the correct interpretation of the words "otherwise designates" in L45C4(a). Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 06:02:55 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:02:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement Message-ID: <4A256C5B.001A63DC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> John Nichols wrote: >Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot >determine a bridge result on the hand. Here you >have two. Since both sides have shuffled their >hands before agreeing on the score treat them >both as offenders and give them the worst score >that was at all probable (which is the score >their opponents are stating). [snip] John has proposed an ingenious solution. Unfortunately, I believe that John's delightful rulings are also unLawful. L85B (Facts Not Determined) requires the TD to "make a ruling that will permit play to continue", not "make *two* rulings". Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 06:50:28 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:50:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <4A256C5B.001EBE83.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Stevenson wrote: >There was a case at the YC where the sequence was > > W N E S > 1H 1NT P > 2C > > 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it >was Stayman. He then asked West what the responses >to Stayman were. West declined to answer. [snip] >In England there is no such problem: there are only >one set of responses in the general consciousness. [snip] Do some English partnerships have an agreement that, in this particular Stayman auction, East never bids 2H? If so, North's question has some legitimacy. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 06:36:36 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:36:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] System restrictions Message-ID: <4A256C5B.001D794E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Konrad asked: >I may *want* to play against, say, >a strong pass system believing >that my average expectation is >higher against such systems >that against "normal" ones >but I am deprived of the opportunity. >Why? A decade ago, an option in the ABF alert rules was allowing players who *wanted* to require their opponents to cease all their alerts. Canny players exercised the option against opponents in new partnerships and/or inexperienced partnerships to limit the opponents' generation of UI. The ABF subsequently abolished this option. The ABF claimed the reason for the abolition of alert-free zones was that the ABF had modified its alert rules to include self-alerting calls. But to me, the ABF's "reason" seems to be a complete non sequitur. Best wishes Richard From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Wed Oct 23 07:54:26 2002 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:54:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <002301c27a61$07f4df20$ef4565d5@swipnet.se> Reply to Sven Pran: Yes, you cancel less results, but you cancel them so that some pairs = play a different number of boards. In Sweden you get your percentage on boards you don=B4t play. That you do not play weaker or stronger pairs is a small problem. Anyway = you do not play the pairs in your own line. Of course, I respect your soluton, but David Martin and I prefer another = one. Yours etc Hans-Olof From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 23 12:51:22 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:51:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement In-Reply-To: <4A256C5B.001A63DC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023134931.00ab4d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:02 23/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >John Nichols wrote: > > >Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot > >determine a bridge result on the hand. Here you > >have two. Since both sides have shuffled their > >hands before agreeing on the score treat them > >both as offenders and give them the worst score > >that was at all probable (which is the score > >their opponents are stating). > >[snip] > >John has proposed an ingenious solution. > >Unfortunately, I believe that John's delightful >rulings are also unLawful. > >L85B (Facts Not Determined) requires the TD to >"make a ruling that will permit play to >continue", not "make *two* rulings". AG : awarding two scores is but *one* ruling : you rule that the scores will be such-and-such. Disallowing this would for ever disable the principle of awarding non-matching scores (eg L12C or 50/60). From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 23 12:58:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:58:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: <4A256C5B.001D794E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023135226.00ab66b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:36 23/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Konrad asked: > > >I may *want* to play against, say, > >a strong pass system believing > >that my average expectation is > >higher against such systems > >that against "normal" ones > >but I am deprived of the opportunity. > >Why? > >A decade ago, an option in the ABF >alert rules was allowing players >who *wanted* to require their >opponents to cease all their alerts. > >Canny players exercised the option >against opponents in new partnerships >and/or inexperienced partnerships to >limit the opponents' generation of UI. > >The ABF subsequently abolished this >option. The ABF claimed the reason >for the abolition of alert-free zones >was that the ABF had modified its >alert rules to include self-alerting >calls. > >But to me, the ABF's "reason" seems >to be a complete non sequitur. AG : it is. I don't see why players shouldn't be allowed to ask for non-alert if they think it best for them. BTW, Belgium has recently reinstalled this rule. Of course, it could make you give UI in lieu of the oppoennts (by asking questions), but if you feel this disadvantage is minor compared to thee advantages of opponents perpetrating nebulissimous bidding sequences, you're welcome. ... and don't tell me UI rules solve all problems. In unsure partnerships, the mere fact that a player (correctly) alerts his partner's bid helps said partner to avoid any doubt about the convention being recognized. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 23 13:04:38 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:04:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023134931.00ab4d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004701c27a8c$5cee33c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Score disagreement > At 15:02 23/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >John Nichols wrote: > > > > >Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot > > >determine a bridge result on the hand. Here you > > >have two. Since both sides have shuffled their > > >hands before agreeing on the score treat them > > >both as offenders and give them the worst score > > >that was at all probable (which is the score > > >their opponents are stating). > > > >[snip] > > > >John has proposed an ingenious solution. > > > >Unfortunately, I believe that John's delightful > >rulings are also unLawful. > > > >L85B (Facts Not Determined) requires the TD to > >"make a ruling that will permit play to > >continue", not "make *two* rulings". > > AG : awarding two scores is but *one* ruling : you rule that the scores > will be such-and-such. Disallowing this would for ever disable the > principle of awarding non-matching scores (eg L12C or 50/60). Law85 does not permit the Director to come up with unbalanced scores. He will have to determine to his own satisfaction what was the most likely result on the board and then rule accordingly. He will have to use the explanations from the players combined with his knowledge of the hands. He may have to ask questions to try to determine the exact order in which cards were played, and then he should be able to reach some decision. After such a procedure I personally (depending upon the impressions I get of the involved players) would most likely assign a procedure penalty to the pair who after disordering their cards came up with the claim that I overruled. The other pair would receive a warning from me. Sven From David Stevenson Wed Oct 23 03:55:12 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:55:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement In-Reply-To: <003501c27913$b2334840$733f23d5@cornelis> References: <003501c27913$b2334840$733f23d5@cornelis> Message-ID: <472AezCQ+gt9Ewh5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tom Cornelis writes > a few weeks ago I came along the following problem. At a certain > table, NS and EW couldn't agree on how many tricks they've made. > They both thought to have made a trick the other pair didn't, but > they both couldn't remember what happened. Of course the hands were > already shuffled (each hand separately) and put back in the boards. > It caused a lot of mayhem so I went to look what was going on. > After finding out what the problem was, and asking whether they had > already shuffled the hands or whether they could reconstruct the > hand, I looked up an appropriate Law, but couldn't find on. I > decided to award each pair the score the other pair was claiming > and give them an additional 10% penalty. Somehow I feel I took a > doubtful decision. Maybe I should have awarded them them each an > average minus. But as I said, I couldn't find an appropriate Law. > Is there one? Should there be one? L81C9 requires you to adjust disputes, and I think your solution is harsh. Listen to the evidence, make a decision as to how many tricks were made, tell them they can appeal it, and do not lose sleep over it. People make mistakes: we do not automatically give them a bad score for doing so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 23 03:57:38 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:57:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> Herman De Wael writes >>>Please send your replies also to Yves, originator of this problem. >> Well, if you had given me Yves' eddress I would have done so! >It was among the headers - a reply to all would have found him. Are you trying to get me more abuse from Brian and David? Despite what the two of them have said about my software I like software which threads mailing lists and treats them as newsgroups, and I never have to Reply to All or anything like that. >>>This is the bidding: >> >> P P 1D P >> 1N 3C >> >>>South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. >>> >>>South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly >>>over 1Di. >>>Of course North disagrees. >>>So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) >>>Misbid or not ? >> It depends on whether N/S have an agreement that it is Ghestem or not. >No, David, it does not depend on that - we have to decide on that. >As you are quite well aware, they will claim they don't - and we won't >listen to that claim. So it's up to us to decide about this. If you really do not think it depends on whether N/S have an agreement then you cannot possibly have any understanding whatever of the Laws of bridge. My apologies for treating your request as serious. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 23 03:43:06 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:43:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? In-Reply-To: <004c01c2796b$2d510060$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> <5nNPoIDd0Jt9Ewx1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004c01c2796b$2d510060$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <+bcB2ZC6ygt9Ewit@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Sven Pran writes >> >See Law 28A - you don't even have to make your pass call! >> Funny - it does not say that in my Law book. >It says in my book: A call is considered to be in rotation when it >is made by a player at his RHO's turn to call if that opponent is >required by law to pass. > >The only way I can understand this is that if you are required >to pass then your LHO may make his call without waiting for >your (required) pass. I have seen this practised with the player >placing a single pass bid card in front of him and then just >leaning back. I have also seen such players making some >gesture indicating to LHO "just go ahead". > >IF you (as TD) see a player making his call according to L28A >without waiting for the required pass do you then require >the "bypassed" player to produce his pass (subsequently) >anyway? (I am talking about a player required to pass for >the rest of the auction, not just once - in which case it makes >sense to request the pass bid card to be present) Quite probably not. But that is being practical, not following the Laws. The Laws require a Pass from the player. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 23 13:28:19 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:28:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] System restrictions References: <4A256C5B.001D794E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001301c27a8f$adf323e0$219c68d5@default> [Richard Hills] A decade ago, an option in the ABF alert rules was allowing players who *wanted* to require their opponents to cease all their alerts. Canny players exercised the option against opponents in new partnerships and/or inexperienced partnerships to limit the opponents' generation of UI. [Nigel Guthrie] Alert-rules generate masses of UI which all seem to act on without a pang of conscience. In Scotland, we too had the option to ban alerts and we always exercised it. We could expect half a dozen tops per night from the inevitable misunderstandings by system players, especially the international pairs. It was fun for us, as the auction got slower and slower, while misunderstandings piled up. When alerting became wide-spread (why I can't guess), they rescinded the "no-alert" option because, even when requested not to alert, opponents would still half-alert out of habit, landing us in the worst of both worlds (and TDs got fed up with being called). From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Oct 23 13:57:44 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:57:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Required to pause? References: <200210171551.IAA20222@mailhub.irvine.com> <5nNPoIDd0Jt9Ewx1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004c01c2796b$2d510060$70d8fea9@WINXP> <+bcB2ZC6ygt9Ewit@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Required to pause? > Sven Pran writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Sven Pran writes > > >> >See Law 28A - you don't even have to make your pass call! > > >> Funny - it does not say that in my Law book. > > >It says in my book: A call is considered to be in rotation when it > >is made by a player at his RHO's turn to call if that opponent is > >required by law to pass. > > > >The only way I can understand this is that if you are required > >to pass then your LHO may make his call without waiting for > >your (required) pass. I have seen this practised with the player > >placing a single pass bid card in front of him and then just > >leaning back. I have also seen such players making some > >gesture indicating to LHO "just go ahead". > > > >IF you (as TD) see a player making his call according to L28A > >without waiting for the required pass do you then require > >the "bypassed" player to produce his pass (subsequently) > >anyway? (I am talking about a player required to pass for > >the rest of the auction, not just once - in which case it makes > >sense to request the pass bid card to be present) > > Quite probably not. But that is being practical, not following the > Laws. The Laws require a Pass from the player. I am not so sure. That the player was required to pass, yes he was. But at his proper turn, yes? Do the laws require players to call OOT? so as to require a player to pass not at his proper turn. That a player was required to pass at his next proper turn but did not is different from requiring the player to pass at someone else's turn. 17C the player to the dealer's left makes the first call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation. A player forced to pass has been skipped. 28A says that the COOT stands. Whose turn is it now to call? I do not think that it is the player forced to pass. For it to be his turn the COOT would first have to be cancelled. regards roger pewick > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 23 14:47:00 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:47:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DB6A854.8030003@skynet.be> David, no need to get short. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>Herman De Wael writes >>> > >>>>Please send your replies also to Yves, originator of this problem. >>>> > >>> Well, if you had given me Yves' eddress I would have done so! >>> > >>It was among the headers - a reply to all would have found him. >> > > Are you trying to get me more abuse from Brian and David? Despite > what the two of them have said about my software I like software which > threads mailing lists and treats them as newsgroups, and I never have to > Reply to All or anything like that. > Sorry David, but since Yves is not on the list, I could not do otherwise. And I did give you his address, however way you got around to mailing to him. Or is your mail reader so terribly good it does not show who a mail was sent to besides yourself ? > >>>>This is the bidding: >>>> >>> P P 1D P >>> 1N 3C >>> >>> >>>>South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. >>>> >>>>South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly >>>>over 1Di. >>>>Of course North disagrees. >>>>So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) >>>>Misbid or not ? >>>> > >>> It depends on whether N/S have an agreement that it is Ghestem or not. >>> > >>No, David, it does not depend on that - we have to decide on that. >>As you are quite well aware, they will claim they don't - and we won't >>listen to that claim. So it's up to us to decide about this. >> > > If you really do not think it depends on whether N/S have an agreement > then you cannot possibly have any understanding whatever of the Laws of > bridge. My apologies for treating your request as serious. > Of course it depends on what N/S agreements actually are. But that is just what the ruling is all about. WE, as TD, have to decide what the agreement is. Not the players. So of course my request is serious. Go back to sleep David, if you cannot understand a simple request. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Oct 23 15:00:40 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Score disagreement Message-ID: <200210231400.KAA03635@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Law85 does not permit the Director to come up with unbalanced > scores. He will have to determine to his own satisfaction what was > the most likely result on the board and then rule accordingly. This was my first reaction, too, but I think we have a way to give a split score if we wish to do so. We can rule that there was an infraction of L65D (as there certainly was!) and then award an adjusted score under L12A1 and 12C2. While I believe a split score is legal, I make no comment on whether it is wise or not. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Oct 23 15:41:21 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <200210231441.KAA04234@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > There was a case at the YC where the sequence was > > W N E S > 1H 1NT P > 2C > > 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it was Stayman. He then > asked West what the responses to Stayman were. West declined to answer. It seems to me that North has no claim to know the response structure (which may depend on what North does and on relevant NS agreements), but he certainly is entitled to a _full_ explanation of the 2C bid. Merely stating the name of the convention is very far from adequate. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 23 15:52:30 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:52:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> <3DB6A854.8030003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004501c27aa3$d1295500$219c68d5@default> [Herman De Wael] This is the bidding: P P 1D P 1N 3C South has a 5-5 in the Majors, and of course it goes wrong after this. South thinks 3Cl shows the Majors, as in fact they do play directly over 1Di. Of course North disagrees. So does the whole world (does anyone play it like this ?) Misbid or not ? Of course it depends on what N/S agreements actually are. [Nigel Guthrie] In the absence of independent evidence, here you must reluctantly rule "no agreement" i.e. "a misbid". No wonder Ghestem is so popular! In the current legal framework, this is one of the advantages if you adopt conventions like Ghestem and Truscott, especially if you refuse to discuss or learn them. They become "Random Overcalls". You are likely to profit more from the resulting mayhem because to you it is familiar. Often your poor opponents are further disadvantaged by being restricted in their countermeasures: the TD may rule that they tried to "have their cake and eat it" if they take an action inconsistent with your "explanation" :) :) Ghestem rules OK! From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 23 16:38:54 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:38:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement In-Reply-To: <004701c27a8c$5cee33c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023134931.00ab4d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023171931.00aaf5f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:04 23/10/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Law85 does not permit the Director to come up with unbalanced >scores. He will have to determine to his own satisfaction what was >the most likely result on the board and then rule accordingly. >He will have to use the explanations from the players combined with >his knowledge of the hands. He may have to ask questions to try to >determine the exact order in which cards were played, and then he >should be able to reach some decision. > >After such a procedure I personally (depending upon the impressions >I get of the involved players) would most likely assign a procedure >penalty to the pair who after disordering their cards came up with the >claim that I overruled. The other pair would receive a warning from me. AG : this means you will *have* to assign a PP to some pair. What if the facts aren't at all obvious ? The same problem happens in soccer. The law about a penalty shot reads : - if the umpire can't know whether a foul has been committed, he shall give the bvenefit of doubt to the defender Now there is a rule which says : - if a player falls on the ground and no foul is signalled, the umpire shall book the player who fell Combine those two and you get : - if the unmpire can't know whether a foul has been committed, he doesn't whistle for the foul, but books the falling player Isn't that ridiculous ? (not to mention the fact that the player might have tripped on his own shoelace. Would you penalize him for that ?) Here, you face the same dilemma : imagine the facts don't allow you for sure to decide what the correct version is. You determine the most probable (repeat : probable) culprit. And you give him a PP for facts you can't be sure of. Stated like this, I don't like it. Best regards, Alain. From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Wed Oct 23 16:43:17 2002 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:43:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: Nigel Guthrie's message of Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:52:30 +0100 Message-ID: > [Nigel Guthrie] > In the absence of independent evidence, here > you must reluctantly rule "no agreement" i.e. > "a misbid". No wonder Ghestem is so popular! > In the current legal framework, this is one > of the advantages if you adopt conventions like > Ghestem and Truscott, especially if you refuse > to discuss or learn them. They become "Random > Overcalls". You are likely to profit more > from the resulting mayhem because to you > it is familiar. Often your poor opponents are > further disadvantaged by being restricted in > their countermeasures: the TD may rule that > they tried to "have their cake and eat it" if > they take an action inconsistent with your > "explanation" :) :) Ghestem rules OK! Nigel, in view of the fact that its users rarely remember what order suits are shown in, I think you'll find the correct form of the slogan is: rules Ghesten OK! ;-) --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 23 16:47:18 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:47:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <200210231441.KAA04234@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003401c27aab$77949e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > From: David Stevenson > > There was a case at the YC where the sequence was > > > > W N E S > > 1H 1NT P > > 2C > > > > 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it was Stayman. He then > > asked West what the responses to Stayman were. West declined to answer. > > It seems to me that North has no claim to know the response structure > (which may depend on what North does and on relevant NS agreements), > but he certainly is entitled to a _full_ explanation of the 2C bid. > Merely stating the name of the convention is very far from adequate. This is a matter of interpretation of Laws 75C and 20F1. I fail to see how "full explanation of a conventional call" can be taken not to include (all) the answers agreed upon, even including answers after opponents possible intervention. Law 20F1 specifically states that full explanation may be requested also on relevant calls available but not made. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 23 16:52:51 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:52:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023134931.00ab4d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021023171931.00aaf5f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003a01c27aac$3ecf1ec0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Score disagreement > At 14:04 23/10/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >Law85 does not permit the Director to come up with unbalanced > >scores. He will have to determine to his own satisfaction what was > >the most likely result on the board and then rule accordingly. > >He will have to use the explanations from the players combined with > >his knowledge of the hands. He may have to ask questions to try to > >determine the exact order in which cards were played, and then he > >should be able to reach some decision. > > > >After such a procedure I personally (depending upon the impressions > >I get of the involved players) would most likely assign a procedure > >penalty to the pair who after disordering their cards came up with the > >claim that I overruled. The other pair would receive a warning from me. > > AG : this means you will *have* to assign a PP to some pair. What if the > facts aren't at all obvious ? Sorry mac, I see that my writing was ambiguous: In my book the mildest form of a PP is a warning. I would not use a stronger PP unless I really felt that the "losing" pair is to blame for the turbulence. (But I would in any case give both sides a warning). regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 23 17:24:07 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 23 Oct 2002 09:24:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <231002296.33848@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >This is a matter of interpretation of Laws 75C and 20F1. >I fail to see how "full explanation of a conventional call" can be taken not to include (all) the answers agreed upon, even including answers after opponents possible intervention. I fail to see how you'd ever finish a bridge hand if this was what the Laws meant. Whereas I believe that you're allowed to ask what bid X means, and what bids Y and Z would have meant if he'd made them instead, I don't think you're allowed to ask "What will his responses to X mean"?, let alone "What will his responses to X mean if I [range of actions]?" > Law 20F1 specifically states that full explanation may be requested also on relevant calls available but not made. So it does, but it doesn't say anything about future calls. You can ask the opponents what they've done. You can't ask them what they're going to do. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 23 17:44:42 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:44:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <231002296.33848@webbox.com> Message-ID: <008b01c27ab3$7c961360$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > Sven wrote: > > >This is a matter of interpretation of Laws 75C and 20F1. > > >I fail to see how "full explanation of a conventional call" > can be taken not to include (all) the answers agreed upon, even > including answers after opponents possible intervention. > > I fail to see how you'd ever finish a bridge hand if this was > what the Laws meant. Whereas I believe that you're allowed to > ask what bid X means, and what bids Y and Z would have meant > if he'd made them instead, I don't think you're allowed to ask > "What will his responses to X mean"?, let alone "What will his > responses to X mean if I [range of actions]?" > > > Law 20F1 specifically states that full explanation may be requested > also on relevant calls available but not made. > > So it does, but it doesn't say anything about future calls. You > can ask the opponents what they've done. You can't ask them what > they're going to do. I did in fact expect that response and considered making a comment in advance. Whatever we say about explanations to include the (possible) answers there is no doubt that at the moment an answer call has been given a request can be made for an explanation of all "relevant calls" that were available as answers to the (conventional) call. The difference is only whether an opponent is entitled to know the alternative answers and their explanations at the time the (conventional) call is made or not until an answer has been made. My opinion is that the agreement on answers is part of the agreements on the call itself. Others may have a different opinion, I'll accept that. And as for when a hand can be finished, that is not a valid argument in this discussion. The laws place the responsibility on any partnership that their opponents shall have full knowledge of their agreements, and if they prefer to spend the time arguing technicalities rather than giving the information called for I do not even feel sorry for them, I just try to keep their opponents undamaged. Sven From jnichols@midtechnologies.com Wed Oct 23 17:57:43 2002 From: jnichols@midtechnologies.com (John Nichols) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:57:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD2251@al21.minfod.com> > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sven Pran >To: blml >Sent: 10/23/02 7:04 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Score disagreement > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:51 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] Score disagreement > > > At 15:02 23/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >John Nichols wrote: > > > > >Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot > > >determine a bridge result on the hand. Here you > > >have two. Since both sides have shuffled their > > >hands before agreeing on the score treat them > > >both as offenders and give them the worst score > > >that was at all probable (which is the score > > >their opponents are stating). > > > >[snip] > > > >John has proposed an ingenious solution. > > > >Unfortunately, I believe that John's delightful > >rulings are also unLawful. > > > >L85B (Facts Not Determined) requires the TD to > >"make a ruling that will permit play to > >continue", not "make *two* rulings". > > AG : awarding two scores is but *one* ruling : you rule that the scores > will be such-and-such. Disallowing this would for ever disable the > principle of awarding non-matching scores (eg L12C or 50/60). > >Law85 does not permit the Director to come up with unbalanced >scores. He will have to determine to his own satisfaction what was >the most likely result on the board and then rule accordingly. >He will have to use the explanations from the players combined with >his knowledge of the hands. He may have to ask questions to try to >determine the exact order in which cards were played, and then he >should be able to reach some decision. > >After such a procedure I personally (depending upon the impressions >I get of the involved players) would most likely assign a procedure >penalty to the pair who after disordering their cards came up with the >claim that I overruled. The other pair would receive a warning from me. > >Sven Law 85 doesn't "permit" the director to do anything. It requires him to make a ruling. From Tom's original description of the problem I took it that the players had shuffled their cards and were unable to reconstruct the play of the hand. If the players can describe how the hand was played I will certainly take this into account and try to determine a single, most likely, result. But if not, I doubt an analysis of the hands will determining a result for the four players at the table. If I was able to determine a single result, based on the hands and information from the players I would not assign a PP to just the side I ruled against. They already feel penalized and are no more responsible for the problem than the other pair. From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Oct 23 18:14:31 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:14:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <11ldrukm8hgqm5una4rsjdd05f20sikemh@4ax.com> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:57:38 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > Are you trying to get me more abuse from Brian and David? If Brian refers to me, then the suggestion that I sent you an abusive e-mail is a bare-faced lie. There is no other word for it. I'll post the entire exchange I had with you about your mailer if I must - hopefully you'll see sense before I feel I have to do that. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 23 18:18:16 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 23 Oct 2002 10:18:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <231002296.37096@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >The difference is only whether an opponent is entitled to know the alternative answers and their explanations at the time the conventional) call is made or not until an answer has been made. Quite so. However, suppose that my RHO has just opened 1C, and that my LHO has alerted. Now, if I wish to employ Law 21 to the maximum extent, I may under my interpretation ask what 1C means, and also what Pass and any of the other 34 possible opening bids would have meant. That would take a while, but it would not preclude the finishing of this hand within, say, an hour or so. But if I wish to employ Law 21 to the maximum extent under Sven's interpretation, then I may conduct a dialogue thus: "What would a response of 1D mean?" "Thank you. And a response of 1H?".... "Now, if I were to double 1C, what would 1D mean then? "And 1H?"... ....some eons pass... ..."You really are being most helpful. Suppose now that I overcall 1S, your partner bids 2H, my partner doubles, you bid 2NT, and I bid 3C?"... There are about 1.4 times ten to the power of 47 possible bridge auctions. Some of them, it is true, do not start with one club. But when Sven says: >And as for when a hand can be finished, that is not a valid argument in this discussion. I think he is missing the point by just a fraction. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 23 18:31:18 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:31:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <231002296.37096@webbox.com> Message-ID: <009501c27ab9$feedf020$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Burn" ......... > But if I wish to employ Law 21 to the maximum extent under Sven's > interpretation, then I may conduct a dialogue thus: > > "What would a response of 1D mean?" > "Thank you. And a response of 1H?".... > "Now, if I were to double 1C, what would 1D mean then? > "And 1H?"... > > ....some eons pass... > > ..."You really are being most helpful. Suppose now that I overcall > 1S, your partner bids 2H, my partner doubles, you bid 2NT, and > I bid 3C?"... > > There are about 1.4 times ten to the power of 47 possible bridge > auctions. Some of them, it is true, do not start with one club. > But when Sven says: > > >And as for when a hand can be finished, that is not a valid > argument in this discussion. > > I think he is missing the point by just a fraction. And what do you believe my judgement would result in when being summoned in a situation like that? Hint: Look up Laws 74A2, 74B4, 81C4, 90A and 91A. (There may even be other "interesting" laws that I overlook right now) I do not think there will be any problem. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Oct 23 18:40:35 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <200210231740.NAA06887@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > "What would a response of 1D mean?" > "Thank you. And a response of 1H?".... > "Now, if I were to double 1C, what would 1D mean then? > "And 1H?"... Oh, it's much worse than that, David. :-) "If I double 1C showing clubs, what will your responses be?" "And if my double of 1C shows majors, what then?" "And suppose double shows hearts and an unspecified minor?" Etc. Long-time BLML readers will recognize the "merry-go-round" problem as well as the time problem. From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 23 20:57:30 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 20:57:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <200210231740.NAA06887@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001901c27ace$a6330b90$0c55e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > From: "David Burn" > > "What would a response of 1D mean?" > > "Thank you. And a response of 1H?".... > > "Now, if I were to double 1C, what would 1D mean then? > > "And 1H?"... > +=+ There may be a regulation specifying what must be available for *perusal* on the convention card. Subject to anything the CC regulation might require, it would appear to me that Law 20F1 authorizes only a question asked about 'the auction' and since, strangely, the action still to come has not yet apparently occurred, I am inclined to the belief that it will form part of the auction when it happens. Law 75C only refers back to Law 20 so it does not extend the authorization beyond what is in Law 20. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Oct 22 19:04:35 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:04:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement References: <003501c27913$b2334840$733f23d5@cornelis> Message-ID: <003a01c279f5$c6b9a9c0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C27A06.3E9A7EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As a TD you have to take a decision. When the session ends the players can try to reconstruct the play of the = cards. Without succes you have Law65C and D. Therupon Law 82B1 and = Law12A1. The latter if you judge the other contestant non-offending one = after the other respectively. Ben ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Cornelis=20 To: BLML=20 Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:08 PM Subject: [blml] Score disagreement ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Cornelis=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 1:19 PM Subject: Score disagreement Hi all, a few weeks ago I came along the following problem. At a certain = table, NS and EW couldn't agree on how many tricks they've made. They = both thought to have made a trick the other pair didn't, but they both = couldn't remember what happened. Of course the hands were already = shuffled (each hand separately) and put back in the boards. It caused a = lot of mayhem so I went to look what was going on. After finding out = what the problem was, and asking whether they had already shuffled the = hands or whether they could reconstruct the hand, I looked up an = appropriate Law, but couldn't find on. I decided to award each pair the = score the other pair was claiming and give them an additional 10% = penalty. Somehow I feel I took a doubtful decision. Maybe I should have = awarded them them each an average minus. But as I said, I couldn't find = an appropriate Law. Is there one? Should there be one? Thanks in advance four your respones. Greetings, Tom. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C27A06.3E9A7EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As a TD you have to take a = decision.
When the session ends the players can = try to=20 reconstruct the play of the cards. Without succes you have Law65C and D. Therupon Law 82B1=20 and Law12A1. The latter if you judge the other contestant non-offending = one=20 after the other respectively.
 
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom = Cornelis=20
To: BLML
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 = 5:08=20 PM
Subject: [blml] Score = disagreement

 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Tom = Cornelis=20
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Score disagreement

Hi all,
 
a few weeks ago I came along the = following=20 problem. At a certain table, NS and EW couldn't agree on how many = tricks=20 they've made. They both thought to have made a trick the other=20 pair didn't, but they both couldn't remember what happened. Of = course the=20 hands were already shuffled (each hand separately) and put back in the = boards.=20 It caused a lot of mayhem so I went to look what was going on. After = finding=20 out what the problem was, and asking whether they had already shuffled = the=20 hands or whether they could reconstruct the hand, I looked up an = appropriate=20 Law, but couldn't find on. I decided to award each pair the score the = other=20 pair was claiming and give them an additional 10% penalty. Somehow I = feel I=20 took a doubtful decision. Maybe I should have awarded them them each = an=20 average minus. But as I said, I couldn't find an appropriate Law. Is = there=20 one? Should there be one?
 
Thanks in advance four your=20 respones.
 
Greetings,
 
Tom.
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C27A06.3E9A7EA0-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 22:45:24 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 07:45:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) Message-ID: <4A256C5B.00762B08.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >+=+ There may be a regulation specifying what must be >available for *perusal* on the convention card. Subject to >anything the CC regulation might require, it would appear >to me that Law 20F1 authorizes only a question asked >about 'the auction' and since, strangely, the action still >to come has not yet apparently occurred, I am inclined >to the belief that it will form part of the auction when it >happens. > Law 75C only refers back to Law 20 so it does >not extend the authorization beyond what is in Law 20. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Under the Grattan interpretation, suppose the auction is: You LHO Pard RHO 1NT 2H 2NT ? and you have agreed to play the lebensohl convention. RHO questions the meaning of 2NT. Do you reply: a) The meaning of 2NT is an order for me to bid 3C, or b) The meaning of 2NT is: (i) a signoff in 3C, or (ii) a signoff in 3D, or (iii) a gameforce with a heart stopper and 4 spades, or (iv) a game invitation with 5+ spades, or (v) a gameforce with a heart stopper and without 4 spades? Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Oct 23 23:03:53 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <200210232203.SAA10804@cfa183.harvard.edu> I don't have much to add on the main subject of this thread, but it might be interesting to juxtapose a couple of the contributions. View 1: In article <001f01c270f9$94c4faa0$583d27d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes > What was East doing when he asked his >opponents "Have you shown or denied the queen of trumps"? Did he have a >"demonstrable bridge reason for his action"? Was he asking so that he >might make some call contingent upon the reply? No, he was not; View 2: > From: "(Eric Landau)" > That is Mr. Gerard's position; it is not mine. ... > East gets carte blanche when an opponent makes a call that, by > partnership agreement, says something about the queen of trumps, he > asks appropriately for an explanation, and the explanation fails to > mention the queen of trumps -- whether or not he holds it. At least some of the divergence may reflect the EBU:ACBL different view on asking questions. The EBU discourages asking questions except on a specific occasion when you need to know the answer. This inevitably means that whether you ask or not depends on the cards you happen to hold. The ACBL view (and I am pretty sure it is Mr. Gerard's) is that you should ask whenever you are reasonably likely to hold a hand where you would need the answer, regardless of whether you in fact hold such a hand on this deal or not. One example of the ACBL view is that here we are almost certain to ask about any alerted call on the first round of the auction and also on later rounds unless the auction is clearly non-competitive. I gather things are different in the EBU. It is easy to see how the general view of asking questions may color one's view of a question about 5H denying the trump queen. It may even affect the correct ruling in different places. A question that would not be deemed misleading in the ACBL may very well be deemed so in the EBU. Others have mentioned "protecting oneself," and one's view about how to do this may very well flow from the local view about the propriety of questions in general. I guess what this boils down to is that "demonstrable bridge reason" is the correct issue for the TD to be concerned with, but the answer may not be so obvious as David Burn, or even Eric, seems to think. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 23 23:09:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:09:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement Message-ID: <4A256C5B.007865C0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Sven Pran wrote: >>>Law85 does not permit the Director to come up >>>with unbalanced scores. He will have to >>>determine to his own satisfaction what was the >>>most likely result on the board and then rule >>>accordingly. Steve Willner replied: >>This was my first reaction, too, but I think we >>have a way to give a split score if we wish to >>do so. We can rule that there was an infraction >>of L65D (as there certainly was!) and then award >>an adjusted score under L12A1 and 12C2. Law 12C2 states: >in place of a result actually obtained So Steve Willner is saying that because he cannot actually obtain a result, he is going to split the score under L12C2, which requires a result to be actually obtained. In other words, Statement 1: - Statement 2 is true. Statement 2: - Statement 1 is false. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 24 00:24:00 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:24:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <231002296.37096@webbox.com> <009501c27ab9$feedf020$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001201c27aeb$470af980$8a9027d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: > And what do you believe my judgement would result in when > being summoned in a situation like that? I don't particularly care. You see, insofar as the rules of a game rely on (a) the players and (b) the officials using their "judgement", that game is flawed. Whenever a player of any game does anything, then: that player should know whether what he does is legal or illegal; so should any official; and there should be no doubt at all about either the legality of the action or the penalty to be paid for it if it is not legal. Does anyone dispute this point of view? I doubt it. Is it true of bridge? Not exactly. Now, I know that all games are flawed to a greater or lesser extent in this respect. But I would simply like to minimise the extent to which bridge is flawed. I am perfectly well aware that this is the total antithesis of the "cult of the Director", to which I have referred; there are people on record as saying that whatever the players actually do, they should just call their friendly local Tournament Director and he will sort it out. But he won't. He can't. If he could, there would be no such thing as the Bridge Laws Mailing List, just as there is no such thing as the Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List. > Hint: Look up Laws 74A2, 74B4, 81C4, 90A and 91A. It's all right, Sven. I know what the Laws say. > (There may even be other "interesting" laws that I overlook > right now) There are no interesting Laws. The Laws ought to be a subject of no interest whatsoever to anyone. As soon as there are "interesting Laws", then there are in effect two games: one called "Duplicate Contract Bridge" and one called "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". Whereas the correct strategy for playing the second of these games is a subject of total fascination and endless debate, I am not sure that it should be so. > I do not think there will be any problem. I don't suppose you do. David Burn London, England From David Stevenson Wed Oct 23 15:43:53 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:43:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Score disagreement In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023134931.00ab4d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4A256C5B.001A63DC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021023134931.00ab4d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 15:02 23/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >>John Nichols wrote: >> >> >Don't assign an average minus unless you cannot >> >determine a bridge result on the hand. Here you >> >have two. Since both sides have shuffled their >> >hands before agreeing on the score treat them >> >both as offenders and give them the worst score >> >that was at all probable (which is the score >> >their opponents are stating). >> >>[snip] >> >>John has proposed an ingenious solution. >> >>Unfortunately, I believe that John's delightful >>rulings are also unLawful. >> >>L85B (Facts Not Determined) requires the TD to >>"make a ruling that will permit play to >>continue", not "make *two* rulings". > >AG : awarding two scores is but *one* ruling : you rule that the scores >will be such-and-such. Disallowing this would for ever disable the >principle of awarding non-matching scores (eg L12C or 50/60). One ruling under which Law? If you are asked to rule whether there is a hesitation, and then consequential damage, do you accept "I am ruling there was a hesitation by North for North-South, but when ruling for East-West I have decided that North did not hesitate." When you rule under a matter of *fact*, to decide different things for different sides is two rulings in my view: but it is only a matter of nomenclature. Whether you consider it two rulings or not, you must not do it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 23 15:46:09 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:46:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] System restrictions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021023135226.00ab66b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4A256C5B.001D794E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021023135226.00ab66b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 15:36 23/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >>Konrad asked: >> >> >I may *want* to play against, say, >> >a strong pass system believing >> >that my average expectation is >> >higher against such systems >> >that against "normal" ones >> >but I am deprived of the opportunity. >> >Why? >> >>A decade ago, an option in the ABF >>alert rules was allowing players >>who *wanted* to require their >>opponents to cease all their alerts. >> >>Canny players exercised the option >>against opponents in new partnerships >>and/or inexperienced partnerships to >>limit the opponents' generation of UI. >> >>The ABF subsequently abolished this >>option. The ABF claimed the reason >>for the abolition of alert-free zones >>was that the ABF had modified its >>alert rules to include self-alerting >>calls. >> >>But to me, the ABF's "reason" seems >>to be a complete non sequitur. > >AG : it is. I don't see why players shouldn't be allowed to ask for >non-alert if they think it best for them. BTW, Belgium has recently >reinstalled this rule. Of course, it could make you give UI in lieu of the >oppoennts (by asking questions), but if you feel this disadvantage is minor >compared to thee advantages of opponents perpetrating nebulissimous bidding >sequences, you're welcome. I think the main reason for not allowing alerting to be optional is that consistency in the method of actually playing leads to general fairness, and ease of following regulations. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Oct 23 15:40:18 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:40:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <4A256C5B.001EBE83.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C5B.001EBE83.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: writes > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>There was a case at the YC where the sequence was >> >> W N E S >> 1H 1NT P >> 2C >> >> 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it >>was Stayman. He then asked West what the responses >>to Stayman were. West declined to answer. > >[snip] > >>In England there is no such problem: there are only >>one set of responses in the general consciousness. > >[snip] > >Do some English partnerships have an agreement that, >in this particular Stayman auction, East never bids >2H? If so, North's question has some legitimacy. Maybe. Of course the reason West refused to answer was that the meaning of 2C was for East to answer, and if 2H is not one of the replies he should be saying so [more to the point, it isn't Stayman]. Now tell me how this could damage North! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 24 00:41:57 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:41:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Kaplan question Message-ID: <4A256C5B.0080D64C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >At least some of the divergence may reflect >the EBU:ACBL different view on asking >questions. > >The EBU discourages asking questions except >on a specific occasion when you need to know >the answer. This inevitably means that >whether you ask or not depends on the cards >you happen to hold. >The ACBL view (and I am pretty sure it is Mr. >Gerard's) is that you should ask whenever you >are reasonably likely to hold a hand where >you would need the answer, regardless of >whether you in fact hold such a hand on this >deal or not. One example of the ACBL view is >that here we are almost certain to ask about >any alerted call on the first round of the >auction and also on later rounds unless the >auction is clearly non-competitive. > >I gather things are different in the EBU. [snip] The ABF has a split view. The ABF follows the ACBL line by ruling that: * If an alerted or self-alerted call has been made, * Then the alert is a demonstrable bridge reason for an opponent asking a "Please explain?" question at the opponent's next turn to call. On the other hand, the ABF follows the EBU line by denying protection from L73F2 to *specific* questions such as, "Please explain whether that shows the queen of trumps?" Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 24 01:29:47 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:29:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) References: <4A256C5B.00762B08.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004301c27af4$9d9cc0e0$0a9468d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] It is hard to disclose the meaning of an Asking bid (like Stayman) or a Puppet (like Lebensohl) without alluding to likely replies; although as Richard says, you could (should?) try to summarise the kinds of hand that might make such a bid. Hence, I agree with Sven (and Richard?) and disagree with Grattan and the Davids. On the other hand, most players would agree with David Burn (and me) that the Laws about Motivation and Skill levels should be scrapped; although I admit life would be more boring for TDs. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 24 03:03:48 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:03:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <009d01c27b01$c527d160$0a9468d5@default> W N E S 1H 1NT P 2C 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it was Stayman. He then asked West what the responses to Stayman were. West declined to answer. [Nigel Guthrie] David Stevenson points out that North should ask East not West; but IMO East is obliged to answer. I don't think Stayman (or any asking bid) should be treated as "General knowledge and experience". But especially here, North is entitled to learn the East-West agreement on this matter: e.g. Will East bid 2H with 4H after N bid them? or Must East reply 2H with 4H & 3S? or Must East reply in his better 4 card major? Alternatively (perhaps as well) as Richard Hills implies, East should tell North what kinds of hand the Stayman bidder is likely to hold. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 24 07:28:30 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 07:28:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <4A256C5B.001EBE83.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001701c27b26$b156baa0$4150e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? . > > Maybe. Of course the reason West refused to > answer was that the meaning of 2C was for East > to answer, and if 2H is not one of the replies he > should be saying so [more to the point, it isn't > Stayman]. > +=+ Perusal of the words of Law 20 leads me to observe that "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question". I think it open to question in the correspondence I am reading, which player it was who "made" the call that the enquiry is about, and when did he make it? The territory of the auction about which questions may be put during the auction is, by every indication, the calls that have occurred, not prospective calls. Some, like the lebensohl 2NT, may convey information about partner's hand which in some way defines future intention - this information should be included in the reply to the enquiry. But a general expectation to be told about future calls where this is not the case is not supported by the wording of the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 24 07:46:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:46:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <4A256C5C.0023DD81.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events?,David Burn wrote: >You see, insofar as the rules of a game rely >on (a) the players and (b) the officials >using their "judgement", that game is flawed. > >Whenever a player of any game does anything, >then: >that player should know whether what he does >is legal or illegal; >so should any official; and >there should be no doubt at all about either >the legality of the action or the penalty to >be paid for it if it is not legal. > >Does anyone dispute this point of view? Yes. I cannot see advance legality of actions being rigidly determined at bridge with no use of "judgement" by officials, *unless* L73C is abolished. In my opinion, abolition of L73C would create a major change in the nature of bridge. Also in my opinion, such a change would be for the worse. Admittedly there are some respected authorities with the contrary opinion. The CTD of New Zealand has recommended abolition of L73C. One of the reasons the CTD has recommended abolition is David Burn's position above. [snip] >call their friendly local Tournament Director >and he will sort it out. But he won't. He >can't. If he could, there would be no such >thing as the Bridge Laws Mailing List, just as >there is no such thing as the Ice Hockey Laws >Mailing List. [snip] >There are no interesting Laws. The Laws ought >to be a subject of no interest whatsoever to >anyone. As soon as there are "interesting >Laws", then there are in effect two games: one >called "Duplicate Contract Bridge" and one >called "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". > >Whereas the correct strategy for playing the >second of these games is a subject of total >fascination and endless debate, I am not sure >that it should be so. Again I disagree. However, Ice Hockey is a relatively simple game, so let us look at the example which gives greatest support to David Burn's thesis, the Laws of Chess. Despite Chess being an intellectual game of similar complexity to Bridge, the Chess Lawbook is tiny in comparison to the Bridge Lawbook. (Chess Laws - 17 pages; Bridge Laws 78 pages.) In my opinion, the reason for this difference is that: 1) Chess is a game of perfect information, with the location of all units of play always visible. 2) Bridge is a game of imperfect information, with players starting a deal with certain knowledge of the location of only 25% of the units of play, then progressing incrementally towards 100% knowledge during the auction and play. I believe that Bridge has sufficient critical mass, as a complex game of designed imperfect information, that its Laws can *never* be both: a) complete, and b) capable of a universally agreed consistent interpretation. Best wishes Richard From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Oct 24 08:58:06 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:58:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <4A256C5C.0023DD81.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > > I believe that Bridge has sufficient critical > mass, as a complex game of designed imperfect > information, that its Laws can *never* be both: > > a) complete, and > > b) capable of a universally agreed consistent > interpretation. "Correct procedure for bridge is: ...." (I assert without proof this can be complete.) "All violations of procedure are punished with a score of 0 matchpoints at matchpoint play, loss of match in a knockout, or -24 imps at imp play." The Laws of Contract Bridge are perhaps unnecessarily complex, but perhaps not undesirably so. -Todd From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Oct 24 10:03:00 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:03:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: > In the thread "Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL > events?,David Burn wrote: > > >You see, insofar as the rules of a game rely > >on (a) the players and (b) the officials > >using their "judgement", that game is flawed. So it is. But in that case I want to express the these that some of the games to be of any interest will be flawed. And if David doesn't like that he better try to find 'Patience' which will be somewhere in his computer files. > > > >Whenever a player of any game does anything, > >then: > >that player should know whether what he does > >is legal or illegal; on a meta level he does, L 16 is quite clear about it: in possession of UI he should not etc. > >so should any official; and > >there should be no doubt at all about either > >the legality of the action or the penalty to > >be paid for it if it is not legal. the same answer here: he knows that too; L 12 is quite clear about it. The reason we are thinking of changing L 12 is that we consider that penalty too severe and consider the gift to the non-offenders to generous, not that the present L12 is not clear. > > > >Does anyone dispute this point of view? This is a nice question and answer illustrating the complexity of life. My answer on this question is a clear 'no'. But then David says that the laws do not comply with this approach and I say they do. > Admittedly there are some respected authorities > with the contrary opinion. The CTD of New > Zealand has recommended abolition of L73C. We can do that, it seems completely redundant with L 16. But don't touch that one. Saying that the solution David needs is to accept all nowadays irregularities in transmitting UI or to mechanize bidding and play, giving 8 seconds (Hamman's suggestion)for every call and play. > > I believe that Bridge has sufficient critical > mass, as a complex game of designed imperfect > information, that its Laws can *never* be both: > > a) complete, and > > b) capable of a universally agreed consistent > interpretation. I tend to agree with statement b), am not so sure of a) But then for b the problem might be more in the imperfectness of people dealing with the laws than in the laws themselves. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 24 10:42:00 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:42:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C5C.0023DD81.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021024113349.00ab9ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:58 24/10/2002 -0400, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:46 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > > > > I believe that Bridge has sufficient critical > > mass, as a complex game of designed imperfect > > information, that its Laws can *never* be both: > > > > a) complete, and > > > > b) capable of a universally agreed consistent > > interpretation. > >"Correct procedure for bridge is: ...." (I assert without proof >this can be complete.) >"All violations of procedure are punished with a score of 0 >matchpoints at matchpoint play, loss of match in a knockout, >or -24 imps at imp play." AG : then you are left with a dozen knockout matches which both teams have lost. Useful. I think one big difference between the Laws of Contract Bridge and Laws for most sports is that there is a need to differentiate between inadvertent and intentional violations. In soccer/basket/rugby/..., no matter whether you pulled the ball out with the intention of winning time or because you were clumsy. Throw in/lateral in both cases. Games and sports where the lawmakers decided to distinguish between inadvertent and intentional are those whose rules are most detailed (motoring, cricket), and within a single game or sport, the rules most difficult to apply are those which make the same distinction (soccer : hands ; cricket : lbw ; track : tripping). Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 24 10:45:34 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <003401c27aab$77949e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200210231441.KAA04234@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021024114302.00ab91b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:47 23/10/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 4:41 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > > > > From: David Stevenson > > > There was a case at the YC where the sequence was > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1H 1NT P > > > 2C > > > > > > 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it was Stayman. He then > > > asked West what the responses to Stayman were. West declined to answer. > > > > It seems to me that North has no claim to know the response structure > > (which may depend on what North does and on relevant NS agreements), > > but he certainly is entitled to a _full_ explanation of the 2C bid. > > Merely stating the name of the convention is very far from adequate. > >This is a matter of interpretation of Laws 75C and 20F1. > >I fail to see how "full explanation of a conventional call" can be taken >not to include (all) the answers agreed upon, even including answers >after opponents possible intervention. AG : perhaps it transmits information about the response to be made. Or perhaps it would take too much time. In my system, responses to 1-bids after an overcall, depending on which overcall and its sense, use about 8 pages in Bookman 10 pt. >Law 20F1 specifically states that full explanation may be requested >also on relevant calls available but not made. AG : yes, after the alternative bid has been made, not before. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 24 10:55:02 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:55:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) In-Reply-To: <4A256C5B.00762B08.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021024114845.00ab98f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:45 24/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >+=+ There may be a regulation specifying what must be > >available for *perusal* on the convention card. Subject to > >anything the CC regulation might require, it would appear > >to me that Law 20F1 authorizes only a question asked > >about 'the auction' and since, strangely, the action still > >to come has not yet apparently occurred, I am inclined > >to the belief that it will form part of the auction when it > >happens. > > Law 75C only refers back to Law 20 so it does > >not extend the authorization beyond what is in Law 20. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Under the Grattan interpretation, suppose the auction is: > >You LHO Pard RHO >1NT 2H 2NT ? > >and you have agreed to play the lebensohl convention. RHO >questions the meaning of 2NT. Do you reply: > >a) The meaning of 2NT is an order for me to bid 3C, or > >b) The meaning of 2NT is: > (i) a signoff in 3C, or > (ii) a signoff in 3D, or > (iii) a gameforce with a heart stopper and 4 spades, or > (iv) a game invitation with 5+ spades, or > (v) a gameforce with a heart stopper and without 4 spades? AG : in my system, you've missed several other meanings (what about rebids above 3NT ?). Every puppet-like bid, because it guarantees that you'll get time to describe your hand, may have several meanings. One other good example would be 1C-1S-2H-2NT, which can be any of the following : weak preference for C (pfollow with pass) weak 4S/6D (3D) weak preference for H (3H) 5-card spade suit, GF, stopper in D (3S) (no stopper : bid 3D over 2H) to play 3NT, more definitive than a direct 3NT (3NT) good raise for C, but limited values ; control in D (4C) (else diect 4C) the same for H (4H) picture-bid in spades, control in diamonds (4S) (else direct 4S) Indeed, to explain this would require every dboard to take about twice more time. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 24 11:06:26 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:06:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021024114845.00ab98f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00af01c27b45$044ed3f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ......... > >Under the Grattan interpretation, suppose the auction is: > > > >You LHO Pard RHO > >1NT 2H 2NT ? > > > >and you have agreed to play the lebensohl convention. RHO > >questions the meaning of 2NT. Do you reply: > > > >a) The meaning of 2NT is an order for me to bid 3C, or > > > >b) The meaning of 2NT is: > > (i) a signoff in 3C, or > > (ii) a signoff in 3D, or > > (iii) a gameforce with a heart stopper and 4 spades, or > > (iv) a game invitation with 5+ spades, or > > (v) a gameforce with a heart stopper and without 4 spades? > > AG : in my system, you've missed several other meanings (what about rebids > above 3NT ?). > Every puppet-like bid, because it guarantees that you'll get time to > describe your hand, may have several meanings. One other good example would > be 1C-1S-2H-2NT, which can be any of the following : > weak preference for C (pfollow with pass) > weak 4S/6D (3D) > weak preference for H (3H) > 5-card spade suit, GF, stopper in D (3S) (no stopper : bid 3D over 2H) > to play 3NT, more definitive than a direct 3NT (3NT) > good raise for C, but limited values ; control in D (4C) (else diect 4C) > the same for H (4H) > picture-bid in spades, control in diamonds (4S) (else direct 4S) > > Indeed, to explain this would require every dboard to take about twice more > time. With all this discussion on what you shall explain and what not, you had better keep in mind the overruling principle which follows from Law 40: It is the responsibility for a partnership to make sure that opponents will be aware of the information conveyed with any call they make. If afterwards it should be revealed that some call during the auction conveyed to the partner information that was unknown to opponents, and if this missing knowledge damaged opponents (at the Director's discretion) then the Director should use law40C and assign an adjusted score (except in the strange case that opponent's lack of understanding should be their own fault). You are (of course) free to judge how much information you will give with any explanation, but at your own risk. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 24 11:18:55 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 24 Oct 2002 03:18:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) Message-ID: <241002297.11935@webbox.com> Alain wrote (and sent only once - well done, that man!) >AG : in my system, you've missed several other meanings (what about rebids above 3NT ?). >Every puppet-like bid, because it guarantees that you'll get time to describe your hand, may have several meanings. Quite so. But under the Pran Interpretation, you would indeed have to disclose all of them before the next hand called. Sven will protest that you wouldn't, because he would stop you at some point, but the fact is that he cannot consistently do this. N: "What does 2C mean?" E: "Stayman." N: "What are the responses?" E: "2D with no four-card major, 2H with four hearts and maybe four spades, 2S with four spades and not four hearts." N: "What would be the responses if I were to double 2C?" E: "Director, please. Can he ask me these questions? D: "Yes, he can, and you must answer them in accordance with the Principle of Full Disclosure." E: "Well, redouble would show clubs, 2D would show diamonds, 2H and 2S would be as without the double." N: "If instead of doubling 2C I were to bid 2D at this point, what would your partner now do?" E: "Can he ask me this question, Mr Pran?" D: "No, he can't." N: "Why not? If he has to tell me what will happen after a double, why doesn't he have to tell me what will happen over 2D?" D: "Because... er..." >Indeed, to explain this would require every board to take about twice more time. Oh, that's all right. Richard Hills will point out that provided you give every explanation in half the time it took you to give the previous one, the game is still mathematically playable within a finite (and sufficiently short) time. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. If the rules said: "a player may ask about calls made, and calls that might have been made instead, but may not ask about hypothetical future calls", then we could play bridge. Grattan thinks the rules do say this, and so do I, but other interpretations are possible. Hence, in location X a player may be allowed to ask about future calls, while in location Y he may not. And where he is, the number of future calls he is allowed to ask about is at the whim of an individual. Now, we are bridge lawyers. We think this is all jolly fascinating, and we are prepared to debate it for hours on end. But nobody else gives a stuff about what we do in our spare time; they would like to play a game whose rules they knew, *whatever those rules were*. The current position is doing the game no practical good, and a very great deal of practical harm. David Burn London, England From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Oct 24 11:21:56 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:21:56 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > "Correct procedure for bridge is: ...." (I assert without proof > this can be complete.) > "All violations of procedure are punished with a score of 0 > matchpoints at matchpoint play, loss of match in a knockout, > or -24 imps at imp play." And if each side commits an infraction during the same match (same hand, same trick, same instant)? GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 24 13:57:08 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:57:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <4A256C5C.0023DD81.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021024084717.00a94d00@pop.starpower.net> At 02:46 AM 10/24/02, richard.hills wrote: >(Chess Laws - 17 pages; Bridge Laws 78 pages.) > >In my opinion, the reason for this difference >is that: > >1) Chess is a game of perfect information, with > the location of all units of play always > visible. > >2) Bridge is a game of imperfect information, > with players starting a deal with certain > knowledge of the location of only 25% of > the units of play, then progressing > incrementally towards 100% knowledge during > the auction and play. There is a rule of thumb in organizational dynamics that says that the complexity of a task increases with the square of the number of people needed to accomplish it. Chess is played by one person on a side; bridge by two. Does this suggests that we should expect the laws of bridge to be about four times as long as the laws of chess given comparable levels of legal complexity? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Oct 24 16:18:28 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:18:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Bower > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:22 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > "Correct procedure for bridge is: ...." (I assert > without proof > > this can be complete.) > > "All violations of procedure are punished with a score of 0 > > matchpoints at matchpoint play, loss of match in a knockout, > > or -24 imps at imp play." > > And if each side commits an infraction during the same > match (same hand, same trick, same instant)? Then they both lose. Does a game have to announce a winner? TV Games like Let's Make a Deal, Friend or Foe, and The Price is Right often result in outcomes where everyone is a loser, though you might suggest that the producers are the winners in this case. I don't claim I want to play this way, but I do believe that bridge, despite its complexity, can have complete and completely objective rules. -Todd From jimfox00@cox.net Thu Oct 24 16:41:45 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:41:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <20021024154211.FPAW14732.lakemtao05.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> > From: Eric Landau > There is a rule of thumb in organizational dynamics that says that the > complexity of a task increases with the square of the number of people > needed to accomplish it. Chess is played by one person on a side; > bridge by two. Does this suggests that we should expect the laws of > bridge to be about four times as long as the laws of chess given > comparable levels of legal complexity? Actually that's factorial not square which doesn't seem to fit if we are looking at 2 versus 1 (2 to 1), but does if we are looking at 4 versus 2 (24 to 2). mmbridge From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Oct 24 17:22:28 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:22:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: "Don't care was made to care!" Cheers, Norman >From: Eric Landau There is a rule of thumb in organizational dynamics that >says that the complexity of a task increases with the square of the number >of people needed to accomplish it. Chess is played by one person on a >side; bridge by two. Does this suggests that we should expect the laws of >bridge to be about four times as long as the laws of chess given comparable >levels of legal complexity? ++++Dare one invoke David Burn's beloved Ice Hockey comparison to rebut this? No, on reflection, I think one dares not... _________________________________________________________________ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp From David Stevenson Thu Oct 24 01:57:55 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:57:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <200210231441.KAA04234@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200210231441.KAA04234@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> There was a case at the YC where the sequence was >> >> W N E S >> 1H 1NT P >> 2C >> >> 2C was alerted, and asked, and North was told it was Stayman. He then >> asked West what the responses to Stayman were. West declined to answer. > >It seems to me that North has no claim to know the response structure >(which may depend on what North does and on relevant NS agreements), >but he certainly is entitled to a _full_ explanation of the 2C bid. >Merely stating the name of the convention is very far from adequate. Of course he has a right to know the response structure otherwise L75A and the Principle of Full Disclosure are breached. But he certainly knew what the responses to Stayman were. Stating the name of a convention is perfectly adequate in some situations. This infamous parrot cry is, like so many things in this game, subject to the actual situation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Thu Oct 24 13:21:23 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:21:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? In-Reply-To: <11ldrukm8hgqm5una4rsjdd05f20sikemh@4ax.com> References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> <11ldrukm8hgqm5una4rsjdd05f20sikemh@4ax.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows writes >On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:57:38 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> Are you trying to get me more abuse from Brian and David? > >If Brian refers to me, then the suggestion that I sent you an >abusive e-mail is a bare-faced lie. There is no other word for >it. > >I'll post the entire exchange I had with you about your mailer if >I must - hopefully you'll see sense before I feel I have to do >that. I did not mean it was particularly abusive, but you did particularly have a go at me about my software. I really do not see why I have to adopt software that seems to be poorer just because other people do not like my software. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 24 17:29:20 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 24 Oct 2002 09:29:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <241002297.34160@webbox.com> Todd wrote: >I don't claim I want to play this way, but I do believe that bridge, despite its complexity, can have complete and completely objective rules. Of course it can. Bob Hamman has suggested that everyone takes exactly eight seconds to make any call or play. Now, this would go a long way towards eliminating UI. "But bridge is an intellectual game", I hear you bleat. So it would be if you had eight seconds in which to do anything. Most of us do not know any more about what to do after eighty seconds, or eight minutes, than we do after eight seconds anyway. Almost all the thinking that happens at the bridge table is not thinking at all, but dithering. But that is not the point. I didn't say I wanted to eliminate the reliance of bridge on subjective judgements. I just said I wanted to minimise it, for a game that requires subjective judgements is to that extent a flawed game. For some reason, an analogy was drawn with chess and with what is popularly known as Godel's theorem, which was not what I was talking about at all. I don't actually mind having people make subjective judgements about UI positions, as long as those people know what they are doing (i.e. have got the necessary bridge ability). But that's about as far as it ought to go. What I do mind very much is that no one knows whether you can ask about future bids. No one knows how many tricks to give anyone who claims the wrong number of them. No one knows how to decide whether a pair has lied about its methods or made the wrong bid. No one, to use a vulgar but really rather splendid American expression, knows shit from Shinola. Now, it would be very easy to make rules so that everyone did know all of the above. But instead of doing this, we sit around debating the meanings of words when not only do we not know what they mean, we know that we cannot know what they mean. And we justify this by saying that it's far too late actually to change anything, because the players wouldn't like it if we did. That may or may not be so, but what is certain is that the players don't like it when we don't. David Burn London, England From david-martin@talk21.com Thu Oct 24 17:38:25 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:38:25 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] movement problem Message-ID: <00ca01c27b7c$090cf340$854d7bd5@davicaltd> Sven writes: > > And you end up with a truncated tournament in which some pairs avoid meeting > the strongest opponents while other pairs lose the favour of meeting the > weakest opponents. Do you consider that "fair"? > > Compared to a complete schedule you cancel 14 or 28 results (depending upon > whether you keep 14 or only 13 rounds) while with my suggestion you cancel > only 6 results (if I managed to do my sums correct). None of the suggestions > involves cancelling valid results that have already been obtained on any > board, > so that argument is irrelevant, but frankly it is my opinion that the better > solution is the one that maintain the original schedule undisturbed as much > as > possible. People are there to play bridge, and as I said above, I need to > cancel > only 6 results from the original schedule. Can you match that? > ###### There are three cases. Nancy wrote to me privately saying: "In the game that I discussed, the plan was to play 13 rounds of 2 boards a round". Thus, in Nancy's actual case, the Martin/Hallén solution is clearly better as no boards whatsoever need to be cancelled or avoided and *everyone* plays the number of boards that they were originally expected to play against the particular set of opponents that they were originally scheduled to meet. As Sven says, "People are there to play bridge". If I have understood Sven's solution correctly, some NS pairs will have sit-outs that were not originally scheduled and two unfortunate EW pairs will effectively have to sit out *twice*, ie. have a real sit-out and also miss one set of boards that they cannot play because their opponents have already played them. Surely Sven, you don't really believe that this would be better? The only downside of the Martin/Hallén solution is that one pair of tables (1 & 14) now have to share boards which is a pain with two board rounds. The second case is a theoretical one where the original intention was to play 14 rounds. Now the Martin solution has the additional flaw to the one above that it involves some revenges and extra board sharing on the last round but at least everyone gets to play the number of boards that they were originally expected to play. Surely, this is still better than some pairs having to miss out some board sets? It certainly is from the players' perspective as opposed to the mathematicians' one and I have not had the time yet to calculate that latter. The third case is where the original intention was to play all 15 rounds. Now it not automatically clear that Sven's solution is better from every player's perspective. Three NS pairs will have sit-outs that were not originally scheduled for them and two unfortunate EW pairs will effectively have to sit out *twice*, ie. have a real sit-out and also miss one set of boards that they cannot play because their opponents have already played them. This is now a matter of opinion whether it is better for all players to play one less round than was originally scheduled or for only some pairs to suffer a more extreme loss. The mathematicians' position regarding fairness of competition is less clear as I have not yet done the calculations but I may also do these calculations over the weekend if I get the time. There is one final and very important point. In the actual case, the error was discovered quite quickly, ie. in the third round. If it had been discovered in a much later round, then the amount of disruption from Sven's approach is greater and more boards cannot be played. In this case, the Martin/Hallén solution does not require any corrections to be made until 7 rounds have been completed at which point the error becomes manifest as some pairs attempt to play boards that they have already played earlier. ######## From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 24 18:09:55 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 24 Oct 2002 10:09:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Ghestem or not ? Message-ID: <241002297.36596@webbox.com> DWS wrote: >I did not mean it was particularly abusive, but you did particularly have a go at me about my software. >I really do not see why I have to adopt software that seems to be poorer just because other people do not like my software. Oh, for Heaven's sake. Nobody "had a go at you about your software" until you started having a go at Henk and (as I recall) Richard because your bloody software would not handle some messages properly. It was you who, on your return from some trip or other, started flooding the ethers with messages demanding "Wot happened?" When you were told what had happened, you produced a great quantity of indignant bleating to the effect that it should not have happened to you and your splendid software. Then you started telling everyone how wonderful your software was, and how it was such a shame that your wonderful software could not do things that the rest of us can either do (with our non-wonderful software) or do not need to do (because we can read messages without their being threaded). You then meandered on about news-stands and headers and things about which it was clear that you knew less than the man in the moon, before producing what we sincerely hoped would be your final word on the subject: that you were astounded to discover that in order to use this wonderful software, you had to know what it did. Nobody is forcing you to use anything other than Turnpike if you don't want to. Like any other product, it has advantages and disadvantages compared with other things in the same market. Apparently, it arranges your messages in a way that suits you. Splendid. But apparently, it does not cope very well with changes to the list address, or enable you to reply easily to other than the mailing list, or "newsgroup" as you misguidedly refer to it. Less splendid. But, I venture to suggest, of not the slightest interest to anyone at all apart from yourself. We do not like your software. We do not dislike your software. We do not care a hoot about your wretched software. And if I have to read another word about your thrice accursed software, then you will find out what "abusive" really means. David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 24 16:10:49 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <008b01c27ab3$7c961360$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <231002296.33848@webbox.com> <008b01c27ab3$7c961360$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <008b01c27ab3$7c961360$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes snip >> >> So it does, but it doesn't say anything about future calls. You >> can ask the opponents what they've done. You can't ask them what >> they're going to do. > >I did in fact expect that response and considered making a comment >in advance. Whatever we say about explanations to include the >(possible) answers there is no doubt that at the moment an answer >call has been given a request can be made for an explanation of all >"relevant calls" that were available as answers to the (conventional) >call. The difference is only whether an opponent is entitled to know >the alternative answers and their explanations at the time the >(conventional) call is made or not until an answer has been made. > >My opinion is that the agreement on answers is part of the agreements >on the call itself. Others may have a different opinion, I'll accept that. > I'm pretty sure that i can't predicate my call over 2C based on the knowledge of their future call; otherwise we're back into Pens vs wk pre's and t/o vs strong pre's. 2C "asking for a 4cM, with 2D neg" is about all I'm entitled to, I think. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 24 18:17:36 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:17:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] movement problem References: <00ca01c27b7c$090cf340$854d7bd5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <002101c27b81$4008c770$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Martin" .......... > There are three cases. > > Nancy wrote to me privately saying: "In the game that I discussed, the plan > was to play 13 rounds of 2 boards a round". Thus, in Nancy's actual case, > the Martin/Hallén solution is clearly better as no boards whatsoever need to > be cancelled or avoided and *everyone* plays the number of boards that they > were originally expected to play against the particular set of opponents > that they were originally scheduled to meet. As Sven says, "People are > there to play bridge". If I have understood Sven's solution correctly, some > NS pairs will have sit-outs that were not originally scheduled and two > unfortunate EW pairs will effectively have to sit out *twice*, ie. have a > real sit-out and also miss one set of boards that they cannot play because > their opponents have already played them. Surely Sven, you don't really > believe that this would be better? The only downside of the Martin/Hallén > solution is that one pair of tables (1 & 14) now have to share boards which > is a pain with two board rounds. > > The second case is a theoretical one where the original intention was to > play 14 rounds. Now the Martin solution has the additional flaw to the one > above that it involves some revenges and extra board sharing on the last > round but at least everyone gets to play the number of boards that they were > originally expected to play. Surely, this is still better than some pairs > having to miss out some board sets? It certainly is from the players' > perspective as opposed to the mathematicians' one and I have not had the > time yet to calculate that latter. > > The third case is where the original intention was to play all 15 rounds. > Now it not automatically clear that Sven's solution is better from every > player's perspective. Three NS pairs will have sit-outs that were not > originally scheduled for them and two unfortunate EW pairs will effectively > have to sit out *twice*, ie. have a real sit-out and also miss one set of > boards that they cannot play because their opponents have already played > them. This is now a matter of opinion whether it is better for all players > to play one less round than was originally scheduled or for only some pairs > to suffer a more extreme loss. The mathematicians' position regarding > fairness of competition is less clear as I have not yet done the > calculations but I may also do these calculations over the weekend if I get > the time. I distinctly remember stating in one of my early comments that the picture would be completely different if the tournament was already scheduled as a truncated tournament. There was nowhere in the material we were given any indication that the schedule originally was for less than 15 rounds? > There is one final and very important point. In the actual case, the error > was discovered quite quickly, ie. in the third round. If it had been > discovered in a much later round, then the amount of disruption from Sven's > approach is greater and more boards cannot be played. In this case, the > Martin/Hallén solution does not require any corrections to be made until 7 > rounds have been completed at which point the error becomes manifest as some > pairs attempt to play boards that they have already played earlier. Also a point with my suggestion. Sven From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Oct 24 18:40:05 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:40:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mailreaders In-Reply-To: References: <3DB3E6FD.9050800@skynet.be> <3DB50F5C.1060000@skynet.be> <11ldrukm8hgqm5una4rsjdd05f20sikemh@4ax.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:21:23 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Brian Meadows writes >>On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:57:38 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> >>> Are you trying to get me more abuse from Brian and David? >> >>If Brian refers to me, then the suggestion that I sent you an >>abusive e-mail is a bare-faced lie. There is no other word for >>it. >> >>I'll post the entire exchange I had with you about your mailer if >>I must - hopefully you'll see sense before I feel I have to do >>that. > > I did not mean it was particularly abusive, but you did particularly >have a go at me about my software. > > I really do not see why I have to adopt software that seems to be >poorer just because other people do not like my software. It's not what software you use that I object to, it's the fact that you feel it necessary to tell us all how good it is, while (almost) simultaneously complaining to Henk and Markus that they didn't give you enough notice to cope with the changeover. If you want a parallel, think what your reaction would be if I suddenly started posting that 25B was the greatest law ever written - would your reply to that be any less "abusive" than the e-mail I wrote to you? I think we all know the answer to that one. The suggestion that software which conforms to accepted norms is somehow poorer than software which doesn't is worthy of Microsoft's marketing department. Before you reply to the above, I suggest you count up how many people found it necessary to complain to Henk on the list about the changeover. Hint: it's equal to the number of people who found it necessary to tell us all about their superb mail reading software. Draw your own conclusions. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From David Stevenson Thu Oct 24 22:29:54 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:29:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <001701c27b26$b156baa0$4150e150@endicott> References: <4A256C5B.001EBE83.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001701c27b26$b156baa0$4150e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Maybe. Of course the reason West refused to >> answer was that the meaning of 2C was for East >> to answer, and if 2H is not one of the replies he >> should be saying so [more to the point, it isn't >> Stayman]. >> >+=+ Perusal of the words of Law 20 leads me to >observe that "replies should normally be given by >the partner of a player who made a call in question". >I think it open to question in the correspondence >I am reading, which player it was who "made" the >call that the enquiry is about, and when did he >make it? > The territory of the auction about which >questions may be put during the auction is, >by every indication, the calls that have occurred, >not prospective calls. Some, like the lebensohl >2NT, may convey information about partner's >hand which in some way defines future intention >- this information should be included in the reply >to the enquiry. But a general expectation to be >told about future calls where this is not the case >is not supported by the wording of the laws. Suppose the bidding goes 1D P 1H P 1N P 2C The meaning is asked. Do you think the perfectly accurate answer "It is an enquiry" constitutes Full Disclosure? Especially where a player makes a call which according to his partnership understanding gets specific responses form partner according to some code or other I believe that L75A at the very least requires a player to indicate what is being requested. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 24 23:30:15 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:30:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mailreaders Message-ID: <4A256C5C.007A44DD.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Ghestem or Not?", David Burn wrote: >Nobody "had a go at you about your software" >until you started having a go at Henk and (as >I recall) Richard because your bloody software >would not handle some messages properly. I disassociate myself from David Burn's flame. The ultimate cause of David Stevenson's problems with his software was the fact that I was inappropriately addressing my messages to blml. This had previously caused problems for Marv and Grattan amongst others. Thanks to David Stevenson highlighting the fact that the change in host from Marcus to Henk had exacerbated the problems caused by my inappropriate addressing mode, I was finally given the incentive to tweak the mode and therefore fix the problems I had previously been causing. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 24 19:04:34 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:04:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C5C.0023DD81.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <003801c27bb2$fe230be0$d39468d5@default> [Richard Hills] I believe that Bridge has sufficient critical mass, as a complex game of designed imperfect information, that its Laws can *never* be both: a) complete, and b) capable of a universally agreed consistent interpretation. {Nigel guthrie] (b) is absolutely irrefutable so nobody can deny Richard's claim to be the Godel of Bridge. Any game, however, is just the sum of its laws and they can be as unfair and arbitrary as you like -- they can even self-contradictory like the current laws of Bridge. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 25 00:15:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <241002297.11935@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > Quite so. But under the Pran Interpretation, you would indeed > have to disclose all of them before the next hand called. It's a difficult area. If the auction starts 1N-X-XX(a) I can see myself wanting to make a different call depending on whether the XX is: 1. Weak, unspecified 5+ card suit, partner must bid 2C. and 2. Weak, unspecified 5+ card suit, partner may bid 5 card suit of his own. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 25 00:36:45 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:36:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) References: Message-ID: <007c01c27bb6$371b5e40$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > It's a difficult area. If the auction starts > 1N-X-XX(a) I can see myself wanting to make a different call depending on > whether the XX is: > 1. Weak, unspecified 5+ card suit, partner must bid 2C. and > 2. Weak, unspecified 5+ card suit, partner may bid 5 card suit of his > own. We'll grant this for the moment, though (a) their method would strike me as a bit odd and (b) I am not sure exactly how my own action could be influenced. But assume that this is so. If a call compels the caller's partner to make some specific and potentially non-natural call, all other things being equal, then I see no reason why that should not be disclosed (except for the obvious reason that UI may be passed, but that is so of almost all explanations). In the case of, for example: 1NT - Pass - 2NT in standard Burn-Callaghan I would consider a "full explanation" to consist of: "I must bid 3C; he will then either pass, bid 3D to play, or show a game-force with both minors in a variety of ways." I would not consider "transfer to clubs" either sufficient or accurate, and even in sophisticated American circles I would not consider "marionette to clubs" sufficient. If my opponent were to persist with "So he doesn't have to have clubs, then?" I would consider it necessary to answer, since the presumption would be that my first answer had been misunderstood. But I would not consider it incumbent upon me to answer a question of this form: "If I double 2NT, can you pass, and what would it mean if you did?" In the event that we actually had an agreement about what a pass of a double of 2NT showed, the time to disclose that is after "double - pass". The difficulty, though, would be that the answer I gave might depend on the meaning of the double of 2NT. And then we really would be there all night. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 00:56:00 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:56:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: Message-ID: <00a201c27bb9$0edfa820$d39468d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] > (b) is absolutely irrefutable so nobody can > deny Richard's claim to be the Godel of Bridge. > Any game, however, is just the sum of its laws > and they can be as unfair and arbitrary as you > like -- they can even be self-contradictory > like the current laws of Bridge. [Schoderb] So? =K= [Nigel] It is better that the laws of a game like Bridge be apt, simple, unambiguous, consistent and easy to apply, than that they be absolutely fair. e.g. To properly apply current laws, we need telepathic Solomons for TDs because they so often have to assess the motivation and ability of friends and strangers. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 25 01:13:40 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:13:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <4A256C5C.0083BCE2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >Any game, however, is just the sum of its >laws [snip] Disagree. The classic counterexample to Nigel's assertion comes from the game of cricket, and the infamous Bodyline series. It was agreed that English captain Douglas Jardine was acting in accordance with the Laws of Cricket by deliberately giving the Australian batsmen a choice between broken wickets or broken bones. It was also agreed that Jardine was acting against the spirit of cricket. This dissonance was resolved when the Laws of Cricket were amended to outlaw the Bodyline tactic. Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 25 01:22:06 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <200210250022.UAA04401@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > Suppose the bidding goes > > 1D P 1H P > 1N P 2C > > The meaning is asked. Do you think the perfectly accurate answer "It > is an enquiry" constitutes Full Disclosure? I don't think anyone has suggested that it is, but perhaps I missed a message. Anyway, I hope we all will come to agree that it is not. That still does not justify asking about future calls. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 25 02:12:15 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 02:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C5C.0083BCE2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00b601c27bc3$9026db60$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > >Any game, however, is just the sum of its > >laws > Disagree. The classic counterexample to > Nigel's assertion comes from the game of > cricket, and the infamous Bodyline series. > It was agreed that English captain Douglas > Jardine was acting in accordance with the > Laws of Cricket by deliberately giving the > Australian batsmen a choice between broken > wickets or broken bones. > It was also agreed that Jardine was acting > against the spirit of cricket. Well, it was agreed by the Australians. The MCC did not share their opinion. > This dissonance was resolved when the > Laws of Cricket were amended to outlaw the > Bodyline tactic. But this is no sort of "disagreement" at all. At the point Jardine's men bowled bodyline, it was legal. The view was later taken that it ought not to have been, because (a) it was dangerous and (b) it didn't make cricket very interesting. Historical note follows, which will be incomprehensible to almost everyone on this list except Australians, Englishmen and Herman. Bodyline wasn't actually all that dangerous - two batsmen suffered serious blows to the head and the body, but these were both from ordinary good-length balls. Larwood, the fastest and most accurate of the bodyline bowlers, struck two other batsmen with short-pitched deliveries on the leg stump - but this was scarcely an abnormal statistic then, and would not raise an eyebrow today. Bodyline certainly did not make cricket very interesting, and there was a justified fear that if it were to continue to be permitted, people would not turn up to watch Test matches. Since Australia at that time was in the grip of a profound financial depression, the loss of revenue from cricket would be a mortal blow to many. End of historical note. The sum of the laws of cricket at that time was such that bodyline bowling was permitted. The reason that the rules were changed had nothing to do with the "spirit of the game", but with the facts that if bodyline were to continue to be permitted, the game would suffer as a commercial proposition, and (secondarily) that people would get hurt. The reason that the rules of a game change have little to do with anything other than encouraging people to play it and encouraging people to watch it. The game is, and remains, the sum of its rules. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 02:24:25 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 02:24:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <00d101c27bc5$4544b660$d39468d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] >Any game, however, is just the sum of its >laws {Richard Hills] Disagree. The classic counterexample to Nigel's assertion comes from the game of cricket, and the infamous Bodyline series. It was agreed that English captain Douglas Jardine was acting in accordance with the Laws of Cricket by deliberately giving the Australian batsmen a choice between broken wickets or broken bones. It was also agreed that Jardine was acting against the spirit of cricket. This dissonance was resolved when the Laws of Cricket were amended to outlaw the Bodyline tactic. {Nigel] OK. Richard I admit to oversimplification. Another counterexample to my thesis would be Conway's game of "Life": a few simple rules generating a game complex enough to model a general purpose computer. I have read a book about Cricket which alleges that doubtful practices have always been rife even in W G Grace's time; so all the current cheats are just maintaining old traditions. [Sorry Richard, I sent this to you by mistake] From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 25 02:42:44 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:42:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <4A256C5D.00080F60.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel wrote: >It is better that the laws of a game like Bridge >be apt, simple, unambiguous, consistent and easy >to apply, than that they be absolutely fair. I may or may not be in disagreement with this view. Whether I am in disagreement depends on the definition of the word "fair", alias the word "equity". Most key words in the Laws are carefully defined in the Chapter 1 Definitions. Because of its appearance in L12C3, "equity" is the single most important *undefined* word used in the Laws. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 25 03:04:30 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:04:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <231002296.33848@webbox.com> Message-ID: On 10/23/02, David Burn wrote: >So it does, but it doesn't say anything about future calls. You >can ask the opponents what they've done. You can't ask them what >they're going to do. That's what I thought. But DWS had convinced me otherwise, and now Sven concurs. As I've said before, my primary interest is in knowing *how* to rule, so can we please get some kind of consensus as to which side is right? :-) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 25 03:33:33 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) Message-ID: <200210250233.WAA06445@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > It's a difficult area. If the auction starts > > 1N-X-XX(a) I can see myself wanting to make a different call depending on > whether the XX is: > 1. Weak, unspecified 5+ card suit, partner must bid 2C. and > 2. Weak, unspecified 5+ card suit, partner may bid 5 card suit of his > own. You may want to do this, but some of us think you are not allowed to. What happens if opener's bidding constraints depend on the meaning of your call? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 25 03:38:57 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) Message-ID: <200210250238.WAA06544@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > 1NT - Pass - 2NT in standard Burn-Callaghan > > I would consider a "full explanation" to consist of: "I must bid 3C; he > will then either pass, bid 3D to play, or show a game-force with both > minors in a variety of ways." How about "Artificial and forcing. Shows one of three hand types: signoff in clubs, signoff in diamonds, or game force with both minors." No need to explain how you plan to continue, at least that I can see. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 25 04:25:16 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:25:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <4A256C5D.0011717B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [big snip] >No one knows how to decide whether a pair >has lied about its methods or made the >wrong bid. No one, to use a vulgar but >really rather splendid American expression, >knows shit from Shinola. > >Now, it would be very easy to make rules so >that everyone did know all of the above. [snip] >And we justify this by saying that it's far >too late actually to change anything, because >the players wouldn't like it if we did. That >may or may not be so, but what is certain is >that the players don't like it when we don't. A large number of bridge players, including such likeable figures as Bobby Wolff and the late Dick Cummings, have liked the idea that a misbid should be an infraction. It is quite likely that that number of likeable bridge players is a plurality. Making misbids an infraction would include a bonus of making all psyches infractions, a concept definitely liked by a majority of players. And this new rule would make determining whether or not a pair "has lied about its methods" irrelevant, as the TD could simply compare cards with explanation. Implementation of the new rule would be straightforward. The WBF LC could borrow a concept from the EBU's Red Psyche reg, and order that as soon as a misbid occurs, an automatic Ave+/Ave- is awarded. A further advantageous consequence of the frequent Ave+/Ave- scores would be that bridge sessions would finish in jig time, as hardly anybody would actually play a hand. This obviates the need for the TD to decide whether a slow play penalty is "shit or Shinola". Grattan, will you be putting my Modest Proposal in your notebook? Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 05:38:49 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 05:38:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C5D.0011717B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001301c27be0$902db300$109c68d5@default> [Richard Hills] The WBF LC could borrow a concept from the EBU's Red Psyche reg, and order that as soon as a misbid occurs, an automatic Ave+/Ave- is awarded. {Nigel Guthrie] Before we drown in Richard's irony -- please consider a slight relaxation of his "proposal". Define a simple comprehensive system as standard e.g. Jeff Rubens' "BW Standard". If you play this standard system then you are allowed the occasional lapse; but if you agree a different system or an elegant variation and then misbid a non-standard convention you incur an automatic "Wolff" penalty. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 06:32:57 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 06:32:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C5D.0011717B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001301c27be0$902db300$109c68d5@default> <003701c27be4$8db4ee00$109c68d5@default> Message-ID: <003d01c27be7$fbc74e80$109c68d5@default> Other simplifications that result from defining a straight-forward comprehensive system as standard include: 1. Departures from the standard (and only departures from the standard) are alertable. 2. Alert rules are the same for everybody everywhere. 3. Only variations need to be marked on your CC. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 24 23:05:18 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:05:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <200210231441.KAA04234@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000801c27bea$c62a2650$9a14e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > Of course he has a right to know the response structure > otherwise L75A and the Principle of Full Disclosure are breached. > > But he certainly knew what the responses to Stayman were. > +=+ 'Of course' - well, yes, but the statement does not then necessarily resolve the issues. 75A refers back to disclosure as required by Law 40B. The disclosure must comply with the regulations of the SO - convention card, alerts, supplementary sheets. The right to know is satisfied in advance by such means. Requests for explanations are dealt with under another part of the laws altogether and there is an assumptive leap from there to Law 40; there is no highway in the laws from the one to the other. What information you are required to disclose per SO regulations and what explanations you are required to give in reply to enquiry under Law 20 do not have to be one and the same thing; it is arguable that whereas the CC etc. must disclose the full system, enquiry is limited to the auction that has taken place. 75A disclosure is per regulation; answering questions (75C) is governed directly by the law. Moreover, Law 75C, which deals with 'reply to an opponent's enquiry' refers pointedly to 'information conveyed' and not to the way that information is to be used - something that may be the subject of enquiry only perhaps when the development has occurred. (In this I am not commenting on what is desirable, I am considering what is present in the law.) Mmmm...... we've got a couple of years to think about it! ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 25 07:19:59 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 07:19:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C5C.0083BCE2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <00b601c27bc3$9026db60$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001401c27bee$d7537900$29ae193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge > > > The sum of the laws of cricket at that time was such that > bodyline bowling was permitted. The reason that the rules > were changed had nothing to do with the "spirit of the > game", but with the facts that if bodyline were to continue > to be permitted, the game would suffer as a commercial > proposition, > +=+ The Rule of its Sums, perhaps? +=+ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Oct 25 08:47:40 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:47:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: The game is, and remains, the sum of its rules. > > David Burn > London, England I am not so sure about these statements. And it is worth discussing it, because many of us still accuse our laws for the problems arising in bridge. You also could say that society is the sum of its rules. But there is much more of course. When we look at soccer nowadays it couldn't be played if referees were applying the rules. No player is allowed to approach the enemy goal without being attacked by catching an arm or worse, hanging at his shirt or whatever. All infringing the rules but all accepted apparently. So the statement should be: the game is, and remains, the sum of the interpretations of its rules. I have said it before and I will say it again: even our simple game of bridge is too complicated to cover all possible irregularities. So once in a while the laws are no explicit guidance to solutions. But David is ridiculizing our sport when he states that nobody knows anything about what decision to make. He knows that and might tell me that I am ridiculizing (new word probably, so let me use it twice) his statement, but I am not. We really have a principal difference of opinion. Fixing the laws so that even a lawyer can apply the laws makes bridge unplayable. David's suggestion for the treatment of claims is a wrong one. And when a player dares to claim a hand where he still has to exercise a double squeeze he should be sent home, regardless of the decision taken by the TD, which in my opinion was wrong. By following an interpretation and without advocating that the laws should explicitly express that claiming in such a case is not allowed, nor that a claim with Ax opposite Kx should be denied since it is possible to play the king under the ace, which is David's proposal as I understand him well. Remains the question how to formulate the laws in such a way that TD's do what the lawmakers want them to do. Then we first need to know the intentions of those lawmakers and generally accepted principles supported by a large majority of the players. You probably know that we removed 25B in the draft? ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 25 08:52:43 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:52:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) References: <007c01c27bb6$371b5e40$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DB8F84B.5010101@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > But I would not consider it incumbent upon me to answer a question of > this form: "If I double 2NT, can you pass, and what would it mean if you > did?" In the event that we actually had an agreement about what a pass > of a double of 2NT showed, the time to disclose that is after "double - > pass". The difficulty, though, would be that the answer I gave might > depend on the meaning of the double of 2NT. And then we really would be > there all night. > Sorry David, but that is not an argument. You might, at the end of a match, complain about time wasting by excessive asking of questions, but I do feel your opponents have the right to know this. L40 talks of "prior announcement". That means that you are obliged to inform the opponents, before play starts, of every meaning in every situation that can arise. All 17 zillion of them. Of course we don't do that. But the opponents have the right to know. So if they ask you should tell them. I don't believe this is a problem because I have never heard anyone wanting to ask such a question. And if even you have never encountered such a question, it means they simply aren't asked. But if they are asked, you'd better answer them ... > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Oct 25 08:58:58 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:58:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: > +=+ 'Of course' - well, yes, but the statement does not then > necessarily resolve the issues. 75A refers back to disclosure > as required by Law 40B. The disclosure must comply with the > regulations of the SO - convention card, alerts, supplementary > sheets. The right to know is satisfied in advance by such means. > Requests for explanations are dealt with under another > part of the laws altogether and there is an assumptive leap from > there to Law 40; there is no highway in the laws from the one to > the other. What information you are required to disclose per SO > regulations and what explanations you are required to give in > reply to enquiry under Law 20 do not have to be one and the > same thing; it is arguable that whereas the CC etc. must > disclose the full system, enquiry is limited to the auction that > has taken place. 75A disclosure is per regulation; answering > questions (75C) is governed directly by the law. > Moreover, Law 75C, which deals with 'reply to an > opponent's enquiry' refers pointedly to 'information conveyed' > and not to the way that information is to be used - something > that may be the subject of enquiry only perhaps when the > development has occurred. (In this I am not commenting on > what is desirable, I am considering what is present in the > law.) > Mmmm...... we've got a couple of years to think about it! > ~ G ~ +=+ But could we agree, as members of the lawscommittee I mean, that questions about future calls should not be asked? Personally I don't need more than L20F for that interpretation. So let me return to my normal attitude of supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, Grattan please? ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Oct 25 09:02:37 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:02:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: > > [Richard Hills] > The WBF LC could borrow a concept from the > EBU's Red Psyche reg, and order that as soon > as a misbid occurs, an automatic Ave+/Ave- > is awarded. > {Nigel Guthrie] > Before we drown in Richard's irony -- please > consider a slight relaxation of his "proposal". > Define a simple comprehensive system as > standard e.g. Jeff Rubens' "BW Standard". > If you play this standard system then you are > allowed the occasional lapse; but if you > agree a different system or an elegant > variation and then misbid a non-standard > convention you incur an automatic "Wolff" > penalty. > I consider Richard's irony applicable to this proposal. By the way what is your idea of a simple system? ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 25 09:01:11 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:01:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C5D.0011717B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001401c27bfc$af21d400$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > A large number of bridge players, including > such likeable figures as Bobby Wolff and the > late Dick Cummings, have liked the idea that a > misbid should be an infraction. It is quite > likely that that number of likeable bridge > players is a plurality. There are times when I begin to wonder whether Richard and I are using the same language. What has making a misbid an infraction got to do with the assertion that the rules could be amended so that it would be possible to distinguish between a mistaken bid and a mistaken explanation? > Making misbids an infraction would include a > bonus of making all psyches infractions, a > concept definitely liked by a majority of > players. > And this new rule would make determining > whether or not a pair "has lied about its > methods" irrelevant, as the TD could simply > compare cards with explanation. So it would. But nobody is proposing any such new rule; the players mentioned by Richard may at one time have proposed it, but it has been rightly rejected by the rest of the community. Richard appears to me to be arguing that you cannot have simplifying rules because one particular simplifying rule would not be a very good idea. But this is simple nonsense - it does not mean that you cannot have simplifying rules, only that you should not have this one. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 25 09:06:22 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:06:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <00d101c27bc5$4544b660$d39468d5@default> Message-ID: <001a01c27bfd$68a855c0$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> Nigel wrote: > OK. Richard I admit to oversimplification. > Another counterexample to my thesis would > be Conway's game of "Life": a few simple > rules generating a game complex enough to > model a general purpose computer. But the "game of Life" is not a game at all, in the sense that bridge is a game. Even if it were, it would be the case that it is exactly and precisely the sum of its rules, since it is impossible for the rules to be broken. If you think that this is a counter-example to your own thesis, all I can say is that you do not appear to have read the words you have written very carefully, or to have understood them. It is true that simple rules may produce a complex game. To simplify the rules of bridge would not necessarily reduce the complexity, or the intellectual appeal, of the game itself. It would probably reduce the complexity of the game known as "the rules of bridge", but I do not know anyone apart from a few tournament directors who would consider this a bad idea. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 25 09:39:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:39:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > But could we agree, as members of the lawscommittee I mean, that questions > about future calls should not be asked? Personally I don't need more than > L20F for that interpretation. So let me return to my normal attitude of > supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, Grattan please? > Ehmm - can I have a say ? How do you square this with the -quite legitimate and necessary- question before any board of "how are your openings at the two-level?". What is the difference between a question in the middle of an auction about consequent bidding and the obligation of having fully completed convention cards? One pair will give me a fully completed CC with additional sheets giving all the sequences, and another pair doesn't, and I would not be allowed to ask a question to find out the same ? As it stands, few players would want to think so far ahead, but that does not mean we should prohibit them from doing so. > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 25 09:42:03 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:42:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) References: Message-ID: <3DB903DB.4040606@skynet.be> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > 25.10.2002 09:52:43, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >>L40 talks of "prior announcement". That means that you are >> > obliged to > >>inform the opponents, before play starts, of every meaning >> > in every > >>situation that can arise. All 17 zillion of them. >> > > No it doesn't. > The words "prior announcement" are only to be found in L40A, > preceded by "without". > It is for the SO to regulate the means and extent of > disclosure (L40B). > Yes it does. Prior announcement means "before I make the call". My opponents must be able to know what the call means, before I make it. Questions are usually asked only afterwards, but that does not mean I am not allowed to know beforehand. The SO can regulate how far a player has to go in announcing his methods, but that does not mean that an opponent is not entitled to know even more. > Regards, > Petrus > > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Oct 25 10:11:44 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:11:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > But could we agree, as members of the lawscommittee I mean, > that questions > > about future calls should not be asked? Personally I don't > need more than > > L20F for that interpretation. So let me return to my normal > attitude of > > supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, Grattan please? > > > > > Ehmm - can I have a say ? Ehmm, may be not. I get the feeling that we are splitting beans or similar vegetables again. I am talking about the auction going on and not about general questions concerning the system played. But to be honest even those questions should not be allowed at that moment. > > How do you square this with the -quite legitimate and necessary- > question before any board of "how are your openings at the > two-level?". I don't understand the relation between this question and the issue we are talking about. When the auction goes: pass pass pass 1C 2S this question: 'how are your openings at the two-level' is related to the auction and has nothing to do with future bidding. > What is the difference between a question in the middle of an auction > about consequent bidding and the obligation of having fully completed > convention cards? Is this a serious question? > One pair will give me a fully completed CC with additional sheets > giving all the sequences, and another pair doesn't, and I > would not be > allowed to ask a question to find out the same ? The answer is yes and no. So let us start with defining what future bidding means and then give an example please. Because a question to find out whether a call made is forcing is certainly allowed and also relates to future bidding, isn't it? But asking about the probability that LHO is going to bid 3NT is not allowed and also relates to future bidding, isn't it? And when the auction goes 1H 3H the explanation about the 3H bid includes the possibility of partner bidding 3NT. So what are we talking about? ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 25 11:42:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:42:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <200210250022.UAA04401@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025124044.00ac5dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:22 24/10/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > Suppose the bidding goes > > > > 1D P 1H P > > 1N P 2C > > > > The meaning is asked. Do you think the perfectly accurate answer "It > > is an enquiry" constitutes Full Disclosure? AG : it doesn't, but in some systems, no other information than "strong and asking shape" will be available. Note that it ia quite possible that "on more enquiry" constitute a complete explanation, eg in relay systems, every relay after establishing the forcing auction. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 25 11:55:23 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:55:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) In-Reply-To: <007c01c27bb6$371b5e40$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025124709.00aa91b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:36 25/10/2002 +0100, David Burn wrote: >If a call compels the caller's partner to make some specific and >potentially non-natural call, all other things being equal, then I see >no reason why that should not be disclosed (except for the obvious >reason that UI may be passed, but that is so of almost all >explanations). In the case of, for example: > >1NT - Pass - 2NT in standard Burn-Callaghan > >I would consider a "full explanation" to consist of: "I must bid 3C; he >will then either pass, bid 3D to play, or show a game-force with both >minors in a variety of ways." I would not consider "transfer to clubs" >either sufficient or accurate, and even in sophisticated American >circles I would not consider "marionette to clubs" sufficient. If my >opponent were to persist with "So he doesn't have to have clubs, then?" >I would consider it necessary to answer, since the presumption would be >that my first answer had been misunderstood. > >But I would not consider it incumbent upon me to answer a question of >this form: "If I double 2NT, can you pass, and what would it mean if you >did?" In the event that we actually had an agreement about what a pass >of a double of 2NT showed, the time to disclose that is after "double - >pass". The difficulty, though, would be that the answer I gave might >depend on the meaning of the double of 2NT. And then we really would be >there all night. AG : yes, this is a distinct possibility. It is also possible that the questions induce me to depart from the system. Imagine this : opening 2D, alerted, first explained as "weak 2-bid in hearts, possibly good 5-carder with a 4-card minor, or any GF" (that's the way I play it). Now the opponent asks umpteen more questions, the last being "thus, it is forcing ?", to which I answer affirmatively. Then he passes. Based on AI from the fact that he shows huge interest on getting a second round of bidding, I may well decide to pass this forcing bid. And his partner would have some difficulty to find a reopening, because the questions are UI to him. Please note that my first explanation was quite correct and complete, which means the questions are AI to me. Would you pretend I misdescribed the system ? Should I answer "it is unconditionally forcing, except after an opponent has shown interest" , which wouldn't be an acceptable gadget IIRC. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Fri Oct 25 11:39:27 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:39:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <003701c27c14$138700c0$aa1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:58 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > But could we agree, as members of the laws > committee I mean, that questions about future > calls should not be asked? Personally I don't > need more than L20F for that interpretation. > So let me return to my normal attitude of > supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, > Grattan please? > > ton > +=+ This is the true interpretation of Law 20 in my opinion, as I have stated - on occasion with irony - several times in this thread. I think if you and I are supported by Kojak we have a strong position of influence upon the positions of the NBOs in this. It cannot be presented as a formal agreed interpretation since for that we need to put it to the WBFLC in a meeting. Leaving aside what is currently the law, my personal opinion is that there is one situation that should be covered in the explanation of a call that has been made: if the call is a conventional (artificial) demand for partner to respond in a specified way, I believe the opponent should know whether, by agreement, the required response may then be passed. ~ G ~ +=+ From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Oct 25 12:19:13 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:19:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Turnpike Message-ID: >From: "David Burn" >But, I venture to suggest, of not the slightest interest to anyone >at all apart from yourself. We do not like your software. We >do not dislike your software. We do not care a hoot about your >wretched software. And if I have to read another word about your >thrice accursed software, then you will find out what "abusive" >really means. > >David Burn >London, England ++++This Turnpike software sounds quite good. I like the idea of a newsstand, where you can read mailing list messages threaded. Any idea where I can get it? _________________________________________________________________ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 25 12:54:58 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 25 Oct 2002 04:54:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <251002298.17698@webbox.com> Ton wrote: [HdW] > What is the difference between a question in the middle of an auction about consequent bidding and the obligation of having fully completed convention cards? [TK] >Is this a serious question? Yes, it is a serious question. You see, the Laws (rather foolishly) say this: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents. and also this: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry, a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience. Now, this means that, in theory at any rate, my opponent has at any time the right to know as much about my system as I do. It would not mean this if the emotive and really rather pointless words "fully and freely" were removed in the one case; and "all" removed in the other. Law 75A should read: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be available when necessary to the opponents. and law 75C should read: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry, a player shall disclose any relevant special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience. But the laws don't say this. What they do say could conceivably be achieved in practice in only one way: I must make my complete system available to my opponent before play begins, giving him enough time to study it. Although this is conceivable, it is impractical in almost all cases (though it has been used in international play). So we devise another method, using which my opponent learns only that subset of my system of which he needs to be aware at a particular moment (or a series of particular moments). We say that I must provide him before play with a synopsis of my system, paying particular attention to special agrrements in common situations. We say also that during the play, he may ask questions and I must answer them. There is, of course, a practical difficulty with this also. If my opponent were allowed to ask me about bids I might make in the future as well as about bids I have made (or have failed to make) in the past, there might arise a situation in which there is not enough time for me to answer all the questions I might be asked. In both cases, we attempt to implement the principle of full disclosure as best we practically may. It is important to realise that "full dislcosure" is actually impossible, for the reasons given. It is a theoretical ideal that cannot be put into practice. We then say this: there is material which is disclosed in advance that is a subset of the complete system (on the convention card); and there is material which is disclosed during the play (in the form of responses to questions). For practical reasons, there is a limit to the amount of material that can be disclosed by either method. That limit is defined by: the convention card in the one case (the design of which is a matter for the SO); and by the laws in the other case (wherein Law 20F confines the scope of permissible questions only to the auction up to the point at which the question is asked). But it is not an argument for Herman to say: we cannot implement full disclosure in advance, for there is not enough time, therefore we must implement it in its entirety by allowing all forms of question at the table. There is not enough time for that either. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 25 14:02:42 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:02:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.17698@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DB940F2.9070401@skynet.be> I don't think David and I are on different sides of this argument. David Burn wrote: > Ton wrote: > > [HdW] > >>What is the difference between a question in the middle of >> > an auction about consequent bidding and the obligation of having > fully completed convention cards? > > [TK] > >>Is this a serious question? >> > > Yes, it is a serious question. You see, the Laws (rather foolishly) > say this: > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, > must be fully and freely available to the opponents. > > and also this: > > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in > reply to an opponent's inquiry, a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > partnership experience. > > Now, this means that, in theory at any rate, my opponent has > at any time the right to know as much about my system as I do. And that is indeed what the intention of the Lawmakers was. Opponents have all these rights. > It would not mean this if the emotive and really rather pointless > words "fully and freely" were removed in the one case; and "all" > removed in the other. Law 75A should read: > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, > must be available when necessary to the opponents. > > and law 75C should read: > > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in > reply to an opponent's inquiry, a player shall disclose any relevant > special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement > or partnership experience. > > But the laws don't say this. What they do say could conceivably > be achieved in practice in only one way: I must make my complete > system available to my opponent before play begins, giving him > enough time to study it. Although this is conceivable, it is > impractical in almost all cases (though it has been used in international > play). > It is indeed impracticable. That does not mean it should be abolished. > So we devise another method, using which my opponent learns only > that subset of my system of which he needs to be aware at a particular > moment (or a series of particular moments). We say that I must > provide him before play with a synopsis of my system, paying > particular attention to special agrrements in common situations. > We say also that during the play, he may ask questions and I > must answer them. > But that is NOT another method. That is simply the way the ideal is approximated. Instead of giving him "all" the information, we allow him to ask whatever question he wants to know, and we expect the players to answer them. > There is, of course, a practical difficulty with this also. If > my opponent were allowed to ask me about bids I might make in > the future as well as about bids I have made (or have failed > to make) in the past, there might arise a situation in which > there is not enough time for me to answer all the questions I > might be asked. > So what ? We have set a time limit. True. Absolute knowledge cannot be achieved within this time limit. True. It is up to the opponent to make "good" use of the time he is alloted when searching for a "complete" understanding of opponent's system. We must not allow a player to continue asking questions simply because that is his right. Abusing his rights is no excuse for time wasting. But neither should we invoke the possibility of time wasting to curb asking questions. If I think I need to know something, I should be allowed to ask it. If by those extra questions, we exceed the time limit, then I will gladly accept the sole responsibility for this if the TD judges that I have been overly anxious is trying to understand too many finesses of opponent's system. But don't change the law beforehand simply because of time constraints. > In both cases, we attempt to implement the principle of full > disclosure as best we practically may. It is important to realise > that "full dislcosure" is actually impossible, for the reasons > given. It is a theoretical ideal that cannot be put into practice. > Which is no reason to abolish it, surely? > We then say this: there is material which is disclosed in advance > that is a subset of the complete system (on the convention card); > and there is material which is disclosed during the play (in > the form of responses to questions). For practical reasons, there > is a limit to the amount of material that can be disclosed by > either method. That limit is defined by: the convention card > in the one case (the design of which is a matter for the SO); > and by the laws in the other case (wherein Law 20F confines the > scope of permissible questions only to the auction up to the > point at which the question is asked). > No, there is no need to limit full disclosure. > But it is not an argument for Herman to say: we cannot implement > full disclosure in advance, for there is not enough time, therefore > we must implement it in its entirety by allowing all forms of > question at the table. There is not enough time for that either. > Yes there is. I did never state the former, and if I do state the latter, then don't answer it by stating there is not enough time for that. Just put the burden of time wasting on he who asks superfluous questions. But don't limit the amount of questions he is allowed to ask. Take it to the extreme. We have noticed that within a 2:50 time frame, there is scope for asking 60 questions. Therefore, you are limited to asking 3 questions per board. Silly regulation, no ? Yet exactly the type of regulation proposed. Why not simply allow everyone to ask as many questions as he thinks he needs. Then, if it turns out he has asked 132 of them during the match, we might conceivably award the appropriate fine to his team alone. > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 25 14:17:59 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:17:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <003d01c27be7$fbc74e80$109c68d5@default> References: <4A256C5D.0011717B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001301c27be0$902db300$109c68d5@default> <003701c27be4$8db4ee00$109c68d5@default> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021025090320.00b72de0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:32 AM 10/25/02, Nigel wrote: >Other simplifications that result from >defining a straight-forward comprehensive >system as standard include: >1. Departures from the standard (and only > departures from the standard) are > alertable. >2. Alert rules are the same for everybody > everywhere. >3. Only variations need to be marked on > your CC. This seems perverse. The "problem" (for those who believe that there really is a problem) is created by partnerships who lack either the motivation or the ability to understand the system they choose to play. I don't see how we can expect to solve that problem by having rules that require those same partnerships to understand *two* systems, the one the choose to play *and* the one that has arbitrarily declared to be "standard". That is exacerbated further when we consider that any "standard" system would have to be fully complete, hence more intricate than most ordinary partnerships' methods. Nigel has suggested Bridge World Standard as a suitable choice for "standard", but BWS is itself more complex and detailed than the methods played by 99% of the everyday players in the ACBL. IOW, if you don't know what a bid means in your own system, how the h--l can you be expected to know whether its meaning is a "departure[] from the standard"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From schuster@eduhi.at Fri Oct 25 14:18:47 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:18:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) In-Reply-To: <3DB903DB.4040606@skynet.be> Message-ID: 25.10.2002 10:42:03, Herman De Wael wrote: >Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >> 25.10.2002 09:52:43, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >> >>>L40 talks of "prior announcement". That means that you are >>> >> obliged to >> >>>inform the opponents, before play starts, of every meaning >>> >> in every >> >>>situation that can arise. All 17 zillion of them. >>> >> >> No it doesn't. >> The words "prior announcement" are only to be found in L40A, >> preceded by "without". >> It is for the SO to regulate the means and extent of >> disclosure (L40B). >> > > >Yes it does. > >Prior announcement means "before I make the call". My opponents must >be able to know what the call means, before I make it. Questions are >usually asked only afterwards, but that does not mean I am not allowed >to know beforehand. >The SO can regulate how far a player has to go in announcing his >methods, but that does not mean that an opponent is not entitled to >know even more. Please have another look at the relevant laws. L40B makes it quite clear that it is for the SO to regulate what information has to be made available before the auction, at what time, in what manner and so on. L75 refers back to L40 so it does not confer any additional rights or impose additional obligations. The extent of information to be given during the auction is regulated by L20F1, and IMO "relevant calls available but not made" cannot apply to future calls. So after 1NT-2C-? you might just possibly ask what the difference between an opening bid of 1NT and 2H is, but not what a rebid of 2H will mean. Regards, Petrus From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 25 14:41:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:41:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) In-Reply-To: <3DB903DB.4040606@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025152420.00ac5a00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:42 25/10/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >>25.10.2002 09:52:43, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>L40 talks of "prior announcement". That means that you are >>obliged to >>>inform the opponents, before play starts, of every meaning >>in every >>>situation that can arise. All 17 zillion of them. >>No it doesn't. >>The words "prior announcement" are only to be found in L40A, preceded by >>"without". >>It is for the SO to regulate the means and extent of disclosure (L40B). > > >Yes it does. > >Prior announcement means "before I make the call". My opponents must be >able to know what the call means, before I make it. Questions are usually >asked only afterwards, but that does not mean I am not allowed to know >beforehand. AG : of course it does. My style of bidding (especially overcalling) is dependent on some parameters of the opponents' system. So, before the match, I look at their CC, or if needed, I question them on those few specific points. A case which everybody will understand : when playing against weak NTers, most people use a penalty double that includes all balanced hands above X points, and unbalanced above Y. Some play that X = Y, but I prefer to agree that Y > X, and the extent of the margin depends on how they save after the double. So, I ask them before the match begins what their escapes are. What's important about this (perfectly normal) procedure is that there are only a few things to ask -not everybody will ask the same, of course-, so Herman is right : I am entitled to know everything, and I will not ask everything. Fine. Now about asking during the bidding : if I've got plans that include bidding differently whether the responses to bid A are such or such, I'm allowed to know what they are. But this seldom happens (one possible case : my overcalls of a strong club will be wilder still if they practise point-showing responses even after the overcall, because I will seldom get doubled). What I pretend is that most such questions will only help losing time and transmit UI. Since one may not rule that questions must be prompted by "bridge reasons" -this would accentuate the amount of UI contained in the fact of asking- , we should at least be able to decide afterwards that some questions were made with the *possible purpose* of losing time and/or transmitting UI, or to fool the opponent, based on a "could have known" principle. Of course, it will not be decided so when some pertinent information was left unrevealed. This compels us to decide which information is pertinent. I think we are able to do it. Best regards, Alain. >The SO can regulate how far a player has to go in announcing his methods, >but that does not mean that an opponent is not entitled to know even more. > > >>Regards, >>Petrus >> >> >> > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 25 14:51:29 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:51:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <251002298.17698@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025154327.00ac81a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:54 25/10/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >Now, this means that, in theory at any rate, my opponent has >at any time the right to know as much about my system as I do. >It would not mean this if the emotive and really rather pointless >words "fully and freely" were removed in the one case; and "all" >removed in the other. Law 75A should read: > >Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, >must be available when necessary to the opponents. > >and law 75C should read: > >When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in >reply to an opponent's inquiry, a player shall disclose any relevant >special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement >or partnership experience. AG : count me as an ally on that one This would enable the TD to decide that more information is not necessary, and thus need not be given. He may thus put and end to a series of futile questions, and decide, when somebody refused to answer to the zillionth question, whether he was right in doing so (at his own risk, unless he called the TD). >In both cases, we attempt to implement the principle of full >disclosure as best we practically may. It is important to realise >that "full dislcosure" is actually impossible, for the reasons >given. It is a theoretical ideal that cannot be put into practice. AG : aha ! David is a Platonician. There is an idea of the full disclosure, and what we practise at the bridge table is a shadow of it, which we must cope with. >But it is not an argument for Herman to say: we cannot implement >full disclosure in advance, for there is not enough time, therefore >we must implement it in its entirety by allowing all forms of >question at the table. There is not enough time for that either. AG : what we should implement is full idsclosure of *pertinent* information. Which will usually be quite limited. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 25 15:02:02 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 25 Oct 2002 07:02:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >I don't think David and I are on different sides of this argument. Perhaps not. But it certainly feels like it. >And that is indeed what the intention of the Lawmakers was. Opponents have all these rights. The lawmakers have created a principle. Because this principle cannot be fully implemented, it cannot have been the intention of the lawmakers that the principle be fully put into practice (unless they were insane). The principle is expounded in something that was originally not part of the Laws at all, and within the principle there are references to certain Laws. The lawmakers decided at some point that the proprieties should have the force of law, and they were in my opinion pretty close to insane in making that decision without tying up the cross-references. As a result, the distinction between the laws (which describe what is done) and the proprieties (which describe the ideal state of affairs to which the laws will approximate) has become blurred. However, it is my view that what is intended by the words on the page is this: In principle, the opponents are allowed to know everything that you know about your methods. (Law 75). In practice, they cannot know this. So we will do the best we can by prescribing a method by which you tell your opponents about your system before you start to play (Law 40, supplemented by regulation re convention cards), and by prescribing another method by which you tell your opponents about your system while you are playing (Law 20). >It [full disclosure] is indeed impracticable. That does not mean it should be abolished. Strangely enough, it does, for there is a well-known demonstration of the fact that what is impossible is also immoral. If you cannot do something, then you should not do it. One might as well say: the laws have established that as a principle, a quart shall be poured into a pint pot. Herman would say that just because one cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, that does not mean the principle should be abolished. >But that is NOT another method. That is simply the way the ideal is approximated. Focus on that, Herman. The way in which the ideal is approximated is defined in those laws to which the laws defining the ideal refer. Those laws do not give you (if Grattan and I are correct) the right to ask questions about calls that may exist only at some future time). >Instead of giving him "all" the information, we allow him to ask whatever question he wants to know, and we expect the players to answer them. Not quite. We allow him to ask the questions that Law 20 allows him to ask. Those questions may not concern hypothetical future calls. >So what ? We have set a time limit. True. Absolute knowledge cannot be achieved within this time limit. True. Well, so far we appear to be on the same side. >It is up to the opponent to make "good" use of the time he is alloted when searching for a "complete" understanding of opponent's system. We must not allow a player to continue asking questions simply because that is his right. But how will we stop him? Who is to say that question X is a waste of time, while question Y is a legitimate pursuit of knowledge? Don't tell me. I can guess. The Tournament Director, that splendid individual. No, Herman. The poor Tournament Director has far too much to do already. It is not for him to be summoned to a table to rule on whether a question about a hypothetical future call may or may not constitute a waste of time. Rather, let us have a law that limits the scope of questions that may be asked. By a curious coincidence, we happen to have one already. >Abusing his rights is no excuse for time wasting. This is to beg the question (yet again). How is it to be determined whether a question is an abuse of the right to ask a question? And even if this could be determined, how much more time would be wasted in the process? >But neither should we invoke the possibility of time wasting to curb asking questions. Yes, we should. You see, we have got to make some practical implementation of, or approximation to, our principle. Law 20 does that when it says: you can ask about the auction so far, but you can't ask about the auction yet to come. >If I think I need to know something, I should be allowed to ask it. If you think you need to know something, then either: you should have ascertained it beforehand, or you should be allowed to ask it. In England, for example, you are not allowed to ask certain questions during the auction; you should have found out the answers before you started play. >If by those extra questions, we exceed the time limit, then I will gladly accept the sole responsibility for this Good for you. There are those who would not, of course. "It's their fault for playing a complicated system that I had to ask a lot of questions about." This kind of impasse will require a subjective judgement to be made in order to apportion the penalty. Of course, if this is to be done fairly, it will also require a monitor to be present during every question and answer session. >if the TD judges that I have been overly anxious is trying to understand too many finesses of opponent's system. Herman, you can't do that. There is a law that says that you are not supposed to prolong the game unnecessarily. There is a regulation that says that you are not supposed to take more than time x for a number of boards y. And there is a law that says that you are not knowingly allowed to break another law even if you are willing to pay the penalty. >But don't change the law beforehand simply because of time constraints. I have not. The Law says what it says, and what it says is that you may not ask questions about the future development of the auction. The principle defined in some other law suggests that you may. But that principle has but recently become the law; prior to that, the way in which the principle was implemented was solely by means of the laws to which Grattan and I have referred. >No, there is no need to limit full disclosure. You do not seem to have understood a word I have said. Full disclosure might take several million years. The bar closes at eleven. There is a need to limit full disclosure. There seems to be a belief that because something is called a "principle", every law should be subordinate to it. But this is not so. For a start, there is not actually anything called "the principle of full disclosure", any more than there is anything called "the spirit of the game". There is a sentence in the laws which implies that the opponents are allowed to know everything. There are other sentences which imply that the opponents are allowed to know only a subset of everything. Since the latter is possible while the former is not, it is reasonable to suppose not only that the intention of the lawmakers was to implement the latter and not the former, but also that the former is to be viewed merely as a description of a desirable state, and not a prescription for action. >Take it to the extreme. We have noticed that within a 2:50 time frame, there is scope for asking 60 questions. Therefore, you are limited to asking 3 questions per board. Silly regulation, no ? Not especially. "You are limited to 60 questions per session" would be fine. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 25 15:31:38 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:31:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> Message-ID: <001701c27c33$3abe94e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> OK, I put my (short) comment here rather than following all the text (most of which seems very relevant so I should not snip it). I think David is perfectly right in (almost?) everything he has written here, including the neccessary limitation that has to be placed on how much information shall be provided with an explanation. If only he could accept that any damage (yes absolutely any damage whatsoever) that is caused for opponents because there turns out to be some relevant information that has been omitted with an explanation then opponents are entitled to redress at the Director's discretion (unless of course if the opponents are themselves to blame for not being aware of this information) It may very well be that this relevant information did not appear to be relevant at the time the explantion was given. Assessing what is and what is not relevant is at the risk of the player giving the information. We have a parallell in the alert rules: The player who alerts has the responsibility to ensure that his alert is noticed by opponent(s). I believe this is the same rule everywhere, not only in Norway? Sven From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > Herman wrote: > > >I don't think David and I are on different sides of this argument. > > Perhaps not. But it certainly feels like it. > > >And that is indeed what the intention of the Lawmakers was. > Opponents have all these rights. > > The lawmakers have created a principle. Because this principle > cannot be fully implemented, it cannot have been the intention > of the lawmakers that the principle be fully put into practice > (unless they were insane). The principle is expounded in something > that was originally not part of the Laws at all, and within the > principle there are references to certain Laws. > > The lawmakers decided at some point that the proprieties should > have the force of law, and they were in my opinion pretty close > to insane in making that decision without tying up the cross-references. > As a result, the distinction between the laws (which describe > what is done) and the proprieties (which describe the ideal state > of affairs to which the laws will approximate) has become blurred. > However, it is my view that what is intended by the words on > the page is this: > > In principle, the opponents are allowed to know everything that > you know about your methods. (Law 75). > > In practice, they cannot know this. So we will do the best we > can by prescribing a method by which you tell your opponents > about your system before you start to play (Law 40, supplemented > by regulation re convention cards), and by prescribing another > method by which you tell your opponents about your system while > you are playing (Law 20). > > >It [full disclosure] is indeed impracticable. That does not > mean it should be abolished. > > Strangely enough, it does, for there is a well-known demonstration > of the fact that what is impossible is also immoral. If you cannot > do something, then you should not do it. > > One might as well say: the laws have established that as a principle, > a quart shall be poured into a pint pot. Herman would say that > just because one cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, that does > not mean the principle should be abolished. > > >But that is NOT another method. That is simply the way the > ideal is approximated. > > Focus on that, Herman. The way in which the ideal is approximated > is defined in those laws to which the laws defining the ideal > refer. Those laws do not give you (if Grattan and I are correct) > the right to ask questions about calls that may exist only at > some future time). > > >Instead of giving him "all" the information, we allow > him to ask whatever question he wants to know, and we expect > the players to answer them. > > Not quite. We allow him to ask the questions that Law 20 allows > him to ask. Those questions may not concern hypothetical future > calls. > > >So what ? We have set a time limit. True. Absolute knowledge > cannot be achieved within this time limit. True. > > Well, so far we appear to be on the same side. > > >It is up to the opponent to make "good" use of the time he is > alloted when searching for a "complete" understanding of opponent's > system. We must not allow a player to continue asking questions > simply because that is his right. > > But how will we stop him? Who is to say that question X is a > waste of time, while question Y is a legitimate pursuit of knowledge? > Don't tell me. I can guess. The Tournament Director, that splendid > individual. > > No, Herman. The poor Tournament Director has far too much to > do already. It is not for him to be summoned to a table to rule > on whether a question about a hypothetical future call may or > may not constitute a waste of time. Rather, let us have a law > that limits the scope of questions that may be asked. By a curious > coincidence, we happen to have one already. > > >Abusing his rights is no excuse for time wasting. > > This is to beg the question (yet again). How is it to be determined > whether a question is an abuse of the right to ask a question? > And even if this could be determined, how much more time would > be wasted in the process? > > >But neither should we invoke the possibility of time wasting > to curb asking questions. > > Yes, we should. You see, we have got to make some practical implementation > of, or approximation to, our principle. Law 20 does that when > it says: you can ask about the auction so far, but you can't > ask about the auction yet to come. > > >If I think I need to know something, I should be allowed to > ask it. > > If you think you need to know something, then either: you should > have ascertained it beforehand, or you should be allowed to ask > it. In England, for example, you are not allowed to ask certain > questions during the auction; you should have found out the answers > before you started play. > > >If by those extra questions, we exceed the time limit, then > I will gladly accept the sole responsibility for this > > Good for you. There are those who would not, of course. "It's > their fault for playing a complicated system that I had to ask > a lot of questions about." This kind of impasse will require > a subjective judgement to be made in order to apportion the penalty. > Of course, if this is to be done fairly, it will also require > a monitor to be present during every question and answer session. > > >if the TD judges that I have been overly anxious is trying to > understand too many finesses of opponent's system. > > Herman, you can't do that. There is a law that says that you > are not supposed to prolong the game unnecessarily. There is > a regulation that says that you are not supposed to take more > than time x for a number of boards y. And there is a law that > says that you are not knowingly allowed to break another law > even if you are willing to pay the penalty. > > >But don't change the law beforehand simply because of time constraints. > > I have not. The Law says what it says, and what it says is that > you may not ask questions about the future development of the > auction. The principle defined in some other law suggests that > you may. But that principle has but recently become the law; > prior to that, the way in which the principle was implemented > was solely by means of the laws to which Grattan and I have referred. > > >No, there is no need to limit full disclosure. > > You do not seem to have understood a word I have said. Full disclosure > might take several million years. The bar closes at eleven. There > is a need to limit full disclosure. > > There seems to be a belief that because something is called a > "principle", every law should be subordinate to it. But this > is not so. For a start, there is not actually anything called > "the principle of full disclosure", any more than there is anything > called "the spirit of the game". > > There is a sentence in the laws which implies that the opponents > are allowed to know everything. There are other sentences which > imply that the opponents are allowed to know only a subset of > everything. Since the latter is possible while the former is > not, it is reasonable to suppose not only that the intention > of the lawmakers was to implement the latter and not the former, > but also that the former is to be viewed merely as a description > of a desirable state, and not a prescription for action. > > >Take it to the extreme. We have noticed that within a 2:50 > time frame, there is scope for asking 60 questions. Therefore, > you are limited to asking 3 questions per board. > Silly regulation, no ? > > Not especially. "You are limited to 60 questions per session" > would be fine. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 25 16:36:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:36:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>I don't think David and I are on different sides of this argument. >> > > Perhaps not. But it certainly feels like it. > That's just because you prefer to accentuate the differences we have left, rather than the pieces on which we agree. >> > Opponents have all these rights. > > The lawmakers have created a principle. Because this principle > cannot be fully implemented, it cannot have been the intention > of the lawmakers that the principle be fully put into practice > (unless they were insane). The principle is expounded in something > that was originally not part of the Laws at all, and within the > principle there are references to certain Laws. > I don't understand this. The principle is that opponents have an absolute right. What's wrong with that ? No-one is suggesting that at the end of the day I need to understand your system as good as Brian - but I still have the right to do so. Now while it may be impossible for me to achieve the fullness of knowledge that I might have a right to, it may not be impossible for me to achieve my purpose - that of knowing everything I wish to know. Imposing a limit on the nature of questions that I can ask in order to achieve my purpose is a limitation of the absolute right that the lawmakers have sought to give me. Defending that limitation by saying that it will always be impossible to "know everything" is not correct. It is possible for me to achieve my purpose, that of knowing what I want to know. You are trying to curtail that right, and the arguments you are using are invalid. > The lawmakers decided at some point that the proprieties should > have the force of law, and they were in my opinion pretty close > to insane in making that decision without tying up the cross-references. > As a result, the distinction between the laws (which describe > what is done) and the proprieties (which describe the ideal state > of affairs to which the laws will approximate) has become blurred. > However, it is my view that what is intended by the words on > the page is this: > > In principle, the opponents are allowed to know everything that > you know about your methods. (Law 75). > Agreed. > In practice, they cannot know this. So we will do the best we > can by prescribing a method by which you tell your opponents > about your system before you start to play (Law 40, supplemented > by regulation re convention cards), and by prescribing another > method by which you tell your opponents about your system while > you are playing (Law 20). > Exactly. These two ways ought to tell you everything you want to know. Which is less than "everything", but at least as much as you think you need. > >>It [full disclosure] is indeed impracticable. That does not >> > mean it should be abolished. > > Strangely enough, it does, for there is a well-known demonstration > of the fact that what is impossible is also immoral. If you cannot > do something, then you should not do it. > But full disclosure is not a goal, it is a right. As a goal, it is impossible, as a right, it may not be. > One might as well say: the laws have established that as a principle, > a quart shall be poured into a pint pot. Herman would say that > just because one cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, that does > not mean the principle should be abolished. > Flawed analogy. > >>But that is NOT another method. That is simply the way the >> > ideal is approximated. > > Focus on that, Herman. The way in which the ideal is approximated > is defined in those laws to which the laws defining the ideal > refer. Those laws do not give you (if Grattan and I are correct) > the right to ask questions about calls that may exist only at > some future time). > I have not yet questioned your interpretation of this law. I have merely said that your argumentation is flawed. It is not because it is impractical to ask too many questions, that a certain number of questions ought to be prohibited. > >>Instead of giving him "all" the information, we allow >> > him to ask whatever question he wants to know, and we expect > the players to answer them. > > Not quite. We allow him to ask the questions that Law 20 allows > him to ask. Those questions may not concern hypothetical future > calls. > Well, I happen to disagree - but that's another matter. > >>So what ? We have set a time limit. True. Absolute knowledge >> > cannot be achieved within this time limit. True. > > Well, so far we appear to be on the same side. > > >>It is up to the opponent to make "good" use of the time he is >> > alloted when searching for a "complete" understanding of opponent's > system. We must not allow a player to continue asking questions > simply because that is his right. > > But how will we stop him? Who is to say that question X is a > waste of time, while question Y is a legitimate pursuit of knowledge? > Don't tell me. I can guess. The Tournament Director, that splendid > individual. > Well David, you're there as player - have you ever felt that an opponent was asking too many questions? have you ever felt the need to protect yourself from time-wasting. I don't think you ahve had this problem. All that I'm saying is that your reason for curbing a certain type of questions is not a valid one. > No, Herman. The poor Tournament Director has far too much to > do already. It is not for him to be summoned to a table to rule > on whether a question about a hypothetical future call may or > may not constitute a waste of time. Rather, let us have a law > that limits the scope of questions that may be asked. By a curious > coincidence, we happen to have one already. > Rather, let him not worry about it at all. Your argument would hold just as well for "legally valid questions". Don't believe I could fill our time with nothing but valid questions. I'm quite certain I could (and wouldn't). Again see: the argument about time wasting has nothing whatsoever to do with the need for a regulation banning questions about bids not yet made. > >>Abusing his rights is no excuse for time wasting. >> > > This is to beg the question (yet again). How is it to be determined > whether a question is an abuse of the right to ask a question? > And even if this could be determined, how much more time would > be wasted in the process? > But the problem could exist for all types of questions. Banning hypothetical questions would not solve this problem (which I don't believe exists even today). > >>But neither should we invoke the possibility of time wasting >> > to curb asking questions. > > Yes, we should. You see, we have got to make some practical implementation > of, or approximation to, our principle. Law 20 does that when > it says: you can ask about the auction so far, but you can't > ask about the auction yet to come. > > >>If I think I need to know something, I should be allowed to >> > ask it. > > If you think you need to know something, then either: you should > have ascertained it beforehand, or you should be allowed to ask > it. In England, for example, you are not allowed to ask certain > questions during the auction; you should have found out the answers > before you started play. > But those rules are not there to stop time-wasting, but to avoid giving UI. That's a wholly different matter. > >>If by those extra questions, we exceed the time limit, then >> > I will gladly accept the sole responsibility for this > > Good for you. There are those who would not, of course. "It's > their fault for playing a complicated system that I had to ask > a lot of questions about." This kind of impasse will require > a subjective judgement to be made in order to apportion the penalty. > Of course, if this is to be done fairly, it will also require > a monitor to be present during every question and answer session. > I know it won't be easy. but I don't believe the problem exists in the first place, and I don't think your regulation would stop it if it did exist. > >>if the TD judges that I have been overly anxious is trying to >> > understand too many finesses of opponent's system. > > Herman, you can't do that. There is a law that says that you > are not supposed to prolong the game unnecessarily. There is > a regulation that says that you are not supposed to take more > than time x for a number of boards y. And there is a law that > says that you are not knowingly allowed to break another law > even if you are willing to pay the penalty. > Exactly - so why do you need yet another law ? > >>But don't change the law beforehand simply because of time constraints. >> > > I have not. The Law says what it says, and what it says is that > you may not ask questions about the future development of the > auction. The principle defined in some other law suggests that > you may. But that principle has but recently become the law; > prior to that, the way in which the principle was implemented > was solely by means of the laws to which Grattan and I have referred. > But that is the correct argumentation. Hypothetical questions are not allowed by Law, is your argument. I have not yet looked into that. This sub-thread was about "hypothetical questions prolong play and the WBF is right to curb them for that reason". That argument seems false to me. > >>No, there is no need to limit full disclosure. >> > > You do not seem to have understood a word I have said. Full disclosure > might take several million years. The bar closes at eleven. There > is a need to limit full disclosure. > The "right" to full disclosure does not take several million years. > There seems to be a belief that because something is called a > "principle", every law should be subordinate to it. But this > is not so. For a start, there is not actually anything called > "the principle of full disclosure", any more than there is anything > called "the spirit of the game". > Agreed with that - and if the law says that you are not allowed to ask hypothetical questions then that is the law. Now I don't agree that the law actually says that, or that it should, but that is not the topic of this message. > There is a sentence in the laws which implies that the opponents > are allowed to know everything. There are other sentences which > imply that the opponents are allowed to know only a subset of > everything. Since the latter is possible while the former is > not, it is reasonable to suppose not only that the intention > of the lawmakers was to implement the latter and not the former, > but also that the former is to be viewed merely as a description > of a desirable state, and not a prescription for action. > > >>Take it to the extreme. We have noticed that within a 2:50 >> > time frame, there is scope for asking 60 questions. Therefore, > you are limited to asking 3 questions per board. > Silly regulation, no ? > > Not especially. "You are limited to 60 questions per session" > would be fine. > Don't ridiculize my examples, David. The regulation that you are defending says "don't ask hypothetical questions" - that equates in my ridiculisation to "don't ask a fourth question". My point only being that a fourth question does not necessarily prolong play. Which is the original reason you gave for defending the regulation about hypothetical questions. That reason no longer holds. Now let's get back to whether or not the laws allow hypothetical questions. Am I allowed to inquire, before doubling 4NT, whether or not my opponents are playing some form of ROPI ? > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 25 17:14:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:14:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025180115.00abe550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:36 25/10/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well David, you're there as player - have you ever felt that an opponent >was asking too many questions? have you ever felt the need to protect >yourself from time-wasting. I don't think you ahve had this problem. >All that I'm saying is that your reason for curbing a certain type of >questions is not a valid one. > AG : this baffles me. everybody occasionally encounters someone asking too much questions. In a D2 match, some years ago, I had to explain *nine* times the (very esay to understand) meaning of partner's 2C bid. The uncontested sequence : 1Ca 1Da 1NTa 2Ca 1C : 15+ 1D : 0-7 1NT : unbalanced with at least 4 hearts, denies 4 spades, not forcing 2C : three cards in hearts All of these meanings were alerted, and explained Now the questioning began : -what does 2C mean ? - 3 cards in hearts. - which strength ? - nothing new . Only shows 3 cards in hearts. - with which of pattern ? - with 3 cards in hearts. - may he have spades ? - yes, provided he holds 3 cards in hearts. and so on ... It seems like Herman would allow the player to ask more and more questions. I would not. >Again see: the argument about time wasting has nothing whatsoever to do >with the need for a regulation banning questions about bids not yet made. AG : conceded. But it has something to do with cutting the flow of useless questions. >Now let's get back to whether or not the laws allow hypothetical questions. > >Am I allowed to inquire, before doubling 4NT, whether or not my opponents >are playing some form of ROPI ? AG : perhaps not. You'd be allowed to ask whether they have some way to cope with the double, and which. Avoid oriented questions. If they answer "no" and if they play another kind of conventional answer, you won't be informed. Remark that the question and the answer to it will take only a very short time ; however, asking them about their pattern of responses when holding a void should be disallowed as not relevant. Best regards, Alain. From rwilley@sloan.mit.edu Fri Oct 25 17:09:10 2002 From: rwilley@sloan.mit.edu (richard willey) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:09:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025124044.00ac5dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c27c40$da772df0$ca06ba12@Herot> >AG : it doesn't, but in some systems, no other information than "strong and >asking shape" will be available. >Note that it ia quite possible that "on more enquiry" constitute a complete >explanation, eg in relay systems, every relay after establishing the >forcing auction. Alain has just stumbled onto one of my pet peeves. I play a LOT of relay methods. I have yet to find a well designed relay structure that does not have explicit definitions for the relay breaks. As an example: Playing MOSCITO 2000, the 1D response to a strong club opening shows almost all game forcing hands. [Responder denies any game forcing 5440 pattern or a single suited hand with 7-8 cards to the AKQ] After 1C - 1D, the strong club opener has two choices: Holding a maximum strong club opener OR any balanced hand, the strong club opener will relay with 1H. Holding an unbalanced minimum hand, opener will show shape with a bid of 1S+ In a similar fashion, suppose that the auction starts 1C - 1D 1S Responder has a choice of making a 1NT relay to ask for shape or breaking relay with a bid of 2C+ to show unbalanced hands with short hearts. Relay practioners have an obligation to disclose negative inferences. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 17:21:25 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:21:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <00d101c27bc5$4544b660$d39468d5@default> <001a01c27bfd$68a855c0$2f4827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006001c27c42$94755b40$109c68d5@default> [David Burn] But the "game of Life" is not a game at all, in the sense that bridge is a game. Even if it were, it would be the case that it is exactly and precisely the sum of its rules, since it is impossible for the rules to be broken. If you think that this is a counter-example to your own thesis, all I can say is that you do not appear to have read the words you have written very carefully, or to have understood them. It is true that simple rules may produce a complex game. To simplify the rules of bridge would not necessarily reduce the complexity, or the intellectual appeal, of the game itself. It would probably reduce the complexity of the game known as "the rules of bridge", but I do not know anyone apart from a few tournament directors who would consider this a bad idea. [Nigel Guthrie] Compared with you, David, I accept that we are all bears of very little brain. I intended "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" in the sense that when you see a robot perform a complex task it is hard to imagine that it is controlled by a gismo that can only add and compare 0s and 1s. Anyway, escewing quibbles, you may be disappointed to learn that I agree with almost all you have to say on this matter. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 17:45:31 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:45:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008401c27c45$f3b358c0$109c68d5@default> David Burn, Grattan and Co are correct. When you enquire about a bid, opponents have no right to find out about future bids; especially those contingent on their actions. This would result in endless "hen & egg" controversy. We now all agree with that. But opponents are entitled to know the meaning of a bid; and in the case of Asking, Transfer, and Marionette bids, rather than attempt to list all the kinds of hand that might make the cipher bid it is often simpler to describe what the bid asks about or to explain the meaning of likely responses. And surely nobody can disagree with that? From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Oct 25 17:54:29 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 25 Oct 2002 09:54:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <251002298.35669@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >That's just because you prefer to accentuate the differences we have left, rather than the pieces on which we agree. Perhaps. In that case, let us not spend overmuch time on the philosophy. I don't think we've got it as inextricably tangled as some people. >The principle is that opponents have an absolute right. What's wrong with that? Only that a principle that suggests something impossible is not a very good one on which to base a set of rules. >It may not be impossible for me to achieve my purpose - that of knowing everything I wish to know. It may not. But on the other hand, it may. >Imposing a limit on the nature of questions that I can ask in order to achieve my purpose is a limitation of the absolute right that the lawmakers have sought to give me. They haven't. In effect, they have given you this impossible "right" more or less by mistake. What actually happened was this: the lawmakers put some noble words in the Proprieties expressing a lot of pious sentiments (just as they did with the Scope). These were all complete tosh, but it was considered necessary with bridge as with cricket to sustain the fiction that it was a game with a "spirit" that was played by "gentlemen". The words in the Laws were the only "rights" you had, and while that was the case, at least you stood some chance of knowing what game you were playing. Then, when the lawmakers put the Proprieties lock, stock and barrel into the Laws, they forgot that they would thereby create a number of inconsistencies, because the Proprieties described a Utopia that the Laws could never bring about. In so doing, they have provided much entertainment for bridge lawyers, and much distress for bridge players. For some reason, they are not as repentant about this as they might be. >But full disclosure is not a goal, it is a right. As a goal, it is impossible, as a right, it may not be. I am not clear as to the distinction. What use is a right that cannot be achieved as a goal? >It is not because it is impractical to ask too many questions, that a certain number of questions ought to be prohibited. Yes, it is. There wouldn't be a reason for doing it otherwise. >Well David, you're there as player - have you ever felt that an opponent was asking too many questions? I have never been asked a question as to the future development of an auction. I would not answer one if I were. I try to give full and accurate explanations, and there have been many times when my opponents have displayed what I have privately considered to be staggering obtuseness in continuing to seek elucidation, but I have put this down in almost all cases to nothing more sinister than staggering obtuseness. >have you ever felt the need to protect yourself from time-wasting. I do protect myself from time-wasting. I play quickly. >I don't think you have had this problem. I have not. But this does not mean that no one could have it. I have played with and coached some notoriously slow players in my time, and one of the things that slow players have a tendency to do is ask questions very slowly, one at a time, while they continue to think. This has been a significant factor in a couple of slow play penalties in which my teams have been involved. >All that I'm saying is that your reason for curbing a certain type of question is not a valid one. The only real reason one could have for limiting the amount of something that someone could otherwise legally do would be because one was worried that someone might otherwise spend too much time, or create too much vexation, in doing it. >Your argument would hold just as well for "legally valid questions". The number and scope of such questions is, happily, limited by the length of the auction and the context of the bids enquired about. Thus, there is no need to impose some artificial limit, such as "three questions per board". >Don't believe I could fill our time with nothing but valid questions. I doubt it very much. You would have to show that they were relevant, and that you did not already know the answers. >Again see: the argument about time wasting has nothing whatsoever to do with the need for a regulation banning questions about bids not yet made. Yes, it does. There wouldn't be much of a reason to ban them otherwise, would there? >But the problem could exist for all types of questions. It could. But since questions based on the posssible future development of the auction will outnumber questions based on the past development of the auction by a factor of billions of billions of billions to one, it seems to me sensible to limit the scope of questioning to the latter category. >But that is the correct argumentation. Hypothetical questions are not allowed by Law, is your argument. Indeed it is. But someone asked why this was, and that seemed to me a valid question. Having considered why it might be, I have concluded that (sensibly enough) the lawmakers have attempted to fit the quart of full disclosure into the pint pot of convention cards and questions, and have prescribed a way in which that might reasonably be done. But you will tell me, as you always tell me, that my analogy is flawed. Herman, all analogies are flawed, just as all games are flawed. But that does not mean you cannot learn something from them. >Now let's get back to whether or not the laws allow hypothetical questions. >Am I allowed to inquire, before doubling 4NT, whether or not my opponents are playing some form of ROPI ? No. But you may consult their convention card at your turn to call. If the information is there, you may use it. If it is not there when the SO's regulations say that it should be, then you may claim damage if you suffer it. David Burn London, England From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Oct 25 18:45:23 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <001201c27aeb$470af980$8a9027d9@pbncomputer> from "David Burn" at Oct 24, 2002 12:24:00 AM Message-ID: <200210251745.NAA18851@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> David Burn writes: > > > , just as there is no such thing as the Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List. > Quibble. There is. It's just not an open one. It's only in its second year of operation. Open only to NHL officials and certain NHL executives. Membership mandatory for all officials. And the goal of it is basically what you stated above (in the part I snipped). To produce a common interpretation of what had been left to the judgement of officials. Something similar exists in North American football leagues (though I don't believe they've gone to email) As I've mentioned repeatedly every sport that I've been involved with has a case book to go along with the rule book. Writing rules in a way that everybody comes up with the same meaning is hard. (Would you believe I've personally seen heated disagreement between senior officials as to what is meant by "leading edge of the ball". One participant asserted that if they had meant "any part of the ball" they'd have said "any part of the ball". Therefore the rules makers must have had something else in mind. IIRC that section now reads "any part of the ball" ) From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 25 19:37:21 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:37:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> <008401c27c45$f3b358c0$109c68d5@default> Message-ID: <3DB98F61.6030904@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > David Burn, Grattan and Co are correct. > When you enquire about a bid, opponents have > no right to find out about future bids; > especially those contingent on their actions. > This would result in endless "hen & egg" > controversy. We now all agree with that. No we don't. Not just because I disagree. But because you are wrong. This is NOT the chicken & egg problem. The chicken & egg problem is that my system changes upon yours, and yours changes upon mine. That is not at issue here. What this problem is about, is what would be the meanings of your next bids, if I now do something. Those meanings are not conditional on my meanings and my meaning is not conditional on yours. If a player wants to know what methods his opponents would be playing over a penalty double that he contemplates, then that is his prerogative. He is entitled to full knowledge of his opponent's system and he should be allowed to ask. > But opponents are entitled to know the meaning > of a bid; and in the case of Asking, Transfer, > and Marionette bids, rather than attempt to > list all the kinds of hand that might make > the cipher bid it is often simpler to describe > what the bid asks about or to explain the > meaning of likely responses. > And surely nobody can disagree with that? > I don't, but that is not what was the disagreement before either. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Oct 25 19:45:05 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:45:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021025180115.00abe550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DB99131.7020301@skynet.be> Why do I constantly have to defend my writings, when all I am doing is pointing out the flaws in someone else's ? Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 17:36 25/10/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Well David, you're there as player - have you ever felt that an >> opponent was asking too many questions? have you ever felt the need to >> protect yourself from time-wasting. I don't think you ahve had this >> problem. >> All that I'm saying is that your reason for curbing a certain type of >> questions is not a valid one. >> > > AG : this baffles me. everybody occasionally encounters someone asking > too much questions. In a D2 match, some years ago, I had to explain > *nine* times the (very esay to understand) meaning of partner's 2C bid. > The uncontested sequence : 1Ca 1Da 1NTa 2Ca > 1C : 15+ > 1D : 0-7 > 1NT : unbalanced with at least 4 hearts, denies 4 spades, not forcing > 2C : three cards in hearts > > All of these meanings were alerted, and explained > > Now the questioning began : > > -what does 2C mean ? > - 3 cards in hearts. > - which strength ? > - nothing new . Only shows 3 cards in hearts. > - with which of pattern ? > - with 3 cards in hearts. > - may he have spades ? > - yes, provided he holds 3 cards in hearts. > and so on ... > > It seems like Herman would allow the player to ask more and more > questions. I would not. > Alain, I would disallow those questions, but not for any of the reasons mentioned in this thread so far. What David was saying was that he would disallow a certain kind of question (among other things) because this would take too much time. My reaction to that was, that the taking of time was not a good reason to disallow those questions. In contrast, in your case, the taking of time is sufficient reason for disallowing those questions. The two cases have nothing in common and I object to my writings being misrepresented as meaning that I would allow 9 questions. > >> Again see: the argument about time wasting has nothing whatsoever to >> do with the need for a regulation banning questions about bids not yet >> made. > > > AG : conceded. But it has something to do with cutting the flow of > useless questions. > But the point is that the hypothetical question, at least in the mind of the person asking it, is NOT useless. And David wants to ban it, and gives as one reason for banning it, that it takes time. A well put hypothetical question, and a clear answer, would take up far less time than your 9 questions above. > > > > >> Now let's get back to whether or not the laws allow hypothetical >> questions. >> >> Am I allowed to inquire, before doubling 4NT, whether or not my >> opponents are playing some form of ROPI ? > > > AG : perhaps not. You'd be allowed to ask whether they have some way to > cope with the double, and which. Avoid oriented questions. If they > answer "no" and if they play another kind of conventional answer, you > won't be informed. Sorry, I am not talking UI here. I realize that any question, and a hypothetical one more than most, gives UI to partner. But that being said, am I entitled to this information or not ? Don't forget that there are a number of ways that I can try to obtain this information (CC, behind screens) without giving UI to my partner. > Remark that the question and the answer to it will take only a very > short time ; however, asking them about their pattern of responses when > holding a void should be disallowed as not relevant. > Noted, and now what about my answer ? > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 20:06:11 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:06:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.35669@webbox.com> Message-ID: <00ad01c27c59$983f1600$109c68d5@default> After 1N-2c, when an opponent asks me to explain my alert of "Puppet Stayman", I answer: (1) "Asks for 5 card majors." Usually, opponents signify loss of interest before I complete the first sentence :( Now, where else do I encounter that phenomenon? ): Otherwise I outline the meaning ... (2) "A weak transfer to diamonds or the first constructive move on a variety of flat, semi-two-suited, and three-suited hands." To detail all the hand types would take a long time so, if opponents are still awake, I keep to the spirit of the law, summarising replies: (3) "Partner will puppet 2D, unless he has a 5 card major or is maximum with 2-3 or 3-2 in the majors.". Surely, in principle, this is the kind of explanation required by the laws? From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Fri Oct 25 20:16:36 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:16:36 UT Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <20021025191636.AEBB42FD23@server3.fastmail.fm> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:45:31 +0100, "Nigel Guthrie" said: > David Burn, Grattan and Co are correct. > When you enquire about a bid, opponents have > no right to find out about future bids; > especially those contingent on their actions. > This would result in endless "hen & egg" > controversy. We now all agree with that. > But opponents are entitled to know the meaning > of a bid; and in the case of Asking, Transfer, > and Marionette bids, rather than attempt to > list all the kinds of hand that might make > the cipher bid it is often simpler to describe > what the bid asks about or to explain the > meaning of likely responses. > And surely nobody can disagree with that? > But what about the scenario of opening bids then. Why should I be allowed to know that the opponents play 2H as either weak with spades or weak with clubs and diamonds? These are bids that have not yet occurred, but I sure want to know about them before we start playing the board. What is the difference? -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm - Consolidate POP email and Hotmail in one place From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 20:25:38 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:25:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> <008401c27c45$f3b358c0$109c68d5@default> <3DB98F61.6030904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b701c27c5c$530272a0$109c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] > This would result in endless "hen & egg" > controversy. We now all agree with that. [Herman De Wael] No we don't. Not just because I disagree. But because you are wrong. This is NOT the chicken & egg problem. The chicken & egg problem is that my system changes upon yours, and yours changes upon mine. That is not at issue here. What this problem is about, is what would be the meanings of your next bids, if I now do something. Those meanings are not conditional on my meanings and my meaning is not conditional on yours. [Nigel] OK, maybe I am wrong about the Law. I am a Bridge Law Tyro. Thank you for correcting me in such a subtle and diplomatic way. My interest is in what the laws ought to be rather than in their current miserable state. I have consistently argued for your idea of the correct explanation of Stayman! From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 25 20:42:16 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:42:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Turnpike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Norman Scorbie writes >>From: "David Burn" > >>But, I venture to suggest, of not the slightest interest to anyone >>at all apart from yourself. We do not like your software. We >>do not dislike your software. We do not care a hoot about your >>wretched software. And if I have to read another word about your >>thrice accursed software, then you will find out what "abusive" >>really means. >> >>David Burn >>London, England > Fire away David. Turnpike is an amazing piece of software. It allows one to treat a mailing list as if it were news. It threads it just the same; it replies to it just the same, and indeed often the only way I can tell whether I'm reading rgb or blml is whether the thread is full of your postings or not Another satisfied turnpike user. Mile End, London, England. >++++This Turnpike software sounds quite good. I like the idea of a >newsstand, where you can read mailing list messages threaded. Any idea where >I can get it? http://www.turnpike.net/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Oct 25 20:51:25 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:51:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > But could we agree, as members of the lawscommittee > > I mean, that questions about future calls should not be > > asked? Personally I don't need more than L20F for that > > interpretation. So let me return to my normal attitude of > > supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, Grattan > > please? > > > Ehmm - can I have a say ? > > How do you square this with the -quite legitimate and > necessary- question before any board of "how are your > openings at the two-level?". > +=+ What is this idea of having to "square" something? We are concerned with the Laws of the game; all that matters is what they say and how it is to be interpreted. We are dealing with a law that governs asking for an explanation of the auction during the auction period. It makes no statement about what is done before the auction begins, has no relevance to that period. My position is that the Laws do not authorize questions about the auction to come but only about the auction up to the point of enquiry. I consider this position is supported by the WBFLC minute of August, 1998, see above. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 21:21:21 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:21:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> Message-ID: <00f801c27c64$1b9ddea0$109c68d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] "The Committee ruled that ... the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." [Nigel Guthrie] IMO, the Committee have bitten off more than they can chew. Using precisely this argument, another BLMLer (Marvin French?) claimed that the laws allow you to look at opponents' CC, ONLY when it is your turn to bid. e.g. You may not consult the CC BEFORE the auction, to plan defences. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Oct 25 21:43:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> Grattan wrote: > My position is that the Laws do not authorize > questions about the auction to come but only about > the auction up to the point of enquiry. I consider this > position is supported by the WBFLC minute of August, > 1998, see above. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Let me get this straight. My RHO opens 1NT (12-14), I am *not* allowed to know whether they play an escape mechanism from 1NTx before choosing my call? Can we assume this is a typical club situation and the CC (such as it is) does not include this information. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 21:58:07 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:58:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <011601c27c69$3fa0ac60$109c68d5@default> [David Kent] But what about the scenario of opening bids then. Why should I be allowed to know that the opponents play 2H as either weak with spades or weak with clubs and diamonds? These are bids that have not yet occurred, but I sure want to know about them before we start playing the board. What is the difference? [Nigel Guthrie] :(Arrgh! There is no difference): Good example! Sorry Gratton, I have deserted your camp and rejoined the Herman/Sven camp. (: I wonder whom I have disappointed most? :) [Aplologies Kent, I meant to send this to BLML] From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 25 22:08:23 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:08:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025180115.00abe550@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> <251002298.25322@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021025165352.00b9ae90@pop.starpower.net> At 12:14 PM 10/25/02, Alain wrote: >At 17:36 25/10/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >All of these meanings were alerted, and explained > >Now the questioning began : > >-what does 2C mean ? >- 3 cards in hearts. >- which strength ? >- nothing new . Only shows 3 cards in hearts. >- with which of pattern ? >- with 3 cards in hearts. >- may he have spades ? >- yes, provided he holds 3 cards in hearts. >and so on ... > >It seems like Herman would allow the player to ask more and more >questions. I would not. I don't think he would. Nor would I. But we would cut the offending player off based on L74 rather than L20. >>Again see: the argument about time wasting has nothing whatsoever to >>do with the need for a regulation banning questions about bids not >>yet made. > >AG : conceded. But it has something to do with cutting the flow of >useless questions. Well, it does do that to some extent, although not in every case. But there are ways to cut a flow of useless question that don't involve having to similarly cut a flow of useful questions. Both Herman (if I may presume to speak for him) and I prefer that, and believe that the current laws provide us with ways accomplish it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 22:26:04 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:26:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <012c01c27c6d$4bd190e0$109c68d5@default> [Time West-Meads] Let me get this straight. My RHO opens 1NT (12-14), I am *not* allowed to know whether they play an escape mechanism from 1NTx before choosing my call? Can we assume this is a typical club situation and the CC (such as it is) does not include this information. [Nigel] If, in spite of the oracular pronouncement of the Bridge Laws Committee, you are entitled to this information, paradoxically, you may not ask for it, because of potential UI. I dare say, you might get away with it, if you asked a sufficiently general question; but then you still might not get the needed information. Perhaps your best course of action is to complain to the TD about their card (See also Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"). From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 25 22:25:58 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:25:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <008401c27c45$f3b358c0$109c68d5@default> References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021025171518.00ac2480@pop.starpower.net> At 12:45 PM 10/25/02, Nigel wrote: >David Burn, Grattan and Co are correct. >When you enquire about a bid, opponents have >no right to find out about future bids; >especially those contingent on their actions. >This would result in endless "hen & egg" >controversy. We now all agree with that. >But opponents are entitled to know the meaning >of a bid; and in the case of Asking, Transfer, >and Marionette bids, rather than attempt to >list all the kinds of hand that might make >the cipher bid it is often simpler to describe >what the bid asks about or to explain the >meaning of likely responses. Neither of which says anything about the negative inferences that generally accompany such bids, often in profusion, which must be disclosed. >And surely nobody can disagree with that? Wanna bet? Consider the EHAA 2C response to 1NT. It asks partner about four-card majors. But to offer that as an explanation (whether or not the "explanation" included the meanings of opener's possible rebids) would be inappropriate and misleading, albeit both truthful and "simpler"; the opponents would expect us to bid 2C on more or less the same types of hands as they would. We in fact bid 2C on far more hands than that (we can have any hand that (a) is at least strong enough to invite to game, (b) is not willing to commit to going beyond the game level, and (c) cannot set the contract with an immediate "shutout" bid). I would consider it cheating to do nothing more than tell the opponents what the bid "asks about" or to just "explain the meaning of [the possible] responses". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 25 22:39:28 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <200210252139.RAA23331@cfa183.harvard.edu> This thread has raised a number of topics, and I try to address all of them below. In order, they are: 1. Differences prior to and during auction period. 2. Explanations of future actions during the auction. 3. Explaining relays and similar bids. *********************************** > From: Herman De Wael > How do you square this with the -quite legitimate and necessary- > question before any board of "how are your openings at the two-level?". > What is the difference between a question in the middle of an auction > about consequent bidding and the obligation of having fully completed > convention cards? Two differences: 1. As Grattan has pointed out, rules prior to the auction period and during the auction period do not need to be the same. But more important, 2. _Openings_ are by definition "first moves," which cannot depend on prior action by the opponents. The proper analogy would be a question before the auction period such as "If you bid 1NT and we double, what are your methods?" A fair answer likely includes "It depends on what your double means." How far this sort of questioning can go is up to the SO. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > My style of bidding (especially overcalling) is dependent on some > parameters of the opponents' system. So, before the match, I look at their > CC, or if needed, I question them on those few specific points. This is legal; the SO has prescribed the CC, and it is available. However, if you are playing a forcing pass system, do you really expect the opponents' opening bids in second seat (after your strong pass) to be the same as shown on the CC? How about their overcalls over your fert? Depending on the CC regulations, it is unlikely that every possible systemic response to your bidding will be shown. *********************************** > A case which everybody will understand : when playing against weak NTers, > most people use a penalty double that includes all balanced hands above X > points, and unbalanced above Y. > Some play that X = Y, but I prefer to agree that Y > X, and the extent of > the margin depends on how they save after the double. So, I ask them before > the match begins what their escapes are. And if they answer, as they are entitled to do, "That depends on what your double shows?" > if I've got plans that include > bidding differently whether the responses to bid A are such or such, I'm > allowed to know what they are. That last is the subject of debate. Many of us think you are _not_ entitled to know or at least not entitled to base your choice of call on such knowledge. > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Let me get this straight. My RHO opens 1NT (12-14), I am *not* allowed to > know whether they play an escape mechanism from 1NTx before choosing my > call? This is my belief. It is certainly the case that they can choose their escape methods _after_ they know the meaning of your call. *********************************** > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > After 1N-2c, when an opponent asks me to > explain my alert of "Puppet Stayman", I answer: > (1) "Asks for 5 card majors." > Usually, opponents signify loss of interest > before I complete the first sentence > Otherwise I outline the meaning ... > (2) "A weak transfer to diamonds or the first > constructive move on a variety of flat, > semi-two-suited, and three-suited hands." > To detail all the hand types would take a long > time so, if opponents are still awake, I keep > to the spirit of the law, summarising replies: > (3) "Partner will puppet 2D, unless he has a 5 > card major or is maximum with 2-3 or 3-2 > in the majors.". > Surely, in principle, this is the kind of > explanation required by the laws? Not at all. Item 2 is the correct kind of explanation, although the opponents may want to know more on overall strength and perhaps shape. You could also start with "artificial and forcing" to give the most important information at once. Items 1 and 3 are extraneous. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > ... in some systems, no other information than "strong and > asking shape" will be available. > Note that it ia quite possible that "on more enquiry" constitute a complete > explanation, eg in relay systems, every relay after establishing the > forcing auction. and similarly... > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > in the case of Asking, Transfer, > and Marionette bids, rather than attempt to > list all the kinds of hand that might make > the cipher bid it is often simpler to describe > what the bid asks about or to explain the > meaning of likely responses. Indeed so, and we tolerate this to some extent when it is true. However, in principle the opponents are entitled to know what is _shown_ by the auction so far -- and nothing more. As Richard puts it: > From: "richard willey" > Alain has just stumbled onto one of my pet peeves. > I have yet to find a well designed relay structure that does not have > explicit definitions for the relay breaks. > Relay practioners have an obligation to disclose negative inferences. Just so. There are a few cases where the relay is mandatory and thus says nothing at all about the hand, but in general the relay shows hands in certain categories. Possibly the categories are vague, e.g., sufficient strength or not wild distribution, but nevertheless certain hand types and not others are implied by the relay. The opponents are entitled to this information. This is certainly true of the common relay bids known as Stayman and Blackwood. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 25 22:44:39 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:44:39 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021025174234.00b7da70@pop.starpower.net> Accidentally missent to David instead of the group; apologies to David. >At 12:54 PM 10/25/02, David wrote: > >>I am not clear as to the distinction. What use is a right that >>cannot be achieved as a goal? > >Much of the good in the world has been done by those who were >exercising their right to strive to approach some idealized goal with >full knowledge that it would be impossible ever to reach it. > >Do I not have the right to strive for perfect harmony with the >universe? Does anyone have the right to tell me that I must not, just >because I can never get there? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 22:49:07 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:49:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <251002298.25322@webbox.com> <3DB964F8.7020509@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20021025171518.00ac2480@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <014d01c27c70$5bfec5c0$109c68d5@default> [Nigel 1] >and in the case of Asking, Transfer, Puppet, >and Marionette bids, rather than attempt to >list all the kinds of hand that might make >the cipher bid it is often simpler to describe >what the bid asks about or to explain the >meaning of likely responses. [Eric Landau] Neither of which says anything about the negative inferences that generally accompany such bids, often in profusion, which must be disclosed. [Nigel 1] >And surely nobody can disagree with that? [Eric] Wanna bet? Consider the EHAA 2C response to 1NT......I would consider it cheating to do nothing more than tell the opponents what the bid "asks about" or to just "explain the meaning of [the possible] responses". [Nigel Guthrie 2] I concede Eric's point about negative inferences and, in a previous e-mail, I explained my version of Stayman, in a much the way that he recommends. David Burn also has a point: if all bids are explained in such detail, it results in a slow dull game. I favour the gradualist approach -- a brief summary of salient points -- clearly stating that you have left out some details -- leaving the door open to further GENERAL questions. From Chris@Pisarra.com Fri Oct 25 22:15:17 2002 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:15:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Turnpike References: Message-ID: <069f01c27c6b$9e6a32a0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Fire away David. Turnpike is an amazing piece of software. It allows > one to treat a mailing list as if it were news. It threads it just the > same; it replies to it just the same, and indeed often the only way I > can tell whether I'm reading rgb or blml is whether the thread is full > of your postings or not Which is exactly the way Outlook Express, that oft-cursed FREE software from Microsoft, works for me. Why are we having this discussion? Chris From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 25 23:25:59 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:25:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C5D.0011717B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001301c27be0$902db300$109c68d5@default> <003701c27be4$8db4ee00$109c68d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021025090320.00b72de0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <019301c27c75$84af6420$109c68d5@default> [Eric Landau] This seems perverse. The "problem" (for those who believe that there really is a problem) is created by partnerships who lack either the motivation or the ability to understand the system they choose to play. I don't see how we can expect to solve that problem by having rules that require those same partnerships to understand *two* systems, the one they choose to play *and* the one arbitrarily declared to be "standard". [Nigel Guthrie] Apart from amnesiacs, there are cheats who would rather claim "misbid" than "misexplanation". I did explain that beginners and amnesiacs can painlessly avoid adverse rulings if they odopt the Standard System. Anyway, most players would rather peruse a simple Bridge System than learn a complex set of "Alert rules". [Eric] That is exacerbated further when we consider that any "standard" system would have to be fully complete, hence more intricate than most ordinary partnerships' methods. Nigel has suggested Bridge World Standard as a suitable choice for "standard", but BWS is itself more complex and detailed than the methods played by 99% of the everyday players in the ACBL. IOW, if you don't know what a bid means in your own system, how the h--l can you be expected to know whether its meaning is a "departure[] from the standard"? [Nigel] Sorry to repeat myself again: any person with learning problems may adopt the standard system -- and his memory lapses will normally be forgiven. From jimfox00@cox.net Fri Oct 25 23:38:01 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:38:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Turnpike References: <069f01c27c6b$9e6a32a0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <005001c27c77$2dc78c80$73e86944@hr.cox.net> > > Fire away David. Turnpike is an amazing piece of software. It allows > > one to treat a mailing list as if it were news. It threads it just the > > same; it replies to it just the same, and indeed often the only way I > > can tell whether I'm reading rgb or blml is whether the thread is full > > of your postings or not > > > Which is exactly the way Outlook Express, that oft-cursed FREE > software from Microsoft, works for me. > > Why are we having this discussion? > > Chris That's funny. My Outlook Express works that way too. I wonder if anybody else's does? Mmbridge From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 25 23:44:43 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:44:43 -0700 Subject: [blml] Turnpike In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:38:01 EDT." <005001c27c77$2dc78c80$73e86944@hr.cox.net> Message-ID: <200210252244.PAA26889@mailhub.irvine.com> Jim wrote: > > > Fire away David. Turnpike is an amazing piece of software. It allows > > > one to treat a mailing list as if it were news. It threads it just the > > > same; it replies to it just the same, and indeed often the only way I > > > can tell whether I'm reading rgb or blml is whether the thread is full > > > of your postings or not > > > > > > Which is exactly the way Outlook Express, that oft-cursed FREE > > software from Microsoft, works for me. > > > > Why are we having this discussion? > > > > Chris > > That's funny. My Outlook Express works that way too. I wonder if anybody > else's does? Not mine. Mine tends to say something dumb like "cannot execute binary file". But I've noticed that Linux often displays that sort of erroneous behavior when trying to run Windows applications. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 25 23:49:55 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:49:55 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021025174234.00b7da70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On 10/25/02, Eric Landau wrote, apparently quoting David: >>Do I not have the right to strive for perfect harmony with the >>universe? Does anyone have the right to tell me that I must not, just >>because I can never get there? "...I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - Professor Bernardo de la Paz, in Robert Heinlein's _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 25 23:43:26 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:43:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <012c01c27c6d$4bd190e0$109c68d5@default> Message-ID: On 10/25/02, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >If, in spite of the oracular pronouncement of > the Bridge Laws Committee, you are entitled > to this information, paradoxically, you may > not ask for it, because of potential UI. Nonsense. *Providing* UI is not in itself illegal, so it is not possible that taking an action that *might* provide UI is illegal. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 26 00:04:17 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 00:04:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <200210252139.RAA23331@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <01a301c27c7a$dfa0b1e0$109c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] > After 1N-2c, when an opponent asks me to > explain my alert of "Puppet Stayman", I answer: > (1) "Asks for 5 card majors." [Steve Willner] You could also start with "artificial and forcing" to give the most important information at once. Items 1 and 3 are extraneous [Nigel] Thank you Steve for putting us all right. Surely "Asking for..." implies "artificial and forcing" as well as providing more information. I do accept that it might give UI to partner. My worry is that it takes moments to say "Ace-ask slam-try" and a few more to explain likely responses, if asked but how long does it take for you to explain "Blackwood" in the way that you recommend (: including negative inferences and deceptive usages :). You must take into account that the pattern of replies to Blackwood influences the categories of hands on which it is safe to make the bid, especially if your version includes 6-level replies (perhaps to show voids). Were I your novice opponent, I would not relish decoding your "explanation." I probably would not even recognise it as old familiar "Blackwood." From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Oct 26 02:12:37 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> <00f801c27c64$1b9ddea0$109c68d5@default> Message-ID: <004901c27c8d$e25af540$fa46e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > [Grattan Endicott] > "The Committee ruled that ... the Scope of the > Laws states that the laws define correct > procedure and anything not specified in the > laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may > be deemed an infraction of law if information > deriving from it is used in the auction or play." > [Nigel Guthrie] > IMO, the Committee have bitten off more than they > can chew. Using precisely this argument, another > BLMLer (Marvin French?) claimed that the laws > allow you to look at opponents' CC, ONLY when it > is your turn to bid. e.g. You may not consult > the CC BEFORE the auction, to plan defences. > +=+ Well, we can sympathize with whoever's inability to understand English. A law which directs itself to the period "during the auction and play" does not apply outside of that period. The SO's regulations should cover other times. However, in one respect your remark is helpful. It prompted me to check over a draft I stored away just recently. I added a few words. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 26 03:11:03 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 03:11:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> <00f801c27c64$1b9ddea0$109c68d5@default> <004901c27c8d$e25af540$fa46e150@endicott> Message-ID: <030501c27c95$02213fe0$109c68d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Well, we can sympathize with whoever's inability to understand English. A law which directs itself to the period "during the auction and play" does not apply outside of that period. The SO's regulations should cover other times. However, in one respect your remark is helpful. It prompted me to check over a draft I stored away just recently. I added a few words. ~ G ~ +=+ [Nigel] IMO WBF Bridge Laws should cover the whole game and not rely on the SOs to remedy glaring ommissions, especially as this committee ruled [in clear English] that you may not consult opponents CC before the auction, unless your SO specifically grants remission. From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Sat Oct 26 03:38:37 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:38:37 UT Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table Message-ID: <20021026023837.657152FD40@server3.fastmail.fm> I know this has been hashed out quite a few times, but I just want to make sure what the rule should be. During the swamp of the Open Pairs in Mtl (can't remember what the WBF called it), my partner and I moved for the next round when I noticed that the table to which we were going was just starting their second board. There happened to be a director nearby and I mentioned it to her. She went to the table and talked to the two pairs and they put the cards back in the pockets. The E/W pair moved away from the table and when we arrived, we were told that the E/W pair had come to the wrong table and that the bidding had started. We were told that unless the bidding began the same way, we would both receive Av+. My LHO passed and I asked the director "So if I open 7NT and that is not what was chosen by the other person in my seat, I get an Av+?". I was told that I was supposed to bid normally. I really was not sure how to respond to this as that would have been a first for me during this tournament. My partner and I were playing KS and I had a balanced 14 HCP (3-3-2-5) that on a very good day might be upgraded to a 15 count (no flaws but the club suit was only headed by the A9). I opened 1NT and the board was removed (as the other pair opened 1D - playing a big club system I suppose). 1. What would have happened had I opened 7NT? 2. What would have happened if the hand had been opened 1NT by the previous pair and: a) they were playing a 15-17 NT opening? b) they were playing a 13-15 NT opening? c) they were playing a 12-14 NT opening but 1NT denied a major? d) they were playing a similar version of KS? The main question is: Under what circumstances is the board deemed playable? Thanks. -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 26 07:11:59 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:11:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Turnpike References: <069f01c27c6b$9e6a32a0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> <005001c27c77$2dc78c80$73e86944@hr.cox.net> Message-ID: <005d01c27cb6$9cc2cf20$289468d5@default> [Chris Pissara] Which is exactly the way Outlook Express, that oft-cursed FREE software from Microsoft, works for me. [Jim Fox] That's funny. My Outlook Express works that way too. I wonder if anybody else's does? [Nigel Guthrie] In Outlook Express v5, click ... To expand the hierarchy you may also click ... Wow! Mine does now! Thank you, chaps, for telling us about the facility. And Thank you David Stevenson for raising the subject in the first place. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Oct 26 08:12:55 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:12:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table References: <20021026023837.657152FD40@server3.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <001401c27cbf$8285cdc0$69a0193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 3:38 AM Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table > > 1. What would have happened had I opened 7NT? > +=+ "There was a discussion concerning the situation under Law 15C when the correct pair is seated and one of them makes a call for which no bridge reason can be perceived. It was agreed that such action is not acceptable and a Director who forms an opinion that there is no demonstrable bridge reason for a call by an incoming pair is authorized to treat this as a violation of Law 74A2. " WBFLC Minute: 28 Oct 2001. If you open 1NT, as did the pair who had been wrongly seated, but the ranges are not the same, this is a call that differs - see 15C - and "the Director shall cancel the board". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Oct 26 08:40:48 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:40:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> <00f801c27c64$1b9ddea0$109c68d5@default> <004901c27c8d$e25af540$fa46e150@endicott> <030501c27c95$02213fe0$109c68d5@default> Message-ID: <002601c27cc3$308fe9c0$69a0193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 3:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > IMO WBF Bridge Laws should cover the whole > game and not rely on the SOs to remedy glaring > ommissions, especially as this committee ruled [in > clear English] that you may not consult opponents > CC before the auction, unless your SO specifically > grants remission. > +=+ I believe there is agreement on this objective in the WBF Laws Committee (whilst leaving open to SOs appropriate subordinate powers of regulation, ergo choices). What is 'appropriate' remains to be seen. In the meantime the laws are what they are; but, if we agree what you say is technically justified, we can also add that to base a call or play on extraneous information "may be an infraction" and I would think the Director might conclude that the example you give is not, possibly by way of liberal interpretation of regulation. I agree the position should be less open to variations of opinion. "Noted" ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Oct 26 09:40:51 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:40:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DBA5513.3010904@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "".... where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) > to be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden > were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not > so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct > procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, > 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if > information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." > WBFLC minute 8 of 24th August, 1998. > ======================================= OK, read and approved. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:39 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > > >>Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >> >>>But could we agree, as members of the lawscommittee >>>I mean, that questions about future calls should not be >>>asked? Personally I don't need more than L20F for that >>>interpretation. So let me return to my normal attitude of >>>supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, Grattan >>>please? >>> >>> >>Ehmm - can I have a say ? >> >>How do you square this with the -quite legitimate and >>necessary- question before any board of "how are your >>openings at the two-level?". >> >> > +=+ What is this idea of having to "square" something? > We are concerned with the Laws of the game; all that > matters is what they say and how it is to be interpreted. > We are dealing with a law that governs asking for an > explanation of the auction during the auction period. It > makes no statement about what is done before the > auction begins, has no relevance to that period. OK, In understand your point. But my point remains. Where in the laws is it stated that I am allowed, before a board is played, to ask what the two-openings are ? Where is it stated that I can look at the CC at that time ? I don't seem to find those things in the laws either. So by the same Lille interpretation, these things are not allowed either. Sorry Grattan, to be legalistic, but you started it. It's no good banning one practice by a reference to a law but allowing others because they are "always done that way". > My position is that the Laws do not authorize > questions about the auction to come but only about > the auction up to the point of enquiry. I consider this > position is supported by the WBFLC minute of August, > 1998, see above. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And I say that by that reference, a number of other things that we currently do are also prohibited. Besides, does L20F say this ? I don't necessarily read it that way. I read "a full explanation". Only I can know what that includes. The sentence between brackets was added in 1995 to solve a previous dispute, and could be seen as a clarification, not a restriction. After all, the sentence was absent before 1995 but the LC did not believe they were changing L20, just clarifying it. So I am not particularly certain that hypothetical questions are forbidden, nor do I believe they should be. And then I repeat: how are you going to limit which hypothetical questions are allowed and which are not? East passes. South has not yet seen his cards and wants to know what EW's 2-openings are. Allowed or not ? And how are you going to write that down ? And why - because hypothetical questions might prolong play? I hope my correspondence with DB has blown apart that argument. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Oct 26 09:42:38 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:42:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> <00f801c27c64$1b9ddea0$109c68d5@default> <004901c27c8d$e25af540$fa46e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DBA557E.4010802@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ""The right of citizens of the United States to vote > shall not be denied or abridged by the United States > or by any State on account of sex." > # Nineteenth Amendment # > ======================================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:21 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > > >>[Grattan Endicott] >>"The Committee ruled that ... the Scope of the >> Laws states that the laws define correct >> procedure and anything not specified in the >> laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may >> be deemed an infraction of law if information >> deriving from it is used in the auction or play." >>[Nigel Guthrie] >> IMO, the Committee have bitten off more than they >> can chew. Using precisely this argument, another >> BLMLer (Marvin French?) claimed that the laws >> allow you to look at opponents' CC, ONLY when it >> is your turn to bid. e.g. You may not consult >> the CC BEFORE the auction, to plan defences. >> >> > +=+ Well, we can sympathize with whoever's inability > to understand English. A law which directs itself to > the period "during the auction and play" does not > apply outside of that period. The SO's regulations > should cover other times. > However, in one respect your remark is helpful. > It prompted me to check over a draft I stored away > just recently. I added a few words. ~ G ~ +=+ > Grattan, Nigel was not trying to make you add things to your notebook, just pointing out to you that the Lille interpretation cannot be used to abolish things simply because you don't like them. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Oct 26 09:49:42 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:49:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <3DBA5726.8040104@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On 10/25/02, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >>If, in spite of the oracular pronouncement of >> the Bridge Laws Committee, you are entitled >> to this information, paradoxically, you may >> not ask for it, because of potential UI. >> > > Nonsense. *Providing* UI is not in itself illegal, so it is not possible > that taking an action that *might* provide UI is illegal. > No sorry Ed, not nonsense. In their current position, Grattan and Ton are defending that you are NOT allowed to ask this question. There is no mention about it being UI (that is of course the case), it is simply not allowed, because L20F speaks only about bids actually made and their alternatives. That is Ton and Grattan's position about how the law stands now. I believe that is false, but I shall bow to the WBFLC if they so decide. I also believe that this is unnecessary and wrong, and I would like to ask the WBFLC not to entrench this into the next set of laws. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Oct 26 09:55:40 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:55:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <200210252139.RAA23331@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DBA588C.3050108@skynet.be> Just one point to Steve: > > The proper analogy would be a question before the auction period such > as "If you bid 1NT and we double, what are your methods?" A fair > answer likely includes "It depends on what your double means." > So you tell them and ask the question again. > > And if they answer, as they are entitled to do, "That depends on what > your double shows?" > Then you tell them what it means and ask the question again. > >>if I've got plans that include >>bidding differently whether the responses to bid A are such or such, I'm >>allowed to know what they are. >> > > That last is the subject of debate. Many of us think you are _not_ > entitled to know or at least not entitled to base your choice of call > on such knowledge. > Bologna. > >>From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) >>Let me get this straight. My RHO opens 1NT (12-14), I am *not* allowed to >>know whether they play an escape mechanism from 1NTx before choosing my >>call? >> > > This is my belief. > > It is certainly the case that they can choose their escape methods > _after_ they know the meaning of your call. > Steve, we are not talking about the chicken and egg here. I want to know the escape mechanism, not in order for me to define my methods, but for me (with methods intact) to decide whether or not to employ them on a particular hand. That is completely legal, IMO. But for me to be able to do that, I need to have the information that I am entitled to. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Oct 26 09:57:14 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:57:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Turnpike References: <069f01c27c6b$9e6a32a0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <3DBA58EA.9090708@skynet.be> Chris Pisarra wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >>Fire away David. Turnpike is an amazing piece of software. It allows >>one to treat a mailing list as if it were news. It threads it just the >>same; it replies to it just the same, and indeed often the only way I >>can tell whether I'm reading rgb or blml is whether the thread is full >>of your postings or not >> > > > Which is exactly the way Outlook Express, that oft-cursed FREE > software from Microsoft, works for me. > and so does Netscape. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Oct 26 12:57:08 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:57:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DB9032E.6070908@skynet.be> <000901c27c60$356596b0$2541e150@endicott> <00f801c27c64$1b9ddea0$109c68d5@default> <004901c27c8d$e25af540$fa46e150@endicott> <030501c27c95$02213fe0$109c68d5@default> <002601c27cc3$308fe9c0$69a0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; "BLML" Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > Grattan Endicott ============================================= > "This isn't no time for playin' the fool nor makin' > no sport, this is cricket." ~ E.K. Brathwaite. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 3:11 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > IMO WBF Bridge Laws should cover the whole > > game and not rely on the SOs to remedy glaring > > ommissions, especially as this committee ruled [in > > clear English] that you may not consult opponents > > CC before the auction, unless your SO specifically > > grants remission. > > > +=+ I believe there is agreement on this objective in the > WBF Laws Committee (whilst leaving open to SOs > appropriate subordinate powers of regulation, ergo > choices). What is 'appropriate' remains to be seen. > In the meantime the laws are what they are; but, if > we agree what you say is technically justified, > we can > also add that to base a call or play on extraneous > information "may be an infraction" Is it a good idea to add cockroaches to a can of worms? regards roger pewick > and I would think > the Director might conclude that the example you give > is not, possibly by way of liberal interpretation of > regulation. I agree the position should be less open > to variations of opinion. "Noted" ~ G ~ +=+ From Schoderb@aol.com Fri Oct 25 00:16:40 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:16:40 EDT Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: --part1_f6.233b7f6d.2ae9d958_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/24/2002 7:06:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com writes: > [Richard Hills] > I believe that Bridge has sufficient critical > mass, as a complex game of designed imperfect > information, that its Laws can *never* be both: > a) complete, and > b) capable of a universally agreed consistent > interpretation. > {Nigel guthrie] > (b) is absolutely irrefutable so nobody can > deny Richard's claim to be the Godel of Bridge. > Any game, however, is just the sum of its laws > and they can be as unfair and arbitrary as you > like -- they can even self-contradictory like > the current laws of Bridge. > > > > _______________________________________________ So? =K= --part1_f6.233b7f6d.2ae9d958_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/24/2002 7:06:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com writes:

[Richard Hills]
I believe that Bridge has sufficient critical
mass, as a complex game of designed imperfect
information, that its Laws can *never* be both:
a) complete, and
b) capable of a universally agreed consistent
   interpretation.
{Nigel guthrie]
(b) is absolutely irrefutable so nobody can
deny Richard's claim to be the Godel of Bridge.
Any game, however, is just the sum of its laws
and they can be as unfair and arbitrary as you
like -- they can even self-contradictory like
the current laws of Bridge.



_______________________________________________


So?  =K= --part1_f6.233b7f6d.2ae9d958_boundary-- From nancy@dressing.org Fri Oct 25 01:46:31 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:46:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Bali Message-ID: <001601c27bbf$f5d2fb50$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C27B9E.6EA5E410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the people of Australia = on their day of mourning of the loss of their people in the recent = terrorist attack in Bali. It is my hope that none of the people we know = world-wide have suffered in these awful events. Sincerely, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C27B9E.6EA5E410 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the people of = Australia on=20 their day of mourning of the loss of their people in the recent = terrorist attack=20 in Bali. It is my hope that none of the people we know world-wide have = suffered=20 in these awful events.
Sincerely, Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C27B9E.6EA5E410-- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Oct 27 03:12:14 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 03:12:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021025191636.AEBB42FD23@server3.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <000701c27d66$a68893e0$bf3d23d9@pbncomputer> David Kent wrote: > But what about the scenario of opening bids then. Why should I be > allowed to know that the opponents play 2H as either weak with spades or > weak with clubs and diamonds? These are bids that have not yet occurred, > but I sure want to know about them before we start playing the board. > What is the difference? As I have tried to say, though in Herman's case I have failed abjectly, the principle of full disclosure cannot be implemented in practice because there isn't enough time. So we make rules that say, in effect, that the partial disclosure that is all we can achieve happens in two ways: pre-disclosure by means of the convention card, and disclosure through questions and answers. There is a limit to the size of the convention card, and there is also a limit to the type of questions that can be asked. Opening bids are on the convention card (and, in certain jurisdictions, are announced before play begins). You are supposed to know what an opening bid of 2H by an opponent means before play begins. If this opening bid is sanctioned by the SO, then either: the SO supposes that it is of such a nature that you will have defences to it prepared in advance (cf the Multi); or the SO is prepared to grant you time before play begins to prepare your defences at the table. If the SO sanctions conventions without giving time to prepare defences, either in advance or at the table, then the SO is in dereliction of its duty. If you enter an event knowing that a 2H opening showing spades or the minors is permitted, and you do not have a defence to such an opening, then you are not acting in your own side's best interests. Similarly, if your defence to a 1NT opening (or your inclination to double Blackwood) is contingent upon the strength of the opening (or whether your opponents play ROPI), then you - knowing this - have a responsibility to discover from the convention card before play begins what methods the opponents are using. If you have failed to discover these things, you may not ask about them during the auction, although you may always consult the opponents' convention card at your turn to call, provided that your partner does not act on any information that you may convey by so doing. This much is obvious, and I would have said that the difference between not knowing what meaning an opponent's opening bid might have and not knowing how an opponent might react to a double of Stayman is clear. But it appears that someone has opined that you may not consult the opponents' convention card before the auction begins, for it is not at that time your turn to call. This is abject nonsense. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Oct 27 08:58:57 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:58:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021025191636.AEBB42FD23@server3.fastmail.fm> <000701c27d66$a68893e0$bf3d23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DBBAAD1.2070308@skynet.be> David (B), all that you say is true, but it is beside the question. David Burn wrote: > David Kent wrote: > > >>But what about the scenario of opening bids then. Why should I be >>allowed to know that the opponents play 2H as either weak with spades >> > or > >>weak with clubs and diamonds? These are bids that have not yet >> > occurred, > >>but I sure want to know about them before we start playing the board. >> > >>What is the difference? >> > > As I have tried to say, though in Herman's case I have failed abjectly, > the principle of full disclosure cannot be implemented in practice > because there isn't enough time. > It is not because the achievement of total full disclosure is impossible, that the principle of a right to full disclosure is impossible. While it is impossible for me to listen to a full explanation of your complete system in any time-frame, it is quite possible for me to ask every question that I want, and for you to answer them. The impractability of full disclosure is no argument for the prohibition of a particular kind of question. (Please understand what I am attempting - I agree with your statements, I just don't believe they have a bearing on the question at hand : are hypothetical questions barred, and/or should they be) > So we make rules that say, in effect, that the partial disclosure that > is all we can achieve happens in two ways: pre-disclosure by means of > the convention card, and disclosure through questions and answers. There > is a limit to the size of the convention card, and there is also a limit > to the type of questions that can be asked. > Again, this is no vallid argument. The SO tells us how much we must put on the CC, and doing so fulfills our duty for the time being. I see is no reason why certain questions should be prohibited. > Opening bids are on the convention card (and, in certain jurisdictions, > are announced before play begins). You are supposed to know what an > opening bid of 2H by an opponent means before play begins. If this > opening bid is sanctioned by the SO, then either: the SO supposes that > it is of such a nature that you will have defences to it prepared in > advance (cf the Multi); or the SO is prepared to grant you time before > play begins to prepare your defences at the table. If the SO sanctions > conventions without giving time to prepare defences, either in advance > or at the table, then the SO is in dereliction of its duty. If you enter > an event knowing that a 2H opening showing spades or the minors is > permitted, and you do not have a defence to such an opening, then you > are not acting in your own side's best interests. > You are supposed to do this, yes, and not doing so may well jeopardise your chances of winning the tournament. Asking a question about something that you ought to have prepared may well put extra UI on your partner, and your time wasting might well count against you, but again that is no reason to ban these questions altogether. > Similarly, if your defence to a 1NT opening (or your inclination to > double Blackwood) is contingent upon the strength of the opening (or > whether your opponents play ROPI), then you - knowing this - have a > responsibility to discover from the convention card before play begins > what methods the opponents are using. If you have failed to discover > these things, you may not ask about them during the auction, although > you may always consult the opponents' convention card at your turn to > call, provided that your partner does not act on any information that > you may convey by so doing. > And David, suppose the answer is not on the CC? and it is something which should be there - are you now authorized to ask about it ? I know what you are going to say - call the TD! But that is just a detour to the same thing. You are (IMO) entitled to this information, and the opponents have failed to give it on the CC. So you should be allowed to ask. Are we now going to write a rule that says you are only allowed to ask hypothetical questions if the answer ought to be on the CC, but aren't? Why not simply allow hypothetical questions and let the UI speak for itself? > This much is obvious, and I would have said that the difference between > not knowing what meaning an opponent's opening bid might have and not > knowing how an opponent might react to a double of Stayman is clear. > > But it appears that someone has opined that you may not consult the > opponents' convention card before the auction begins, for it is not at > that time your turn to call. This is abject nonsense. > I agree, but it is a clear consequence of the same argument that Ton and Grattan are using to say that hypothetical questions are, at present, prohibited. I believe that is just as abject nonsense. Again David, I am not taking a stand here (although my views may well be obvious by now) I am merely trying to point out that your arguments for barring these questions are invalid. Both the problems of time wasting and UI are dealt with adequately by the other laws still in application. No need to bar these questions for those reasons. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 27 09:13:30 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:13:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bali References: <001601c27bbf$f5d2fb50$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <002c01c27d99$f0112940$1736e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:46 AM Subject: [blml] Bali I would like to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the people of Australia on their day of mourning of the loss of their people in the recent terrorist attack in Bali. It is my hope that none of the people we know world-wide have suffered in these awful events. Sincerely, Nancy < +=+ "Today violence is the rhetoric of the period." - the judgement of Ortegay. We live in a world where individuals, groups, races, see violence as the only resource for the purgation of their frustrations. It is worldwide - Moscow, Kashmir, Israel and Palestine, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Washington, Euzkadi, Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire,Uttar Pradesh, Yemen, Shaba, Rwanda, Myanmar, and more - the list is endless and the motivation stretches from the bitterness of lowly citizens of Samashki to the exasperation and the anger of the President of the United States. In such a world one shares Nancy's sympathies, and exhausts one's spirit with compassion for all who are the victims of terror and counterterror. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Oct 27 12:32:32 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:32:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beta Test Message-ID: <002b01c27db4$f0e4b1a0$b19c68d5@default> Grattan, please comment on my suggestion that a WBF laws committee delegate produce an interim edition of the laws to eliminate some ambiguities, redundancies & anomalies that David Burns enjoys. With facilities like Web-publishing available, there seems no reason to have a large interval between editions. If you produce regular editions there is less pressure to get it right first time. Also you can beta-test each new release with BLML as proof-readers, reducing the work-load on the committee. If each pre-lease were also circulated among SOs perhaps, eventually, we might get law convergence; and a genuinely international game. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 27 12:30:22 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:30:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021025191636.AEBB42FD23@server3.fastmail.fm> <000701c27d66$a68893e0$bf3d23d9@pbncomputer> <3DBBAAD1.2070308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c27db5$b3aff140$e9f1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > all that you say is true, but it is beside the question. > +=+ "thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad" +=+ > > > It is not because the achievement of total full disclosure is > impossible, that the principle of a right to full disclosure is > impossible > +=+ Total full disclosure would be readily achieved if the system options were severely limited.+=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Oct 27 16:00:50 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:00:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <200210271600.LAA00166@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > I want to know the escape mechanism, not in order for me to define my > methods, but for me (with methods intact) to decide whether or not to > employ them on a particular hand. How, exactly, does that differ from changing your methods? Please recall that negative inferences from, for example, passing, are also part of your methods. From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sun Oct 27 16:05:44 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 17:05:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Turnpike References: <069f01c27c6b$9e6a32a0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <008c01c27dd3$141e59a0$386e90d4@rabbit> From: "Chris Pisarra" wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > Fire away David. Turnpike is an amazing piece of software. It allows > > one to treat a mailing list as if it were news. It threads it just the > > same; it replies to it just the same, and indeed often the only way I > > can tell whether I'm reading rgb or blml is whether the thread is full > > of your postings or not Sounds to me like a piece of software which is a good mail reader but a very bad news reader because essential news functionality, which would not make any sense for a mail reader, is missing. Does turnpike allow you to manually add and edit arbitrary header lines before sending? Does it have support for regular expressions (to be used in a killfile), or at least support to killfile articles which have been crossposted? > Which is exactly the way Outlook Express, > that oft-cursed FREE software from Microsoft, works for me. Nope. OE's fake threading is notoriously buggy, especially when the subject line has been changed, mainly because OE does not really understand the References: header. OE also is far from free. It is not available without a one-time charge for a windows OS, and it also direly requires buying additional anti-virus and/or firewall software. Furthermore, OE's threading is missing essential functionality, such as - display a graph illustrating where the current article is located within the current thread. - walk around that graph, such as + move to the parent of an article + move to the first child of an article + walk through the siblings of an article - junk or kill all articles which quote or reference some particular (usually killfiled) articles. Thomas From jimfox00@cox.net Sun Oct 27 16:29:18 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:29:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bali References: <001601c27bbf$f5d2fb50$6401a8c0@hare> <002c01c27d99$f0112940$1736e150@endicott> Message-ID: <005101c27dd5$ff98b860$73e86944@hr.cox.net> > Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ "Today violence is the rhetoric of the period." - > the judgement of Ortegay. We live in a world where > individuals, groups, races, see violence as the only > resource for the purgation of their frustrations. It is > worldwide - Moscow, Kashmir, Israel and Palestine, > Zimbabwe, Ireland, Washington, Euzkadi, Burundi, > Cote d'Ivoire,Uttar Pradesh, Yemen, Shaba, Rwanda, > Myanmar, ...London, Quebec, ... > and more - the list is endless and the > motivation stretches from the bitterness of lowly > citizens of Samashki to the exasperation and the > anger of the President of the United States ..and the Prime Ministers of the U.K, Canada, and more. Mmbridge From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Oct 27 16:47:47 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:47:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <200210271647.LAA00983@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > East passes. South has not yet seen his cards and wants to know what > EW's 2-openings are. Allowed or not ? This, at least, is easy. The practical answer is that South looks at the opponents' CC, which is allowed because it is South's turn. (If North also has not looked at his cards yet, the auction period has not yet begun for NS, and they may have additional rights.) The theoretical answer -- say in a jurisdiction that does not require CC's or where the two-bids are not shown -- is that South can ask West to explain East's pass. The explanation should include, among other things, negative inferences from failure to open a two-bid. Of course in this instance, the theoretical answer isn't very practical. That's why (nearly?) all jurisdictions require two-bid's to be explained on the CC. In fact, one important consideration in the design of CC's is to allow the opponents to make negative inferences that are otherwise hard to explain. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Oct 27 18:09:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 18:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001b01c27db5$b3aff140$e9f1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Total full disclosure would be readily achieved if the > system options were severely limited.+=+ Which I do not understand. The amount of information I possess is a function of the experience I have with a partner rather than the systems I choose to agree. CCs (if properly completed) achieve "general disclosure". An outline of structure/approach with skeleton definitions. This is sufficient for me to make 90%+ of the decisions I face at the table. Questions assist in the cases where CCs are not available/complete or in the rare cases where marginal information is important (eg when LHO has opened 1N and I want to know how good the intermediates must be for him to do so on an 11 count). The marginal stuff will never make it onto the CC of an experienced pair - there is just too much of it. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Oct 27 18:09:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 18:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200210271600.LAA00166@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > I want to know the escape mechanism, not in order for me to define my > > methods, but for me (with methods intact) to decide whether or not to > > employ them on a particular hand. > > How, exactly, does that differ from changing your methods? Please > recall that negative inferences from, for example, passing, are also > part of your methods. You hold: KQJ98x,Axx,xx,Ax. RHO opens a strong NT, do you double for penalties or bid 2S? In my system/approach/methods they are both reasonable actions. If my opponents can't escape naturally to 2m I am much more inclined to double than bid. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 27 20:01:51 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:01:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beta Test References: <002b01c27db4$f0e4b1a0$b19c68d5@default> Message-ID: <002601c27df3$d357d970$694de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:32 PM Subject: [blml] Beta Test > Grattan, please comment on my suggestion that a > WBF laws committee delegate produce an interim > edition of the laws to eliminate some ambiguities, > redundancies & anomalies that David Burns enjoys. > With facilities like Web-publishing available, > there seems no reason to have a large interval > between editions. If you produce regular editions > there is less pressure to get it right first time. > Also you can beta-test each new release with > BLML as proof-readers, reducing the work-load > on the committee. If each pre-lease were also > circulated among SOs perhaps, eventually, we > might get law convergence; and a genuinely > international game. > +=+ Ambitious, worthy in intent, uninformed as to the realities. You should understand that the WBFLC is conscious of shortcomings in the structure of the laws of the game; its recorded decision to make no changes until the Review is accomplished is not based on belief that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. The committee takes the view that nothing is so dire that it demands instant amendment, so "for forms of government let fools contest, whate'er is best administered is best". We do obtain third party opinion on key aspects of the laws - in particular, experienced opinion on the extent to which what we might contemplate would be manageable. As for "redundancies and ambiguities": (1) there is marked progress in consolidating laws that in the past have dealt with the same subject in more than one place, and (2) the directive was refreshed in Montreal that the laws must be presented in terms that do not admit of a plurality of interpretations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Oct 27 22:42:46 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:42:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: <4A256C5F.007B5B9E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread, "Is Stayman alertable", Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [snip] >>Note that it is quite possible that "one >>more enquiry" constitutes a complete >>explanation, eg in relay systems, every >>relay after establishing the forcing >>auction. [snip] Richard Willey replied: >Alain has just stumbled onto one of my pet >peeves. > >I play a LOT of relay methods. >I have yet to find a well designed relay >structure that does not have explicit >definitions for the relay breaks. [snip] >Relay practioners have an obligation to >disclose negative inferences. I play a somewhat poorly designed relay system. In it, breaks in the relay are natural, and either suggest or demand that the relay break becomes the final contract. However, even in my primitive relay system, inferences arise from the *timing* of the relay breaks. For example, I frequently give this explanation when I believe it is required by my explicit-to-the-opponents interpretation of L40: "4H is a signoff, but pard could have signed off in 4H on a previous round of the auction, so there is an inference that pard has extra values and was looking for slam." Such information is obviously of use to the opponents in planning their defence: 1) At matchpoints the opponents may profitably abandon hope of defeating 4H, and choose a passive defence to save the overtricks. 2) At imps the opponents may reason that a normal line of defence is unlikely to defeat 4H, due to the inferred extra values. Therefore, the opponents may succesfully deduce an abnormal line of defence to beat 4H. Best wishes Richard From toddz@worldnet.att.com Sat Oct 26 18:47:25 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:47:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C27CF6.377C7EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----Original Message----- So? =K= It's a bad thing(TM). Fix it. -Todd ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C27CF6.377C7EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----Original = Message-----
So? =20 =3DK=3D  
 
    It's=20 a bad thing(TM).  Fix it.
 
-Todd
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C27CF6.377C7EA0-- From David Stevenson Mon Oct 28 00:14:37 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 00:14:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Turnpike In-Reply-To: <008c01c27dd3$141e59a0$386e90d4@rabbit> References: <069f01c27c6b$9e6a32a0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> <008c01c27dd3$141e59a0$386e90d4@rabbit> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn writes >Sounds to me like a piece of software which is >a good mail reader but a very bad news reader >because essential news functionality, which would >not make any sense for a mail reader, is missing. >Does turnpike allow you to manually add and edit >arbitrary header lines before sending? Yes. > Does it have support >for regular expressions (to be used in a killfile), Yes. >or at least support to killfile articles which have been >crossposted? Yes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 28 03:35:43 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:35:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table Message-ID: <4A256C60.0012578A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Grattan wrote: [snip] >>>If you open 1NT, as did the pair who >>>had been wrongly seated, but the ranges >>>are not the same, this is a call that >>>differs - see 15C - and "the Director >>> shall cancel the board". The current words in L15C are: >>If any call differs in any way from the >>corresponding call in the first auction, The words "in any way" are not defined. I suggest that footnote 8 to L26 also be inserted as a footnote to L15C: >A call repeated with a much different >meaning shall be deemed a different call. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 28 08:15:29 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:15:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <200210271600.LAA00166@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DBCF221.7050904@skynet.be> At last Steve has hit upon the correct argument. I was slowly inching towards this. However ... Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >>I want to know the escape mechanism, not in order for me to define my >>methods, but for me (with methods intact) to decide whether or not to >>employ them on a particular hand. >> > > How, exactly, does that differ from changing your methods? Please > recall that negative inferences from, for example, passing, are also > part of your methods. > The only sensible reason I could give for disallowing hypothetical questions is that you should have no use for their answers. If indeed there is a rule that says that you are not allowed to base your methods upon the opponent's system, then you have no reason to know what the opponents system is, in advance. In fact, the only reason left for you to know what the opponents play is for you to prepare your defences, together with your partner, and since you can't do this anymore while the hand is in play, hypothetical questions ought not to be necessary. I am reminded of the player in Malta who complained about the CC of his opponent, which said negative doubles over pre-empts, whereas they actually played penalty doubles. He claimed he would not have opened a particular hand with a pre-empt, if he had known they played penalty doubles. He did not get redress, but no-one said this was because he was not allowed to change his methods based upon the method of defence. Is this "rule" a reality or just a fiction. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 28 08:43:17 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:43:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <200210271600.LAA00166@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3DBCF221.7050904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00d101c27e5e$1005db00$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ....... > I am reminded of the player in Malta who complained about the CC of > his opponent, which said negative doubles over pre-empts, whereas they > actually played penalty doubles. He claimed he would not have opened a > particular hand with a pre-empt, if he had known they played penalty > doubles. He did not get redress, but no-one said this was because he > was not allowed to change his methods based upon the method of defence. > > Is this "rule" a reality or just a fiction. I do not remember the reference, but I do remember seeing somewhere a rule (official!) that you cannot change your methods according to opponents defences. (I wonder if we met this "problem" on a training course for directors). Example: Strong or weak preempt openings, double for penalties or for takeout? A declaration like this is illegal: If opponents apply penalty doubles we use strong preemptive openings if they apply takeout doubles we use weak preemptive openings. A declaration like this is OK: Our doubles over preemptive openings are for takeout if the opening is strong, for penalty if the opening is weak. And there is an explicit regulation with HUM in Norway (at least): A HUM convention or method may not be altered due to the defence against it. regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 28 08:48:23 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:48:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table References: <4A256C60.0012578A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <006201c27e5e$ddbcf8d0$ba4fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 3:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table > > The current words in L15C are: > > >>If any call differs in any way from the > >>corresponding call in the first auction, > > The words "in any way" are not defined. I > suggest that footnote 8 to L26 also be > inserted as a footnote to L15C: > > >A call repeated with a much different > >meaning shall be deemed a different call. > +=+ Law 26 speaks of "a different final call" and the footnote is therefore required. But Law 15 speaks of a "call that differs in any way" - plain, comprehensive language that includes a difference of meaning, so the Law states it and the footnote is not needed. If "in any way" needs definition then so does every line of the book. Periodically I used to remark that when no definition is provided in the law book one refers to a standard English dictionary. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Oct 28 09:12:57 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:12:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > But could we agree, as members of the lawscommittee I mean, > that questions > > about future calls should not be asked? Personally I don't > need more than > > L20F for that interpretation. So let me return to my normal > attitude of > > supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, Grattan please? > > Herman de Wael: > > > Ehmm - can I have a say ? > > How do you square this with the -quite legitimate and necessary- > question before any board of "how are your openings at the > two-level?". > What is the difference between a question in the middle of an auction > about consequent bidding and the obligation of having fully completed > convention cards? > One pair will give me a fully completed CC with additional sheets > giving all the sequences, and another pair doesn't, and I > would not be > allowed to ask a question to find out the same ? Well, reading the discussion so far the conclusion seems inevitable that we have touched other unclear statements in our laws. Personally I don't have that feeling since in practise it doesn't cause real problems. And most of all real problems need to be solved. The lawmakers (I am just speaking for myself) consider questions during play to be necessary, though evil oriented. Therefore it should be 'restricted' as much as possible. That is why a former interpretation of L 20 seems to have been that when interested about the meaning of a call a player needs to ask the meaning of all opponent's biddings made during that auction, starting with the non-alerted 1C-1H-1S-3NT-4C and trying to hide your interest in the meaning of the alerted 4D thereafter. That is the reason the lawmaker doesn't want questions about possible future calls, I think. And when the TD decides that a side is damaged by cripple disclosure of opponent's system he will adjust the score. Do we want it like this? Let us go to the example of 1NT and LHO asking whether opponents have an escape routine after a double now. Do the players want us to make it possible to ask such a question? Or should we try to make CC in such a way that what we think to be relevant about future calls should be on that card? Demanding from a player to read that card in stead of asking? I an really much more interested in this approach of the problems we have to deal with than in never stopping critizism about the inconsistency in the laws. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Oct 28 09:21:30 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:21:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > ....... > > I am reminded of the player in Malta who complained about the CC of > > his opponent, which said negative doubles over pre-empts, > whereas they > > actually played penalty doubles. He claimed he would not > > have opened a > > particular hand with a pre-empt, if he had known they played penalty > > doubles. He did not get redress, but no-one said this was because he > > was not allowed to change his methods based upon the method > > of defence. > > > > Is this "rule" a reality or just a fiction. > > I do not remember the reference, but I do remember seeing somewhere > a rule (official!) that you cannot change your methods according to > opponents > defences. (I wonder if we met this "problem" on a training course for > directors). > > Example: Strong or weak preempt openings, double for penalties or for > takeout? > > A declaration like this is illegal: > If opponents apply penalty doubles we use strong preemptive openings > if they apply takeout doubles we use weak preemptive openings. It would be if the statement that you may not change your methods according to opponents defences is true. But I don't know such general regulation and we do not have it in the EBL or WBF. What we have is what they have in Norway: no changes in hum agreements depending on the defence presented by the opponents. ton > > A declaration like this is OK: > Our doubles over preemptive openings are for takeout if the opening > is strong, for penalty if the opening is weak. > > And there is an explicit regulation with HUM in Norway (at least): > A HUM convention or method may not be altered due to the defence > against it. > > regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 28 09:52:57 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:52:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <00e301c27e67$cb794990$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A." ....... > > I do not remember the reference, but I do remember seeing somewhere > > a rule (official!) that you cannot change your methods according to > > opponents > > defences. (I wonder if we met this "problem" on a training course for > > directors). > > > > Example: Strong or weak preempt openings, double for penalties or for > > takeout? > > > > A declaration like this is illegal: > > If opponents apply penalty doubles we use strong preemptive openings > > if they apply takeout doubles we use weak preemptive openings. > > > It would be if the statement that you may not change your methods according > to opponents defences is true. But I don't know such general regulation and > we do not have it in the EBL or WBF. What we have is what they have in > Norway: no changes in hum agreements depending on the defence presented by > the opponents. OK. How do you rule in the following case (which is NOT fictitious): You are summoned to a table where they are apparently studying opponent's CC at the beginning of the round. CC belonging to pair A, declaration on 3-level openings: Weak if opponent's doubles are for takeout, strong if they double for penalty. CC belonging to pair B, declaration on defence against 3-level openings: Takeout if the opening is strong, penalty if the opening is weak. Obviouosly one of the pairs will have to select first, but which of them? (My opinion is of course according to what I have written earlier: pair A) Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 28 10:02:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:02:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <3DBD0B32.8030905@skynet.be> What Ton seems to be saying is that he would like to limit hypothetical questions because of te UI problems they might cause. Now I don't believe that this is a reason to ban those questions altogether. People that are likely to be interested in hypothetical questions are most probably also aware of the UI they provide to partner, and would limit those questions, or use them only behind screens, where UI to partner is not an issue. So this argument seems to me not a very good one for banning hypothetical questions. Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >> >> >>>But could we agree, as members of the lawscommittee I mean, >>> >>that questions >> >>>about future calls should not be asked? Personally I don't >>> >>need more than >> >>>L20F for that interpretation. So let me return to my normal >>> >>attitude of >> >>>supporting David Burn in his opinion. Kojak, Grattan please? >>> >>> > > Herman de Wael: > > >> >>Ehmm - can I have a say ? >> >>How do you square this with the -quite legitimate and necessary- >>question before any board of "how are your openings at the >>two-level?". >>What is the difference between a question in the middle of an auction >>about consequent bidding and the obligation of having fully completed >>convention cards? >>One pair will give me a fully completed CC with additional sheets >>giving all the sequences, and another pair doesn't, and I >>would not be >>allowed to ask a question to find out the same ? >> > > > > > > Well, reading the discussion so far the conclusion seems inevitable that we > have touched other unclear statements in our laws. Personally I don't have > that feeling since in practise it doesn't cause real problems. And most of > all real problems need to be solved. > > The lawmakers (I am just speaking for myself) consider questions during play > to be necessary, though evil oriented. Therefore it should be 'restricted' > as much as possible. That is why a former interpretation of L 20 seems to > have been that when interested about the meaning of a call a player needs to > ask the meaning of all opponent's biddings made during that auction, > starting with the non-alerted 1C-1H-1S-3NT-4C and trying to hide your > interest in the meaning of the alerted 4D thereafter. > > That is the reason the lawmaker doesn't want questions about possible future > calls, I think. > And when the TD decides that a side is damaged by cripple disclosure of > opponent's system he will adjust the score. > > Do we want it like this? Let us go to the example of 1NT and LHO asking > whether opponents have an escape routine after a double now. Do the players > want us to make it possible to ask such a question? Or should we try to make > CC in such a way that what we think to be relevant about future calls should > be on that card? Demanding from a player to read that card in stead of > asking? > > I an really much more interested in this approach of the problems we have to > deal with than in never stopping critizism about the inconsistency in the > laws. > > ton > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 28 10:04:23 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:04:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <3DBD0BA7.4060203@skynet.be> So that seems to settle that issue also. You are allowed to base your actions upon opponent's defences against them. So you must be allowed to ask about them. Another argument seems to have bitten the dust. Any other reasons why hypothetical questions ought to be forbidden? Kooijman, A. wrote: >>From: "Herman De Wael" >>....... >> >>>I am reminded of the player in Malta who complained about the CC of >>>his opponent, which said negative doubles over pre-empts, >>> >>whereas they >> >>>actually played penalty doubles. He claimed he would not >>>have opened a >>>particular hand with a pre-empt, if he had known they played penalty >>>doubles. He did not get redress, but no-one said this was because he >>>was not allowed to change his methods based upon the method >>>of defence. >>> >>> > > > > >>>Is this "rule" a reality or just a fiction. >>> >>I do not remember the reference, but I do remember seeing somewhere >>a rule (official!) that you cannot change your methods according to >>opponents >>defences. (I wonder if we met this "problem" on a training course for >>directors). >> >>Example: Strong or weak preempt openings, double for penalties or for >>takeout? >> >>A declaration like this is illegal: >>If opponents apply penalty doubles we use strong preemptive openings >>if they apply takeout doubles we use weak preemptive openings. >> > > > It would be if the statement that you may not change your methods according > to opponents defences is true. But I don't know such general regulation and > we do not have it in the EBL or WBF. What we have is what they have in > Norway: no changes in hum agreements depending on the defence presented by > the opponents. > > ton > > > >>A declaration like this is OK: >>Our doubles over preemptive openings are for takeout if the opening >>is strong, for penalty if the opening is weak. >> >>And there is an explicit regulation with HUM in Norway (at least): >>A HUM convention or method may not be altered due to the defence >>against it. >> >>regards Sven >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Oct 28 10:34:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ton wrote: > Do we want it like this? Let us go to the example of 1NT and LHO asking > whether opponents have an escape routine after a double now. Do the > players want us to make it possible to ask such a question? Or should we > try to make CC in such a way that what we think to be relevant about > future calls should be on that card? Demanding from a player to read > that card in stead of asking? Ideally this information would be on the CC and readily accessible. In the real world when I play in clubs the normal place for a CC is "on the mantlepiece at home so I don't forget it". Unless of course the CC consists of some dog-eared piece of hieroglyphics wedged firmly under LHO's bidding box. And what about playing on line? No CCs, often no TDs, what then? To me it is a three part problem. 1. Is it information to which the bidder is entitled? 2. How should it best be disclosed? 3. What should be done if the conditions necessary for 2 are not met? Note that the answer to 2/3 may be differ from a Bermuda Bowl to a Tuesday night at the local club. Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 28 11:40:25 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:40:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <00e301c27e67$cb794990$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DBD2229.1080902@skynet.be> Easy one, actually, if you think about it. Sven Pran wrote: > > > OK. How do you rule in the following case (which is NOT fictitious): > You are summoned to a table where they are apparently studying opponent's > CC at the beginning of the round. > > CC belonging to pair B, declaration on defence against 3-level openings: > Takeout if the opening is strong, penalty if the opening is weak. > This CC is complete. > CC belonging to pair A, declaration on 3-level openings: > Weak if opponent's doubles are for takeout, strong if they double for > penalty. > This CC is not complete. It does not say what they do against two other kinds of opponents: - those without a clear method, or without a CC (although they might ask) - those whose doubles are variable. Since this system is incomplete - it is now up to them to complete it and chose. Then the others have their system as well. And since their opponents are still in the fourth category, they cannot now change their system again. > Obviouosly one of the pairs will have to select first, but which of them? > (My opinion is of course according to what I have written earlier: pair A) > > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 28 12:19:35 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:19:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <00e301c27e67$cb794990$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DBD2229.1080902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00f301c27e7c$475459b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > Easy one, actually, if you think about it. I do indeed, and this (I take it) confirms my opinion that, although apparently not explicitly stated in any law, nobody may change their methods depending on opponents (variable) defence against the respective alternatives. It doesn't even need a formal law or regulation, only simple logic. regards Sven > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > OK. How do you rule in the following case (which is NOT fictitious): > > You are summoned to a table where they are apparently studying opponent's > > CC at the beginning of the round. > > > > CC belonging to pair B, declaration on defence against 3-level openings: > > Takeout if the opening is strong, penalty if the opening is weak. > > > > > This CC is complete. > > > > CC belonging to pair A, declaration on 3-level openings: > > Weak if opponent's doubles are for takeout, strong if they double for > > penalty. > > > > > This CC is not complete. It does not say what they do against two > other kinds of opponents: > - those without a clear method, or without a CC (although they might ask) > - those whose doubles are variable. > > Since this system is incomplete - it is now up to them to complete it > and chose. Then the others have their system as well. > > And since their opponents are still in the fourth category, they cannot now change their system again. > > > > > Obviouosly one of the pairs will have to select first, but which of them? > > (My opinion is of course according to what I have written earlier: pair A) > > > > Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Oct 28 12:49:04 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:49:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DBD0BA7.4060203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002501c27e80$6601c1a0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > So that seems to settle that issue also. > You are allowed to base your actions upon opponent's defences against > them. So you must be allowed to ask about them. > Another argument seems to have bitten the dust. You really must get out of the habit of thinking that just because you have said something, you have thereby proved it. You have said several times that the reason hypothetical questions are forbidden has nothing to do with the practical question of ensuring that a single hand cannot take forever, but (a) nobody has agreed with you and (b) you have adduced nothing that amounts to an argument in support of your case. All you have said is: "if I need to know something, I should be able to ask it". That is true in principle, but false in practice, which is why Law 75A gives you the right in principle, but Law 20 limits what you may in practice do. Now you assert that because you may base your methods on your opponents' defences to your methods, you may therefore ask hypothetical questions. But this is a complete non sequitur, because the question of whether your methods may be based on their defences arises only in the case of methods that are pre-disclosed, about which you may certainly discover all you wish before play begins. That is to say, you may ask all the hypothetical questions you like before play starts, but you may not ask them once it has started. There is a fundamental difference between pre-disclosure and disclosure during the play - the difference is a practical one, not a theoretical one, for all disclosure is in theory covered by the principle expressed in Law 75, but limited in practice by the method defined in Law 20. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 28 13:17:35 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:17:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <000001c27c40$da772df0$ca06ba12@Herot> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025124044.00ac5dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021028140447.00aafc60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:09 25/10/2002 -0400, richard willey wrote: > >AG : it doesn't, but in some systems, no other information than "strong >and > >asking shape" will be available. > >Note that it ia quite possible that "on more enquiry" constitute a >complete > >explanation, eg in relay systems, every relay after establishing the > >forcing auction. > >Alain has just stumbled onto one of my pet peeves. > >I play a LOT of relay methods. >I have yet to find a well designed relay structure that does not have >explicit definitions for the relay breaks. AG : IBTD. In 'French' relay style, relay breaks are often facultative.=20 Which means that not breaking them doesn't convey anything. Example in 'Omega', one of the most detailed structures : 1H 1S (R) 2C (Canap=E9 style) 2D (GF unless the rebid is 2H) 2S (any maximum, ca 16-17) Responder may relay with 2N ; he may BW wiht 3C ; he may bid 3H to force=20 cue bids ; he may bid 3D or 3S to show a self-supporting suit. However, the 2N bid doesn't deny a self-supporting suit or slam ambition in= =20 hearts ; responder is only interested in learning more about the= distribution. I think the same is true of said sequence in 'la Majeure d'Abord'. If you ask me what the 2N relay denies, I won't be able to answer ; it=20 *doesn't deny* anything. Perhaps you can tell me more about the inferences of the 2NT bid, but the=20 creator of the system (my partner during 13 years) couldn't. I don't know anything about Moscito, but I think you are reaching a little= =20 bit too far in extending its 'does deny' principles to other relay systems= =20 that you don't know of. And if somebody went as far as to pretending we hide something from him, I= =20 would have some reasons to feel offended. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 28 13:40:39 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:40:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <000701c27d66$a68893e0$bf3d23d9@pbncomputer> References: <20021025191636.AEBB42FD23@server3.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021028083246.00bb2ce0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:12 PM 10/26/02, David wrote: >As I have tried to say, though in Herman's case I have failed abjectly, >the principle of full disclosure cannot be implemented in practice >because there isn't enough time. > >So we make rules that say, in effect, that the partial disclosure that >is all we can achieve happens in two ways: pre-disclosure by means of >the convention card, and disclosure through questions and answers. There >is a limit to the size of the convention card, and there is also a limit >to the type of questions that can be asked. > >Opening bids are on the convention card (and, in certain jurisdictions, >are announced before play begins). You are supposed to know what an >opening bid of 2H by an opponent means before play begins. If this >opening bid is sanctioned by the SO, then either: the SO supposes that >it is of such a nature that you will have defences to it prepared in >advance (cf the Multi); or the SO is prepared to grant you time before >play begins to prepare your defences at the table. If the SO sanctions >conventions without giving time to prepare defences, either in advance >or at the table, then the SO is in dereliction of its duty. If you enter >an event knowing that a 2H opening showing spades or the minors is >permitted, and you do not have a defence to such an opening, then you >are not acting in your own side's best interests. > >Similarly, if your defence to a 1NT opening (or your inclination to >double Blackwood) is contingent upon the strength of the opening (or >whether your opponents play ROPI), then you - knowing this - have a >responsibility to discover from the convention card before play begins >what methods the opponents are using. If you have failed to discover >these things, you may not ask about them during the auction, although >you may always consult the opponents' convention card at your turn to >call, provided that your partner does not act on any information that >you may convey by so doing. > >This much is obvious, and I would have said that the difference between >not knowing what meaning an opponent's opening bid might have and not >knowing how an opponent might react to a double of Stayman is clear. If, to use David's example, my inclination to double Blackwood depends on whether my opponents play ROPI, that doesn't matter a whit unless my opponents are going to use Blackwood. But David tells me that if I may want this information during the auction, I must ask for it before the auction starts. Which means that I must ask for all such information that I might need, albeit only if the opponents use specific bids during the auction(s) to come. Which means that the vast majority of such Q&A prior to the auction will have been entirely irrelevant, as I will have been forced to ask about situations which will turn out not to occur. ISTM that this will waste a great deal more time than would allowing me to ask such questions during the auction if and when they become relevant to my choosing my call. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Oct 28 13:57:37 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:57:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021025191636.AEBB42FD23@server3.fastmail.fm> <4.3.2.7.0.20021028083246.00bb2ce0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007601c27e89$f9a2a380$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > If, to use David's example, my inclination to double Blackwood depends > on whether my opponents play ROPI, that doesn't matter a whit unless my > opponents are going to use Blackwood. > > But David tells me that if I may want this information during the > auction, I must ask for it before the auction starts. Which means that > I must ask for all such information that I might need, albeit only if > the opponents use specific bids during the auction(s) to come. Which > means that the vast majority of such Q&A prior to the auction will have > been entirely irrelevant, as I will have been forced to ask about > situations which will turn out not to occur. > > ISTM that this will waste a great deal more time than would allowing me > to ask such questions during the auction if and when they become > relevant to my choosing my call. There is a finite, and usually very small, number of positions in which what you are going to do will depend on your opponents' counter-measures to whatever it is that you do. Moreover, you know before you start to play what these positions are. If you play takeout doubles over sound pre-empts and penalty doubles over loose ones, you can ascertain very quickly what kind of pre-empts your opponents play (the information is on the convention card in many cases; if it is not, you may ask). If you will double Blackwood only against pairs who play (or do not play) ROPI, then you can find out what they play by looking at the card or by asking a question. In short, if your methods will vary depending on your opponents' counter-measures, then it is up to you to determine in advance what those counter-measures may be, for you may not ask questions during the play about what counter-measures the opponents might adopt to some hypothetical action of yours. Because the number of positions involved is small, this kind of questioning will not consume unacceptable amounts of time. David Burn London, England From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Mon Oct 28 14:46:31 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:46:31 UT Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <20021028144631.4E4382FD43@server3.fastmail.fm> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:49:04 -0000, "David Burn" said: > Herman wrote: > > > So that seems to settle that issue also. > > You are allowed to base your actions upon opponent's defences against > > them. So you must be allowed to ask about them. > > Another argument seems to have bitten the dust. > > You really must get out of the habit of thinking that just because you > have said something, you have thereby proved it. You have said several > times that the reason hypothetical questions are forbidden has nothing > to do with the practical question of ensuring that a single hand cannot > take forever, but (a) nobody has agreed with you and (b) you have > adduced nothing that amounts to an argument in support of your case. All > you have said is: "if I need to know something, I should be able to ask > it". That is true in principle, but false in practice, which is why Law > 75A gives you the right in principle, but Law 20 limits what you may in > practice do. > > Now you assert that because you may base your methods on your opponents' > defences to your methods, you may therefore ask hypothetical questions. > But this is a complete non sequitur, because the question of whether > your methods may be based on their defences arises only in the case of > methods that are pre-disclosed, about which you may certainly discover > all you wish before play begins. That is to say, you may ask all the > hypothetical questions you like before play starts, but you may not ask > them once it has started. > > There is a fundamental difference between pre-disclosure and disclosure > during the play - the difference is a practical one, not a theoretical > one, for all disclosure is in theory covered by the principle expressed > in Law 75, but limited in practice by the method defined in Law 20. > So you sit down against some opponents and quickly check their convention card. It describes a strong club system with a strong NT - nothing unusual. The opening bid on your right is 1C. The opponents are playing Ultimate Club. Don't you want to know at what level you must bid in order that they cannot use their relay system? If you say "You should have asked this before the bidding started" then... The same opponents open 1D. Wouldn't it be nice to know at what level you need to overcall in order to disrupt their relay system? Am I really required to find out my opponnets responses to every opening bid before I play a single board against them? Maybe that's why Rubin and Becker are (were) so slow - it's not them, it's their opponents asking about their system before they play a single board. -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Oct 28 14:51:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:51:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021028144631.4E4382FD43@server3.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <00c001c27e91$8e169ec0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> David Kent wrote: > So you sit down against some opponents and quickly check their convention > card. It describes a strong club system with a strong NT - nothing > unusual. The opening bid on your right is 1C. The opponents are playing > Ultimate Club. Don't you want to know at what level you must bid in > order that they cannot use their relay system? If you are the sort of person who wants to know how to disrupt the opponents' relay methods, then you find this out before you start to play. It isn't difficult. What it means, of course, is that you do not "quickly check their convention card"; you check it with a degree of care, as you would check anything on which your actions might depend or which might lead you to modify your style. But what you do not do is hear them open 1C and then ask them: "How high do I have to pre-empt in order to prevent you from using relays?" > If you say "You should have asked this before the bidding started" > then... > The same opponents open 1D. Wouldn't it be nice to know at what level > you need to overcall in order to disrupt their relay system? See above. > Am I really required to find out my opponnets responses to every opening > bid before I play a single board against them? No. But if you want to know some one specific thing (or even some two or three specific things) that are supposed to be part of your opponents' pre-disclosure anyway, then you look at it. If the information isn't there, then you ask a question. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 28 15:04:00 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:04:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <00e301c27e67$cb794990$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DBD2229.1080902@skynet.be> <00f301c27e7c$475459b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DBD51E0.6030903@skynet.be> Wrong conclusion, Sven. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:40 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > > >>Easy one, actually, if you think about it. >> > > I do indeed, and this (I take it) confirms my opinion that, although > apparently not explicitly stated in any law, nobody may change their > methods depending on opponents (variable) defence against the > respective alternatives. > Yes, they can. They are allowed to play weak pre-empts against negative doublers and strong pre-empts (I do hope we're talking about the same thing : 9-11 you call strong and 5-11 is weak ?) against penalty doublers. Provided they also state what they will play against alternative doublers. > It doesn't even need a formal law or regulation, only simple logic. > Exactly - but your deduction is not based on the same premises as mine! > regards Sven > > >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>> >>>OK. How do you rule in the following case (which is NOT fictitious): >>>You are summoned to a table where they are apparently studying >>> > opponent's > >>>CC at the beginning of the round. >>> >>>CC belonging to pair B, declaration on defence against 3-level openings: >>>Takeout if the opening is strong, penalty if the opening is weak. >>> >>> >> >>This CC is complete. >> >> >> >>>CC belonging to pair A, declaration on 3-level openings: >>>Weak if opponent's doubles are for takeout, strong if they double for >>>penalty. >>> >>> >> >>This CC is not complete. It does not say what they do against two >>other kinds of opponents: >>- those without a clear method, or without a CC (although they might ask) >>- those whose doubles are variable. >> >>Since this system is incomplete - it is now up to them to complete it >>and chose. Then the others have their system as well. >> >>And since their opponents are still in the fourth category, they cannot >> > now change their system again. > >> >> >>>Obviouosly one of the pairs will have to select first, but which of >>> > them? > >>>(My opinion is of course according to what I have written earlier: pair >>> > A) > >>>Sven >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 28 15:21:43 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:21:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DBD0BA7.4060203@skynet.be> <002501c27e80$6601c1a0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DBD5607.4080809@skynet.be> David, you are not being fair. David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>So that seems to settle that issue also. >>You are allowed to base your actions upon opponent's defences against >>them. So you must be allowed to ask about them. >>Another argument seems to have bitten the dust. >> > > You really must get out of the habit of thinking that just because you > have said something, you have thereby proved it. David, notice the word "seems" up there. I will continue to argue the point if you don't think it has been settled, but far too much bandwith on blml is being used by people not accepting quite clear argumentation. What I meant was that a number of people, including Ton, have stated something, and the conclusion is that the argument I was alluding to was no longer valid. If you wish to continue that argument (and you don't - it was not your argument in the first place) then I will continue to argue about it. But otherwise, I consider that sub-argument settled. > You have said several > times that the reason hypothetical questions are forbidden has nothing > to do with the practical question of ensuring that a single hand cannot > take forever, but (a) nobody has agreed with you and (b) you have > adduced nothing that amounts to an argument in support of your case. All > you have said is: "if I need to know something, I should be able to ask > it". Well, if anybody is going to have to convince us, it will be the ones saying that hypothetical questions take up too much time. Surely it is not my place to prove something that is wrong, IMO? > That is true in principle, but false in practice, Who's making statements without proof now ? > which is why Law > 75A gives you the right in principle, but Law 20 limits what you may in > practice do. > Don't forget, David, that there are two arguments going on concurrently here - do the laws prohibit, and should they ? I answer no to both counts. You say yes to the second, and draw in your own yes to the first as proof. Very circular reasoning. > Now you assert that because you may base your methods on your opponents' > defences to your methods, you may therefore ask hypothetical questions. Well, provided you change "may" into "should be allowed to", what is so wrong with that statement ? I fail to see why this is a sentence you can object to. > But this is a complete non sequitur, because the question of whether > your methods may be based on their defences arises only in the case of > methods that are pre-disclosed, about which you may certainly discover > all you wish before play begins. That is to say, you may ask all the > hypothetical questions you like before play starts, but you may not ask > them once it has started. > David, don't attack my logic, or my conclusion, if all you want to do is attack the premise I start with. I concluded, from Ton's previous message, that players were allowed to base their calls on the defences opponents were using against them. That is where I got in. My conclusion from that seems to be quite logical. You are stating above that my first assumption is wrong. Please say that more clearly, and don't try and attack my conclusion. Let's go back to the premise: Herman wrote: >>You are allowed to base your actions upon opponent's defences against >>them. David wrote: > your methods may be based on their defences [arises only in the case of > methods] that are pre-disclosed, These statement are contrary, and so at least one of them must be wrong. All the rest in this message is bullshit that stems from this one thing we disagree about. So let's start again: which one of us is right ? Are you allowed to base your call on the knowledge about the defensive methods that your opponents have against them? Am I allowed to know if opponents play ROPI before doubling 4NT? Am I allowed to know if they can escape to a minor before deciding whether to bid 2Sp or X over their strong 1NT? And so on ... > There is a fundamental difference between pre-disclosure and disclosure > during the play - the difference is a practical one, not a theoretical > one, for all disclosure is in theory covered by the principle expressed > in Law 75, but limited in practice by the method defined in Law 20. > But David, I was not talking about how the law IS, but about how it should be! > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Oct 28 15:43:21 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:43:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: > Eric: > If, to use David's example, my inclination to double > Blackwood depends > on whether my opponents play ROPI, that doesn't matter a whit > unless my > opponents are going to use Blackwood. > > But David tells me that if I may want this information during the > auction, I must ask for it before the auction starts. Well yes, David tells so, but therewith he tells you what the laws do say about it. I am happy with the contributions from David this way, washing everybodies ears. Telling the lawmakers that the laws are terrible and after that telling the rest of the world that in practise it isn't that difficult to work with it. Hopefully both sides take notice. ton Eric: > ISTM that this will waste a great deal more time than would > allowing me > to ask such questions during the auction if and when they become > relevant to my choosing my call. tell me how much time you needed in your last 5 rounds played. And remember that it has to fit with 'waste a great deal more time than...' being your statement above. And don't lie. Not easy, is it? ton > From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Oct 28 16:03:13 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:03:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021028144631.4E4382FD43@server3.fastmail.fm> <00c001c27e91$8e169ec0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DBD5FC1.6000908@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > If you are the sort of person who wants to know how to disrupt the > opponents' relay methods, then you find this out before you start to > play. It isn't difficult. What it means, of course, is that you do not > "quickly check their convention card"; you check it with a degree of > care, as you would check anything on which your actions might depend or > which might lead you to modify your style. But what you do not do is > hear them open 1C and then ask them: "How high do I have to pre-empt in > order to prevent you from using relays?" > OK David, that is very sound advice, and you are right. But why do you state this ? - because it provided UI to your partner ? - because you are not allowed to ask this by L20F ? - because you are not entitled to this information ? - because it is time-wasting ? All these reasons have been given before, and I would like to hear you state which side of the discussion you are on. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 28 16:24:10 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:24:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <4A256C5F.007B5B9E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021028171121.028ddad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:42 28/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Relay practioners have an obligation to > >disclose negative inferences. > >I play a somewhat poorly designed relay >system. In it, breaks in the relay are >natural, and either suggest or demand that >the relay break becomes the final contract. > >However, even in my primitive relay system, >inferences arise from the *timing* of the >relay breaks. > >For example, I frequently give this >explanation when I believe it is required by >my explicit-to-the-opponents interpretation >of L40: AG : absolutely right. However ... >"4H is a signoff, but pard could have signed >off in 4H on a previous round of the >auction, so there is an inference that pard >has extra values and was looking for slam." AG : this inference is a bit restrictive. Many reasons could have induced partner into relaying once more. This is a hand from a recent Belgian championship match (regional level) Qxxxx KJx A10xx J Partner shows a 14-16 NT hand, and you relay. You find he holds 3 spades but not 3 hearts. Now the next relay asks for specific location of honor strength. He shows diamonds as his main strength. So you obviously sign off in 4S. Were he to show clubs, you would play in 3NT. The fact that you relayed once more rather than bidding a direct 4S could have one of several reasons : 1) he wanted to decide between 3NT and 4S (in some sense, your diamond-showing bid is good news) 2) he was slamming and your diamond-showing bid is bad news 3) he wanted to decide between spades and a minor (less probable) 4) he wanted to show to the opponents how precise your system was (I know of some persons which whom it would be the most probable) 5) he always relays to the end, because he doesn't want to give opponents subtle inferences on the lead, especially if your hand is to be exposed anyway (clever) All of those are possible even playing a somewhat crude relay system. All you can (and must) tell opponents is that partner had some good reason to make one more relay, because he could have signed off earlier. The rest is "only bridge logic". >Such information is obviously of use to the >opponents in planning their defence: > >1) At matchpoints the opponents may profitably >abandon hope of defeating 4H, and choose a >passive defence to save the overtricks. > >2) At imps the opponents may reason that a >normal line of defence is unlikely to defeat >4H, due to the inferred extra values. >Therefore, the opponents may succesfully >deduce an abnormal line of defence to beat 4H. AG : only if there is no other possible interpretation. Best regards, Alain. From rwilley@sloan.mit.edu Mon Oct 28 16:25:08 2002 From: rwilley@sloan.mit.edu (richard willey) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:25:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <3DBD5607.4080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c27e9e$9532c460$8d06aa12@Herot> A few comments based on Herman's latest crusade. As usual, I find myself in almost complete opposition to his interpretion. First >> I do indeed, and this (I take it) confirms my opinion that, although >> apparently not explicitly stated in any law, nobody may change their >> methods depending on opponents (variable) defence against the >> respective alternatives. Herman wrote: >Yes, they can. They are allowed to play weak pre-empts against >negative doublers and strong pre-empts (I do hope we're talking about >the same thing : 9-11 you call strong and 5-11 is weak ?) against >penalty doublers. Provided they also state what they will play >against alternative doublers. Changing your preemptive style based on whether the opponents play penalty double has always been cited as the classic example of the Chicken and the Egg problem. Here you are asserting that you have the right to make substantial changes to your methods based on the opponent's defenses. Hogwash. >You are allowed to base your actions upon opponent's defences against >them. David wrote: >> your methods may be based on their defences [arises only in the case of >> methods] that are pre-disclosed, >These statement are contrary, and so at least one of them must be >wrong. I think that it is fairly clear that your interpretation is incorrect. You are not allowed to change your methods based on the opponent's defenses. Given this, I would even go so far to say that there is no need for you to be informed of the opponent's countermeasures before making a given call. Given that you can't change your methods, what good with the information do you? In my ideal world, a pair makes a decision about their methods before the start of an event. A pair's methods includes an explicit definition of the the probability density functions that define their choice of actions with different sets of hands. The derivation of these PDFs will necessarily include the partnership's expectation regarding the range of countermeasures that they expect to face. The PDF functions could include objective or subjective measurements of the "skill" of opposing pairs. However, once the event starts, the PDFs are "fixed" and pairs should not be allowed to adjust these during the course of the event. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 28 16:40:38 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:40:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <3DBD5FC1.6000908@skynet.be> References: <20021028144631.4E4382FD43@server3.fastmail.fm> <00c001c27e91$8e169ec0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021028173420.028dc530@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:03 28/10/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >>If you are the sort of person who wants to know how to disrupt the >>opponents' relay methods, then you find this out before you start to >>play. It isn't difficult. What it means, of course, is that you do not >>"quickly check their convention card"; you check it with a degree of >>care, as you would check anything on which your actions might depend or >>which might lead you to modify your style. But what you do not do is >>hear them open 1C and then ask them: "How high do I have to pre-empt in >>order to prevent you from using relays?" > > >OK David, that is very sound advice, and you are right. But why do you >state this ? >- because it provided UI to your partner ? >- because you are not allowed to ask this by L20F ? >- because you are not entitled to this information ? >- because it is time-wasting ? AG : I strongly incline towards the 1st interpretation. However, taking into account the Belgian system of prior communication (which I pioneered while playing a fert-cum-relay system) I would be somewhat surprised if an experienced opponent asked me this at the table without checking before the match (assuming it was important to him). Anyway, I would allow the question behind screens, and even without screens I would not disallow it, only be especially careful about possible UI. Just in case somebody didn't understand it up to now, I don't disallow questions. I disallow a series of questions that take away half the time for the set of boards. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Oct 28 16:39:19 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:39:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021028144631.4E4382FD43@server3.fastmail.fm> <00c001c27e91$8e169ec0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> <3DBD5FC1.6000908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001d01c27ea0$904e1a60$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: [DB] > > But what you do not do is > > hear them open 1C and then ask them: "How high do I have to pre-empt in > > order to prevent you from using relays?" [HdW] > OK David, that is very sound advice, and you are right. But why do you > state this ? > - because it provided UI to your partner ? That is not the primary reason; all questions may convey UI to partner. I would discourage the asking of a question which might imply that you are bidding (say) 3H not because your hand warrants it, but because 3H will disrupt relays while 1H or 2H would not. That question may (as in the case of the "queen of trumps?" question in an earlier thread both convey UI to partner and create a false inference in the mind of an opponent. But questions about the actual auction may give rise to UI problems, just as questions about the hypothetical auction may. > - because you are not allowed to ask this by L20F ? That is the primary reason you may not do it: it is illegal. Now, people have said that it is legal, or that it ought to be legal, or that there is no justification for 20F, or that 20F conflicts with 75A. What I have tried to show is that 20F is not an arbitrary, unreasonable restriction; there is (at least one) practical reason for restricting the kinds of questions that may be asked during the auction, despite the fact that access to information is in theory unrestricted per 75A. If I thought that 20F was an arbitrary, unreasonable restriction, I would argue for a change to it, just as we have all argued for a change to 25B. But Ton will be pleased to learn that I do not consider all the Laws to be terrible. 20F is OK, and there isn't much wrong with 14A either. > - because you are not entitled to this information ? You are entitled to the information, of course - but there is a time at which you should obtain it; if you do not obtain it at that time, you may lose your entitlement to it. > - because it is time-wasting ? That is, I believe, one of the reasons for 20F in its current form: to prevent the asking of questions that would waste significant amounts of time. Ton and others believe that another reason for 20F in its current form is to prevent the asking of questions that would convey significant amounts of UI. In short: you may not ask the question because 20F says that you may not. 20F is, in my view, correct to say that you may not, for practical rather than theoretical reasons. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 28 16:58:01 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:58:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <000201c27e9e$9532c460$8d06aa12@Herot> References: <3DBD5607.4080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021028174212.028dbec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:25 28/10/2002 -0500, Richard Wiley wrote: >A few comments based on Herman's latest crusade. >As usual, I find myself in almost complete opposition to his >interpretion. > >First > > >> I do indeed, and this (I take it) confirms my opinion that, although > >> apparently not explicitly stated in any law, nobody may change their > >> methods depending on opponents (variable) defence against the > >> respective alternatives. > >Herman wrote: > > >Yes, they can. They are allowed to play weak pre-empts against > >negative doublers and strong pre-empts (I do hope we're talking about > >the same thing : 9-11 you call strong and 5-11 is weak ?) against > >penalty doublers. Provided they also state what they will play > >against alternative doublers. > >Changing your preemptive style based on whether the opponents play >penalty double has always been cited as the classic example of the >Chicken and the Egg problem. AG : it has. This doesn't mean the zootechnical interpretation is right. >Here you are asserting that you have the >right to make substantial changes to your methods based on the >opponent's defenses. Hogwash. AG : do you mean it is illegal to warn your partner against overcalling very light because your present opponents are prone to double ? Horresco referens : I might be playing an illegal system for 20 years. My overcalls (especially jump-overcalls) are light vs a strong club with natural responses, lighter against an artificial non-strong club, lightest against an artificial non-strong club with point-showing responses which retain this meaning after an overcall. This is only adaptating your bidding to the opponents' system. Am I allowed to do it ? My 2D openings (playing Multi) are light vs classical bidders, lighter vs weak notrumpers, lightest vs weak notrumpers who didn't devise any defense to Multi. This is only, etc. Am I allowed to do it ? If the answer to one question was positive, and the other negative, it would be strange (or worse). >I think that it is fairly clear that your interpretation is incorrect. >You are not allowed to change your methods based on the opponent's >defenses. AG : would you mind to cite the relevant official text ? >In my ideal world, a pair makes a decision about their methods before >the start of an event. AG : strange. The degree of risk that you accept might very with your present score. This has been accepted as a valuable strategy on somr previous threads. Also it has been said that it is legal to drop a convention that didn't work (albeit not to introduce a new one). TDs might even force you discard some conventional call. > A pair's methods includes an explicit definition >of the the probability density functions that define their choice of >actions with different sets of hands. The derivation of these PDFs will >necessarily include the partnership's expectation regarding the range of >countermeasures that they expect to face. The PDF functions could >include objective or subjective measurements of the "skill" of opposing >pairs. However, once the event starts, the PDFs are "fixed" and pairs >should not be allowed to adjust these during the course of the event. AG : I'm ready to believe you. Just show me the relevant official text. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 28 17:02:40 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:02:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <001d01c27ea0$904e1a60$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> References: <20021028144631.4E4382FD43@server3.fastmail.fm> <00c001c27e91$8e169ec0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> <3DBD5FC1.6000908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021028175909.028d8a30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:39 28/10/2002 +0000, you wrote: >Herman wrote: > >[DB] > > > But what you do not do is > > > hear them open 1C and then ask them: "How high do I have to pre-empt >in > > > order to prevent you from using relays?" > >[HdW] > > OK David, that is very sound advice, and you are right. But why do you > > state this ? > > > - because it provided UI to your partner ? > >That is not the primary reason; all questions may convey UI to partner. >I would discourage the asking of a question which might imply that you >are bidding (say) 3H not because your hand warrants it, but because 3H >will disrupt relays while 1H or 2H would not. That question may (as in >the case of the "queen of trumps?" question in an earlier thread both >convey UI to partner and create a false inference in the mind of an >opponent. But questions about the actual auction may give rise to UI >problems, just as questions about the hypothetical auction may. > > > - because you are not allowed to ask this by L20F ? > >That is the primary reason you may not do it: it is illegal. AG : call me a chaotic sceptic, but I don't care to obey any law whose grounds weren't explained to me. Okay,now comes the exlpanation : What I have tried to show is that 20F is not an arbitrary, unreasonable restriction; >there is (at least one) practical reason for restricting the kinds of >questions that may be asked during the auction, despite the fact that >access to information is in theory unrestricted per 75A. If I thought >that 20F was an arbitrary, unreasonable restriction, I would argue for a >change to it, just as we have all argued for a change to 25B. But Ton >will be pleased to learn that I do not consider all the Laws to be >terrible. 20F is OK, and there isn't much wrong with 14A either. > > > - because it is time-wasting ? > >That is, I believe, one of the reasons for 20F in its current form: to >prevent the asking of questions that would waste significant amounts of >time. Ton and others believe that another reason for 20F in its current >form is to prevent the asking of questions that would convey significant >amounts of UI. AG : this means that L20F as you wish to apply it shouldn't be applied to the first, short question. Only to the umpteenth. From rwilley@sloan.mit.edu Mon Oct 28 17:51:44 2002 From: rwilley@sloan.mit.edu (richard willey) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:51:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021028174212.028dbec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000501c27eaa$ad9a0ed0$ca06ba12@Herot> I said: >>Here you are asserting that you have the >>right to make substantial changes to your methods based on the >>opponent's defenses. Hogwash. >AG : do you mean it is illegal to warn your partner against overcalling >very light because your present opponents are prone to double ? Horresco >referens : I might be playing an illegal system for 20 years. I would assert that this should be illegal. I recognize that I have a somewhat extreme position on this. >My overcalls (especially jump-overcalls) are light vs a strong club with >natural responses, lighter against an artificial non-strong club, lightest >against an artificial non-strong club with point-showing responses which >retain this meaning after an overcall. This is only adaptating your bidding >to the opponents' system. >Am I allowed to do it ? There is nothing wrong changing methods based on whether the 1C opening is strong, artifical, and forcing as compared to nebulous, artifical and forcing. Here you are making a subsequent decision based on a call that has already happened. This is very different than basing your overcall style based on the opponent's defensive countermeasures. You should not be allowed to employ different methods if the opponents employee natural bidding rather than showing controls. >My 2D openings (playing Multi) are light vs classical bidders, lighter vs >weak notrumpers, lightest vs weak notrumpers who didn't devise any defense >to Multi. This is only, etc. Am I allowed to do it ? No. (I am also curious why would would want to alter you preemptive style based on the opponent's NT opening structure. The reasoning is not intuitively obvious) >>I think that it is fairly clear that your interpretation is incorrect. >>You are not allowed to change your methods based on the opponent's >>defenses. >AG : would you mind to cite the relevant official text ? Certainly. These regulations are specific to the ACBL, however, they certainly seem to address the point at hand "1. Both members of a partnership must use the same system. They must use identical methods. (During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission from the Tournament Director. The Director might allow a pair to change a convention but almost never their basic system.) ... 5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense." Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 28 19:59:52 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:59:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <000501c27eaa$ad9a0ed0$ca06ba12@Herot> Message-ID: <007001c27ebc$9c6f81a0$af9968d5@default> David Burn points out that the law entitles you to know all of your opponent's methods; as usual the law-makers intend a different meaning to what their words say; Grattan and Steve Willner say that the intention is that you may not learn about future bids. Richard, Sven and co are obviously right that you may not wait to decide among methods until after opponents reveal their defences to those methods, so Grattan and Co have common sense on their side. IMO the obvious distinction is this: (1) You should not ask about future bids -- were I a law-maker, I would ban any specific question -- not just about future bids. (2) If asked to explain a bid, especially a cipher bid like a relay or asking bid then you should start by saying what kind of hand would make the bid but often the simplest way of elucidating this involves revealing the meaning of likely replies. (Even if you just say a bid is "forcing" you have ruled out one likely reply). For example, if Alain Gotcheiner tells me that his partner's bid is a "relay" and "no further information is available", I would call the TD. I hope the TD would insist that Alain tells me: (a) the meaning of alternative bids that were at his partner's disposal. (b) if there is no other way of elucidating his partner's bid, then, with my acquiescence, the meaning of his possible replies. IMO you should ask opponents if they want to know about replies before telling them -- to prevent possible UI. However consider the problem of a beginner asked to explain Blackwood if he is not allowed to say that it asks for Ace replies. In spite of Steve Willner's fine efforts, I cannot see any simple alternative way of completely explaining such bids. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 28 21:30:44 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:30:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique Message-ID: <4A256C60.0074C254.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Imps, Dealer N, Vul NS You, North, hold: A AT96 KJ87 KJ54 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1C (1) 1D (2) Pass (3) 5C (4) X XX (5) Pass 5H X Pass Pass 5S (6) Pass Pass X Pass ? (1) Strong club (2) Majors or minors (3) At least two controls (A=2, K=1) and an unspecified seven card suit (4) Correctable (5) Majors (6) Suggests a heart lead in preference to a spade lead What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 28 21:57:47 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:57:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: <4A256C60.00773C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: [snip] >>"4H is a signoff, but pard could have signed >>off in 4H on a previous round of the >>auction, so there is an inference that pard >>has extra values and was looking for slam." [snip] Alain Gottcheiner replied: >AG : this inference is a bit restrictive. Many >reasons could have induced partner into >relaying once more. > >This is a hand from a recent Belgian >championship match (regional level) > >Qxxxx >KJx >A10xx >J > >Partner shows a 14-16 NT hand, and you relay. >You find he holds 3 spades but not 3 hearts. >Now the next relay asks for specific location >of honor strength. He shows diamonds as his >main strength. So you obviously sign off in 4S. >Were he to show clubs, you would play in 3NT. >The fact that you relayed once more rather than >bidding a direct 4S could have one of several >reasons : >1) he wanted to decide between 3NT and 4S (in >some sense, your diamond-showing bid is good >news) >2) he was slamming and your diamond-showing bid >is bad news >3) he wanted to decide between spades and a >minor (less probable) >4) he wanted to show to the opponents how >precise your system was (I know of some persons >which whom it would be the most probable) >5) he always relays to the end, because he >doesn't want to give opponents subtle >inferences on the lead, especially if your hand >is to be exposed anyway (clever) > >All of those are possible even playing a somewhat >crude relay system. > >All you can (and must) tell opponents is that >partner had some good reason to make one more >relay, because he could have signed off earlier. >The rest is "only bridge logic". [snip] To clarify, I do not give my answer about a slamming inference if options 1 or 3 are likely. If options 1 or 3 are possible but not likely, I do give the slamming inference explanation. However, if the opponents seem unaware of the technical difference between inference and guaranteed fact, I explain that difference to them. Option 4 is never possible; I save my showing off for the play, when I use Cooper Echoes to delight partner and amuse the opponents. Option 5 is not clever but ridiculous; terminating a relay as soon as possible minimises information given to the opponents. Even if the described hand is dummy, minimum information given about it may assist in receiving a less-than-effective opening lead. Therefore, due to my partnership's agreed style, I have a much better idea when "bridge logic" suggests that pard has made a slam try, than the opponents can reasonably deduce. In my opinion, L75A mandates my explicit revelation of the implicit inference. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 28 21:21:00 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:21:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique References: <4A256C60.0074C254.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <009401c27ec7$eff381e0$af9968d5@default> [Richard Hills] Imps, Dealer N, Vul NS You, North, hold: A AT96 KJ87 KJ54 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1C (1) 1D (2) Pass (3) 5C (4) X XX (5) Pass 5H X Pass Pass 5S (6) Pass Pass X Pass ? (1) Strong club (2) Majors or minors (3) At least two controls (A=2, K=1) and an unspecified seven card suit (4) Correctable (5) Majors (6) Suggests a heart lead in preference to a spade lead What are your logical alternatives? [Nigel Guthrie] Pass is the obvious "logical alternative" especially as Partner's double is for blood (or else I would alert it). But as partner has 2+controls perhaps we can look for a slam. I am afraid I have rely on crude Judo techniques i.e. believe my opponents and use the information they have given against them. (1) LHO seems to be 5+5+ in the major suits. (2) RHO seems to be 5+5+ in the round suits. Hence is the logical bid 6D? No! wait! Cunning old RHO may have 5+diamonds but "prefer a club lead to a diamond lead" so perhaps 6C is the contract. Still, a bid of 6C would be daft and unilateral. But 5N (choose a minor) is a distinct possibility. Hence I mark the logical alternatives as... P=10 5N=4 6D=3 6C=2 6H/S/N=1. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 28 21:31:50 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:31:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure References: <4A256C60.00773C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <009c01c27ec9$71934b80$af9968d5@default> [Richard Hills] Therefore, due to my partnership's agreed style, I have a much better idea when "bridge logic" suggests that pard has made a slam try, than the opponents can reasonably deduce. In my opinion, L75A mandates my explicit revelation of the implicit inference. [Nigel Guthrie] Richard, as usual, you are a paradigm of ethical behaviour but would feel competely out of place in most of the games in which I play, where the main reason for choosing a relay-system is to deprive opponents of information to which they are entitled, using the triumphant cop-out of "relay, too hard to explain". From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 28 21:35:33 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:35:33 -0500 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021028163442.00b898a0@pop.starpower.net> Missent to Ton instead of the list; here forwarded. Apologies to Ton. >At 10:43 AM 10/28/02, Kooijman wrote: > >>Eric: >> >> > ISTM that this will waste a great deal more time than would >> > allowing me >> > to ask such questions during the auction if and when they become >> > relevant to my choosing my call. >> >>tell me how much time you needed in your last 5 rounds played. And >>remember >>that it has to fit with 'waste a great deal more time than...' being your >>statement above. And don't lie. >>Not easy, is it? > >I can't answer. To be truthful, I've never actually done it, and I >cannot say in all honesty that I would be capable of doing it if I >wanted to. I doubt that I have the mental capacity or stamina to >anticipate all the possible aspects of my opponents' bidding methods >that might lead me to want to make my choice of call dependent on the >meaning of the possible follow-up auctions. I can imagine going to >the trouble of making a complete list of possibilities, but I can't >imagine it taking less than a half an hour or so to get completely >through such a list between the time I sit down at a table to play a >couple of boards and the time the first auction starts. > >I confess that I have always felt free to ask such questions at the >point in the auction at which I felt a need for the answer. Until >this thread started, it never occurred to me that this might be >improper. It certainly never occurred to my opponents! And FWIW, it >has never taken up any significant amount of time. > >I will not lie. I will continue to ask such questions until either >(a) someone objects, or (b) I find myself playing against David B. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 28 21:57:54 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:57:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <000501c27eaa$ad9a0ed0$ca06ba12@Herot> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021028174212.028dbec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021028164552.00b86970@pop.starpower.net> At 12:51 PM 10/28/02, rwilley wrote: > >My overcalls (especially jump-overcalls) are light vs a strong club >with > >natural responses, lighter against an artificial non-strong club, >lightest > >against an artificial non-strong club with point-showing responses >which > >retain this meaning after an overcall. This is only adaptating your >bidding > >to the opponents' system. > >Am I allowed to do it ? > >There is nothing wrong changing methods based on whether the 1C opening >is strong, artifical, and forcing as compared to nebulous, artifical and >forcing. Here you are making a subsequent decision based on a call that >has already happened. > >This is very different than basing your overcall style based on the >opponent's defensive countermeasures. >You should not be allowed to employ different methods if the opponents >employee natural bidding rather than showing controls. True, but not responsive. Alain is not suggesting changing his methods. His overcall shows whatever his overcall shows, but, unless he is playing totally irrational methods, it does not follow that his failure to overcall absolutely denies any holding with which his methods would allow him to. He is not varying his methods; he is using his judgment. To say otherwise is to make it illegal to overcall on a given hand and auction at one table while passing the same hand on the same auction at another; I don't see how the law can be read to forbid this. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 28 23:13:15 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:13:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is L14A deficient? Message-ID: <4A256C60.007E24D0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Is Stayman alertable?", David Burn wrote: [snip] >But Ton will be pleased to learn that I >do not consider all the Laws to be >terrible. 20F is OK, and there isn't >much wrong with 14A either. [snip] The word "deficient" in L14A is correct 1950s English for "too few". But in 2010s English, the word "deficient" is colloquially synonymous with "defective", which has a broader meaning - which might include "too many". Many TDs using the Laws are people for whom English is a second language. Therefore, the next edition of the Laws may be more effective if there is a replacement of: nuanced polysyllables with: short and clear words. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 28 22:43:11 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:43:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <00f601c27ed3$67840620$af9968d5@default> [Steve Willner] This is certainly true of the common relay bids known as Stayman and Blackwood. [Nigel Guthrie] You say you can succinctly explain such bids without describing the meaning of likely replies. I still don't see how. You said you would explain Stayman as "forcing" which seems to preclude one likely reply but you may regard that as a quibble. In a previous reply I took up your Blackwood example but you overlooked it so I ask again. Suppose you bid 4N (Blackwood or RKCB) at a point in the auction where you might have cue-bid or made other asking bids e.g. (a) Jump to 5 of suit = asking about unbid suit, (c) 5N = pick a slam How do you reply when an opponent asks what 4N means without ever alluding to what it is asking about? How can you explain the alternative asking bids that you could have made without saying what they are asking about? Even if you can find some short form of words that satisfies you, would a beginner understand your explanation? Even more to the point, could a beginner come up with his own adequate explanation if barred from alluding to the meaning of possible replies? [Sorry Steve, I've done it again - I meant to send this to BLML not you] From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 28 23:40:25 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:40:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fire burn and cauldron bubble Message-ID: <4A256C60.0080A1A7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Is Stayman alertable?", Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >His overcall shows whatever his overcall >shows, but, unless he is playing totally >irrational methods, it does not follow >that his failure to overcall absolutely >denies any holding with which his methods >would allow him to. He is not varying >his methods; he is using his judgment. > >To say otherwise is to make it illegal to >overcall on a given hand and auction at >one table while passing the same hand on >the same auction at another; I don't see >how the law can be read to forbid this. In my regular partnership, I have the old-fashioned unusual agreement that: If my side opens with a 1H or higher bid, doubles of overcalls are *penalty*. Our nega-negative double agreement is, of course, pre-alerted to the opponents. Some opponents "totally irrationally" continue to play their normal agressive overcalling style, and I am totally grateful for the occasional 1400 number I receive. Best wishes Richard From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Oct 28 22:56:19 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:56:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is L14A deficient? In-Reply-To: <4A256C60.007E24D0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C60.007E24D0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:13:15 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The word "deficient" in L14A is correct >1950s English for "too few". > >But in 2010s English, the word "deficient" >is colloquially synonymous with "defective", >which has a broader meaning - which might >include "too many". I've just realized that we (rather surprisingly) overlooked L14 itself when we wrote about the reference to it in the DBF's recommendations for the coming laws: http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L13 Of course, the heading "Missing Card" for L14 helps. >Many TDs using the Laws are people for whom >English is a second language. Therefore, >the next edition of the Laws may be more >effective if there is a replacement of: > >nuanced polysyllables > >with: > >short and clear words. Yes, indeed! =46ortunately, I have a strong impression from particularly Grattan's writings on BLML, that the WBFLC is aware of that. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Oct 28 23:20:22 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:20:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] tres scientifique >Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:30:44 +1000 > > > >Imps, Dealer N, Vul NS > >You, North, hold: > >A >AT96 >KJ87 >KJ54 > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > 1C (1) 1D (2) >Pass (3) 5C (4) X XX (5) >Pass 5H X Pass >Pass 5S (6) Pass Pass >X Pass ? > >(1) Strong club >(2) Majors or minors >(3) At least two controls (A=2, K=1) > and an unspecified seven card suit >(4) Correctable >(5) Majors >(6) Suggests a heart lead in preference > to a spade lead > >What are your logical alternatives? > >Best wishes > >Richard Interesting that such a an oddball agreement came into to play. And now there is action to take at the 6 level. The indicated capacity of the cards suggests that it will take a special hand to produce 12 tricks and because of our brilliant bidding and the opponents' lousy bidding that leaves two reasonable actions: [1] pass [2] redouble However, it might be difficult to get the opponents to leave the redouble in. regards roger pewick _________________________________________________________________ Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 29 00:30:02 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:30:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table Message-ID: <4A256C61.00015721.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Grattan wrote: [snip] >But Law 15 speaks of a "call that differs >in any way" - plain, comprehensive language >that includes a difference of meaning, so >the Law states it and the footnote is not >needed. > >If "in any way" needs definition then so >does every line of the book. [snip] In my opinion, that plain language does not necessarily include a difference of meaning, so, in my opinion, Grattan is begging the question. In my opinion, a call can differ in any way from another call by having a different number or different denomination. In my opinion, the "meaning of a call" is not a "call". What is wrong with avoiding confusion by rewording Law 15 to say "a different call, or the same call with a different meaning"? Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 29 00:20:22 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:20:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table References: <4A256C61.00015721.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00cb01c27eec$f6a31620$2e09e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table > What is wrong with avoiding confusion by > rewording Law 15 to say "a different call, > or the same call with a different meaning"? > +=+ Did I explain that the WBFLC has taken a firm decision not to make law changes until the current Review has its outcome? And it will not even have the opportunity to say so again until it meets once more, sometime, somewhere. Last comment. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 29 00:12:20 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:12:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table References: <4A256C61.00015721.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00ca01c27eec$f59f13a0$2e09e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table > > > In my opinion, that plain language does not > necessarily include a difference of meaning, > so, in my opinion, Grattan is begging the > question. > +=+ So you do not believe a call is different in some way from another call if it has a different meaning? Ah, well ..... why waste my time? +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 29 02:22:16 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:22:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events?] References: Message-ID: <000a01c27ef2$84776dc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" < > David Burn wrote: > > >So it does, but it doesn't say anything about future calls. You > >can ask the opponents what they've done. You can't ask them what > >they're going to do. > > That's what I thought. But DWS had convinced me otherwise, and now Sven > concurs. As I've said before, my primary interest is in knowing *how* to > rule, so can we please get some kind of consensus as to which side is > right? :-) > Why not look in the Laws for your answer? As before (this is an old thread), I can't find anything there that directly supports the Sven/DWS view, although a big stretch might derive it from L40B. But then, big stretches can support almost any view. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 29 02:50:00 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 02:50:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table References: <4A256C61.00015721.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <00ca01c27eec$f59f13a0$2e09e150@endicott> Message-ID: <025601c27ef6$21d29a60$af9968d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ So you do not believe a call is different in some way from another call if it has a different meaning? Ah, well ..... why waste my time? +=+ {Nigel Guthrie] A call is different if made at a different volume, in a different tone of voice, by a different person, at a different time. You have to admit Grattan that Richard's formulation reduces such nit-picking opportunities. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 29 03:58:34 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:58:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wrong Pair at a Table Message-ID: <4A256C61.00146DC0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I seem to have been insufficiently clear in my messages on this topic, and Grattan appears to have misunderstood my reasoning. [This gives ironical emphasis to my point that an apparently clear Law can be misunderstood.] >>In my opinion, that plain language does not >>necessarily include a difference of meaning, >>so, in my opinion, Grattan is begging the >>question. >+=+ So you do not believe a call is different >in some way from another call if it has a >different meaning? Ah, well ..... why waste >my time? +=+ My point is that some people might believe that a call of 2H is not different in any way from a call of 2H. That some people might ascribe two different *meanings* to these calls (eg transfer and natural) does not alter the fact that the *formats* of the two calls are identical. And some people may misinterpret the words of L15 to be referring merely to whether the formats of the two calls differ in any way. >>What is wrong with avoiding confusion by >>rewording Law 15 to say "a different call, >>or the same call with a different meaning"? >+=+ Did I explain that the WBFLC has taken >a firm decision not to make law changes until >the current Review has its outcome? And it >will not even have the opportunity to say so >again until it meets once more, sometime, >somewhere. Last comment. ~ G ~ +=+ I did not suggest *immediate* rewording of L15. However, the current Review may well wish to consider a future change, consistent with its mandate from the WBF to reduce actual or perceived ambiguity in the Laws. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 29 03:23:36 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:23:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <3DBD5607.4080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 10/28/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >far too much bandwith on blml is being used by people not accepting >quite clear argumentation. Clear =82 necessarily correct. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 29 04:04:56 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:04:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <000a01c27ef2$84776dc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/28/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Why not look in the Laws for your answer? Because then some greatly experienced TD will assert that the laws don't really say what they seem to me to say, leaving me to suppose that I have misunderstood. And then some other greatly experienced TD will come along and say "no, you had it right the first time." And then... It gets tiring. :( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 29 03:50:09 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:50:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75 Message-ID: In looking for something else on the ACBL web site, I found this on the page of "General Conditions of Contest": "In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given." Is this in fact what Law 75 requires? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 29 03:54:31 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:54:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <000501c27eaa$ad9a0ed0$ca06ba12@Herot> Message-ID: On 10/28/02, richard willey wrote: >"1. Both members of a partnership must use the same system. They must >use identical methods. (During a session of play, a system may not >be varied, except with permission from the Tournament Director. The >Director might allow a pair to change a convention but almost never >their basic system.) Hm. I wasn't sure I recognized this wording, particularly the second sentence. So I went looking on the ACBL web site. The closest I could find was a discussion of the election under Law 40E1 at http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1831&PID=9598 which says "Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card. 1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament director. (A director might allow a pair to change a convention, but would not allow a pair to change their basic system.) 2. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense." So where does this other wording come from? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 29 05:17:48 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:17:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bali References: <001601c27bbf$f5d2fb50$6401a8c0@hare> <002c01c27d99$f0112940$1736e150@endicott> <005101c27dd5$ff98b860$73e86944@hr.cox.net> Message-ID: <006301c27f0b$0282f5a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Jim Fox" > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ "Today violence is the rhetoric of the period." - > > the judgement of Ortegay. We live in a world where > > individuals, groups, races, see violence as the only > > resource for the purgation of their frustrations. It is > > worldwide - Moscow, Kashmir, Israel and Palestine, > > Zimbabwe, Ireland, Washington, Euzkadi, Burundi, > > Cote d'Ivoire,Uttar Pradesh, Yemen, Shaba, Rwanda, > > Myanmar, > > ...London, Quebec, ... > > > and more - the list is endless and the > > motivation stretches from the bitterness of lowly > > citizens of Samashki to the exasperation and the > > anger of the President of the United States > > ..and the Prime Ministers of the U.K, Canada, and more. > Ah, but not to Chamberlain, that paragon of statesmanlike restraint. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 29 05:40:54 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:40:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 75 References: Message-ID: <006601c27f0d$cf373780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > In looking for something else on the ACBL web site, I found this on the > page of "General Conditions of Contest": > > "In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the > bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made > rather than misinformation given." > > Is this in fact what Law 75 requires? > It seems to agree somewhat with the footnote to L75, which says: "...the Director is to assume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." The words "prove beyond reasonable doubt" are a bit strong, but they do not contradict the footnote. That footnote, while it looks like a mere informal commentary on L75, has the full force of law, as Edgar Kaplan explained to me once. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 29 08:42:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:42:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <000201c27e9e$9532c460$8d06aa12@Herot> Message-ID: <3DBE49E2.5070708@skynet.be> Richard opined something about the chicke and egg problem. He is wrong. richard willey wrote: > A few comments based on Herman's latest crusade. > As usual, I find myself in almost complete opposition to his > interpretion. > Maybe that means something ... > First > > >>>I do indeed, and this (I take it) confirms my opinion that, although >>>apparently not explicitly stated in any law, nobody may change their >>>methods depending on opponents (variable) defence against the >>>respective alternatives. >>> > > Herman wrote: > > >>Yes, they can. They are allowed to play weak pre-empts against >>negative doublers and strong pre-empts (I do hope we're talking about >>the same thing : 9-11 you call strong and 5-11 is weak ?) against >>penalty doublers. Provided they also state what they will play >>against alternative doublers. >> > > Changing your preemptive style based on whether the opponents play > penalty double has always been cited as the classic example of the > Chicken and the Egg problem. Here you are asserting that you have the > right to make substantial changes to your methods based on the > opponent's defenses. Hogwash. > Why hogwash ? What right do you have to dismiss my views in such a short manner ? Have you got any argumentation for your views ? - I have. > >>You are allowed to base your actions upon opponent's defences against >>them. >> > > David wrote: > >>>your methods may be based on their defences [arises only in the case >>> > of > >>>methods] that are pre-disclosed, >>> > >>These statement are contrary, and so at least one of them must be >>wrong. >> > > I think that it is fairly clear that your interpretation is incorrect. > You are not allowed to change your methods based on the opponent's > defenses. > Says who ? It is quite easy to throw around unsubstantiated reiterations of statements made in the past which have never been supported by any amount of fact. I asked a question - "is it allowed?" and received positive responses from the highest people. A simple no from Richard is not really convincing. Please cite the Law or regulation that says this. > Given this, I would even go so far to say that there is no need for you > to be informed of the opponent's countermeasures before making a given > call. Given that you can't change your methods, what good with the > information do you? > That is a correct deduction. I have made the exact same one (but in the reverse of course). if your premise were correct, you would be compeletely right. Please now re-examine your premise. > In my ideal world, a pair makes a decision about their methods before > the start of an event. A pair's methods includes an explicit definition > of the the probability density functions that define their choice of > actions with different sets of hands. The derivation of these PDFs will > necessarily include the partnership's expectation regarding the range of > countermeasures that they expect to face. The PDF functions could > include objective or subjective measurements of the "skill" of opposing > pairs. However, once the event starts, the PDFs are "fixed" and pairs > should not be allowed to adjust these during the course of the event. > As I said, the "chicken and egg" problem is only a problem for those who think they are allowed to change their method according to the opponent's _action_. That is impossible and indeed a chicken and egg problem. But the solution is simple: Complete your methods to say how you deal with alternative doublers. "weak against negative doublers and strong against penalty doublers" is not a full method. You should add a third clause: "strong against alternative doublers". No more chicken and egg. Besides, why should we make rules to facilitate things that are not our problem anyway? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 29 08:50:17 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:50:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <000501c27eaa$ad9a0ed0$ca06ba12@Herot> Message-ID: <3DBE4BC9.3010608@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > ... > > 5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their > opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against > their opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not > vary their system after being informed of these alterations in > defense." > But that is not what we are talking of. Alain does not "change" his methods depending on the defence - he has different methods (or treatments) depending on the opponents' system. And just to make a small point - I am not playing bridge in the ACBL, so your regulation does not apply to me. Or to David B, for that matter. > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 29 08:56:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:56:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <20021028144631.4E4382FD43@server3.fastmail.fm> <00c001c27e91$8e169ec0$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> <3DBD5FC1.6000908@skynet.be> <001d01c27ea0$904e1a60$9b4d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DBE4D3A.7020300@skynet.be> David, I asked you to pick one, not to comment on all of them. But I gather your point of view is that the current law forbids these questions and you agree with that law. Then please stay out of discussions that involve the future law 20F with statements that say nothing more than that L20F forbids them now. That is what you have done in some posts in the past. Now let's get on to more pressing matters. A) does L20F actually say this ? B) should hypothetical questions be (or remain) banned after 2007 ? I shall get back to both. David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > [DB] > >>>But what you do not do is >>>hear them open 1C and then ask them: "How high do I have to pre-empt >>> > in > >>>order to prevent you from using relays?" >>> > > [HdW] > >>OK David, that is very sound advice, and you are right. But why do you >>state this ? >> > >>- because it provided UI to your partner ? >> > > That is not the primary reason; all questions may convey UI to partner. > I would discourage the asking of a question which might imply that you > are bidding (say) 3H not because your hand warrants it, but because 3H > will disrupt relays while 1H or 2H would not. That question may (as in > the case of the "queen of trumps?" question in an earlier thread both > convey UI to partner and create a false inference in the mind of an > opponent. But questions about the actual auction may give rise to UI > problems, just as questions about the hypothetical auction may. > > >>- because you are not allowed to ask this by L20F ? >> > > That is the primary reason you may not do it: it is illegal. Now, people > have said that it is legal, or that it ought to be legal, or that there > is no justification for 20F, or that 20F conflicts with 75A. What I have > tried to show is that 20F is not an arbitrary, unreasonable restriction; > there is (at least one) practical reason for restricting the kinds of > questions that may be asked during the auction, despite the fact that > access to information is in theory unrestricted per 75A. If I thought > that 20F was an arbitrary, unreasonable restriction, I would argue for a > change to it, just as we have all argued for a change to 25B. But Ton > will be pleased to learn that I do not consider all the Laws to be > terrible. 20F is OK, and there isn't much wrong with 14A either. > > >>- because you are not entitled to this information ? >> > > You are entitled to the information, of course - but there is a time at > which you should obtain it; if you do not obtain it at that time, you > may lose your entitlement to it. > > >>- because it is time-wasting ? >> > > That is, I believe, one of the reasons for 20F in its current form: to > prevent the asking of questions that would waste significant amounts of > time. Ton and others believe that another reason for 20F in its current > form is to prevent the asking of questions that would convey significant > amounts of UI. > > In short: you may not ask the question because 20F says that you may > not. 20F is, in my view, correct to say that you may not, for practical > rather than theoretical reasons. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 29 09:30:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 75 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <006601c27f0d$cf373780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> > > "In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of > > the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was > > made rather than misinformation given." > > > > Is this in fact what Law 75 requires? > > > It seems to agree somewhat with the footnote to L75, which says: > > "...the Director is to assume Mistaken Explanation, rather than > Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > The words "prove beyond reasonable doubt" are a bit strong, but they do > not contradict the footnote. I can't read these two positions as being even remotely similar. System notes would be "evidence to the contrary", but how can a member of the OS prove the non-existence of alternative system notes. I admit that I am of the belief that there is always "reasonable doubt" about system notes being accurate and up-to-date. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Oct 29 10:34:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021028163442.00b898a0@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: >I confess that I have always felt free to ask such questions at the >point in the auction at which I felt a need for the answer. Until >this thread started, it never occurred to me that this might be >improper. It certainly never occurred to my opponents! And FWIW, it >has never taken up any significant amount of time. And it sounds so reasonable it can't possibly be supported by law. Tim From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 10:43:51 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:43:51 +0100 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <004d01c27f38$12512880$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Tim West-meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021028163442.00b898a0@pop.starpower.net> > Eric wrote: > > >I confess that I have always felt free to ask such questions at the > >point in the auction at which I felt a need for the answer. Until > >this thread started, it never occurred to me that this might be > >improper. It certainly never occurred to my opponents! And FWIW, it > >has never taken up any significant amount of time. > > And it sounds so reasonable it can't possibly be supported by law. > > Tim There are so many "problems" that disappear once you understand the fundamental intentions of the laws rather than the spelling of the laws! regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 10:56:48 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 02:56:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <291002302.10608@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >David, I asked you to pick one, not to comment on all of them. I am very sorry. I did not realise that I was being set an examination. I thought it might be helpful to provide some comments, since I thought that two of the original four conditions might apply. I will try harder next time. >But I gather your point of view is that the current law forbids these questions and you agree with that law. That is so. >Then please stay out of discussions that involve the future law 20F with statements that say nothing more than that L20F forbids them now. What "future law 20F"? If the question is: should Law 20F be amended to permit hypothetical questions, then my opinion is that it should not, since there are good reasons for not permitting them; it is for those good reasons that the current law 20F exists. >That is what you have done in some posts in the past. Again, I apologise humbly. I was trying only to express the view that the current law 20F is adequate for practical purposes, and should not be amended. Perhaps, though, what I should do is to send my proposed messages to you rather than to the list; then, you can decide whether or not I am entitled to express my views, and whether or not they fit in with your agenda. If I am not, or they do not, the messages can be deleted unread by the others on this list. >Now let's get on to more pressing matters. >A) does L20F actually say this ? I thought this was a discussion about the future law 20F, which does not say anything, for it does not exist. The present law 20F says: During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). This means that questions may be asked about what has occurred so far in the auction, and about what might have occurred in the auction but has not. It does not mean that questions may be asked about what might occur in the auction at some future point; nothing which has not occurred yet can be considered part of "the opponents' auction". It has been argued that "a full explanation" may in some cases entail future developments, but this is simply not so; it is possible fully to explain everything that has occurred so far without reference to anything that might occur in the future. >B) should hypothetical questions be (or remain) banned after 2007 ? Yes. >I shall get back to both. Be still, my beating heart. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 11:05:40 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 03:05:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <291002302.11140@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >There are so many "problems" that disappear once you understand the fundamental intentions of the laws rather than the spelling of the laws! Nonsense. The laws are the words on the page; they are not anything else. The intention of the people who made the laws is very close to irrelevant; the subjective interpretation of that intention by other individuals who claim to be acting in accordance with the "spirit of the game" or some other mythological non-entity is completely irrelevant. Players do not want the laws to be "interpreted", or for rulings to be made in accordance with what one individual thinks that another individual may have meant when he wrote a law. Players want the rules as they are written to be applied; this means that the words on the page are read out and obeyed. What is truly amazing is the number of problems caused by people who do not do this. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 29 11:12:45 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:12:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: <3DBE6D2D.4080603@skynet.be> This is what some people on this list have maintained, and I have often said I don't agree with this, but have never ventured why. L20F : F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). It is the bit between parenthesis that causes trouble: (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made) This bit, combined with the Lille interpretation that anything not specifically allowed is forbidden, is what leads a number of people to believe that hypothetical questions are not allowed. First of all, I do agree that hypothetical questions are a third class of questions, not included in the two classes that are listed in L20F. However, there is an alternative interpretation to the one given. L20F basically states that one is allowed to ask questions. That is the important bit. Furthermore, L20F lists a number of things that are accepted. That does not in itself mean that all other things are not allowed. Thus, hypothetical questions are still questions about the auction, which are allowed by the main part of L20F. And the Lille interpretation does not apply. I realize that this is only one possible interpretation, but I offer the following as additional evidence of the intention of the Lawmakers: I have no access to an English version of the 1987 laws, but I looked at the Dutch version and I notice that L20F was then exactly as it is now, without the bit between brackets. I remember that before 1997, there was a discussion whether questions about calls not made were allowed. There was general consensus that they were, but the WBFLC thought it necessary to include a small part in the laws explicitely stating this. In my opinion, L20F was not changed in 1997. Before 1997, all questions were apparently allowed. In 1997, a change was made in the wording, but not in the meaning of L20F. the bit between brackets is a non-exclusive listing of kinds of questions that are allowed. The Lille interpretation cannot be used to modify a law that first said "all questions are allowed" and then "all questions are allowed, specifically ..." to "all questions are allowed, but only ..." But rather than using L20F to show that hypothetical questions are allowed, I prefer to use L40 and L75. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 11:21:43 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:21:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <291002302.11140@webbox.com> Message-ID: <005701c27f3d$5c792110$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Burn" > > Sven wrote: > > >There are so many "problems" that disappear once you understand > the fundamental intentions of the laws rather than the spelling > of the laws! > > Nonsense. The laws are the words on the page; they are not anything > else. The intention of the people who made the laws is very close > to irrelevant; the subjective interpretation of that intention > by other individuals who claim to be acting in accordance with > the "spirit of the game" or some other mythological non-entity > is completely irrelevant. > > Players do not want the laws to be "interpreted", or for rulings > to be made in accordance with what one individual thinks that > another individual may have meant when he wrote a law. Players > want the rules as they are written to be applied; this means > that the words on the page are read out and obeyed. What is truly > amazing is the number of problems caused by people who do not > do this. So why on earth do we then bother with commentaries on the laws and education of directors? Most people in this business can read. But they need to understand the laws, and that is more than being able to read the text. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 11:43:16 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:43:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bali In-Reply-To: <006301c27f0b$0282f5a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <001601c27bbf$f5d2fb50$6401a8c0@hare> <002c01c27d99$f0112940$1736e150@endicott> <005101c27dd5$ff98b860$73e86944@hr.cox.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029124224.02464140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:17 28/10/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Jim Fox" > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ "Today violence is the rhetoric of the period." - > > > the judgement of Ortegay. We live in a world where > > > individuals, groups, races, see violence as the only > > > resource for the purgation of their frustrations. It is > > > worldwide - Moscow, Kashmir, Israel and Palestine, > > > Zimbabwe, Ireland, Washington, Euzkadi, Burundi, > > > Cote d'Ivoire,Uttar Pradesh, Yemen, Shaba, Rwanda, > > > Myanmar, > > > > ...London, Quebec, ... > > > > > and more - the list is endless and the > > > motivation stretches from the bitterness of lowly > > > citizens of Samashki to the exasperation and the > > > anger of the President of the United States > > > > ..and the Prime Ministers of the U.K, Canada, and more. > > >Ah, but not to Chamberlain, that paragon of statesmanlike restraint. AG : do you remember where it led ? From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 11:38:28 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:38:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBE6D2D.4080603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005d01c27f3f$b36ff000$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ........... > I have no access to an English version of the 1987 laws, but I looked > at the Dutch version and I notice that L20F was then exactly as it is > now, without the bit between brackets. So was the English version. > > I remember that before 1997, there was a discussion whether questions > about calls not made were allowed. There was general consensus that > they were, but the WBFLC thought it necessary to include a small part > in the laws explicitely stating this. > > In my opinion, L20F was not changed in 1997. Before 1997, all > questions were apparently allowed. In 1997, a change was made in the > wording, but not in the meaning of L20F. the bit between brackets is a > non-exclusive listing of kinds of questions that are allowed. > The Lille interpretation cannot be used to modify a law that first > said "all questions are allowed" and then "all questions are allowed, > specifically ..." to "all questions are allowed, but only ..." > > But rather than using L20F to show that hypothetical questions are > allowed, I prefer to use L40 and L75. I remember when we received notifications on the changes in the laws of 1997 it was emphasized that the addition of this clause in Law 20F was to specifically permit follow-up questions like: "But what would the call ***** have meant in this position?" acknowledging that very often the most important information with any call is what kinds of hands are excluded because certain other calls were not used. The purpose was not to generally open up a door for asking about possible future calls, my personal view is that such questions must be allowable (only?) to the extent that they are an essential part of clarifying the call that is explained. IMO the answering rules to many conventional calls fall within this category. regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 11:58:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:58:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <007001c27ebc$9c6f81a0$af9968d5@default> References: <000501c27eaa$ad9a0ed0$ca06ba12@Herot> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029124602.024638a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:59 28/10/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >IMO the obvious distinction is this: >(1) You should not ask about future bids >-- were I a law-maker, I would ban any specific >question -- not just about future bids. >(2) If asked to explain a bid, especially a >cipher bid like a relay or asking bid then you >should start by saying what kind of hand would >make the bid but often the simplest way of >elucidating this involves revealing the meaning of >likely replies. (Even if you just say a bid is >"forcing" you have ruled out one likely reply). > >For example, if Alain Gotcheiner tells me that >his partner's bid is a "relay" and "no further >information is available", I would call the TD. >I hope the TD would insist that Alain tells me: >(a) the meaning of alternative bids that were at > his partner's disposal. AG : what if there are none ? Some players use 2D as an *automatic*=20 response to a GF 2C. Other responses don't exist. Also, in relay systems, the fact that there are alternatives (eg 3S showing= =20 a solid suit) does not mean that the relayer *doesn't* have a solid suit.=20 So, yes, I would be glad to answer this, but it wouldn't help you. You=20 might even act under the (wrong) assumption that partner doesn't hold a=20 solid spade suit. >(b) if there is no other way of elucidating > his partner's bid, then, with my acquiescence, > the meaning of his possible replies. AG : so you will learn that every response shows a specific pattern (in the= =20 case mentioned, 2NT was a relay after a Heart/Club Canap=E9 in the 16-17= zone=20 : 3C =3D 6+ cards ; 3H =3D 65 ; 3D/S =3D 5431, 3NT =3D 5422. If it helps you= =20 understand the 2NT bid, why not ? >IMO you should ask opponents if they want to know >about replies before telling them -- to prevent >possible UI. However consider the problem of >a beginner asked to explain Blackwood if he is >not allowed to say that it asks for Ace replies. AG : indeed; So, the good explanation of the 2NT bid is "relay, asking for= =20 pattern". That's what I said before. What I wanted to emphasize is that the= =20 bid doesn't promise or deny anything (except that it is a GF, but partner's= =20 strong response to the former relay was already). >In spite of Steve Willner's fine efforts, I >cannot see any simple alternative way of >completely explaining such bids. > AG : I cannot see any simple alternative to answering "doesn't tell=20 anything about his hand" when that's the truth. BTW, this is one of the main advantages of relay systems : one hand is=20 totally unknown : a) before the lead, when one player has shown a singleton spade, you cant'= =20 know whether his partner's spade holding is KQx or KQJ1098 for his 3NT bid b) it will persist during the whole deal, if you're clever enough to make=20 the first relay in NT Once and for all, let's use a simple syllogism : a) what opponents are entitled to know is the meaning of the bid b) the bid doesn't tell ; it asks c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to nothing about this bid However, they are entitled to know what the bid asks and, especially behind= =20 screens, the pattern of responses. The main reason why no more people play relay systems is that they ar=20 always suspected of hiding information. I was an optimist : I thought that in blml, at least, this would not happen. Too bad ... Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 12:02:38 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:02:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <3DBE49E2.5070708@skynet.be> References: <000201c27e9e$9532c460$8d06aa12@Herot> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029130112.02462ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:42 29/10/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >As I said, the "chicken and egg" problem is only a problem for those who >think they are allowed to change their method according to the opponent's >_action_. That is impossible and indeed a chicken and egg problem. But the >solution is simple: Complete your methods to say how you deal with >alternative doublers. >"weak against negative doublers and strong against penalty doublers" is >not a full method. You should add a third clause: "strong against >alternative doublers". No more chicken and egg. AG : it is difficult to place anywhere on the CC, but it is indeed our agreement. (well, not "strong", only "less crazy") From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 12:05:49 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:05:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <009c01c27ec9$71934b80$af9968d5@default> References: <4A256C60.00773C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029130313.02464870@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:31 28/10/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Richard Hills] >Therefore, due to my partnership's agreed style, I >have a much better idea when "bridge logic" >suggests that pard has made a slam try, than the >opponents can reasonably deduce. In my opinion, >L75A mandates my explicit revelation of the implicit >inference. >[Nigel Guthrie] >Richard, as usual, you are a paradigm of ethical >behaviour but would feel competely out of place in >most of the games in which I play, where the main >reason for choosing a relay-system is to deprive >opponents of information to which they are >entitled, using the triumphant cop-out of "relay, >too hard to explain". AG : I'm sorry, sir. Your behavior is akin to accusation of cheating against a whole class of people. Please don't try this when playing against me. It could have extreme consequences (perhaps banishment). No other comment needed. This man has lost his sense of politeness. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 12:09:42 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:09:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75 In-Reply-To: <006601c27f0d$cf373780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029130757.02460770@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:40 28/10/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > In looking for something else on the ACBL web site, I found this on the > > page of "General Conditions of Contest": > > > > "In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the > > bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made > > rather than misinformation given." > > > > Is this in fact what Law 75 requires? > > >It seems to agree somewhat with the footnote to L75, which says: > >"...the Director is to assume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, >in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > >The words "prove beyond reasonable doubt" are a bit strong, but they do not >contradict the footnote. > >That footnote, while it looks like a mere informal commentary on L75, has the >full force of law, as Edgar Kaplan explained to me once. AG : so this closes the thread about the 1D pass 1NT 3C bid, doesn't it ? The pair should have some means to prove their assertion that 3C was natural. On way would be to state in the prolegomena to the system : "bids are natural unless explictly specified in these notes". Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Oct 29 12:14:34 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:14:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <291002302.11140@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DBE7BAA.4020201@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Sven wrote: > > >>There are so many "problems" that disappear once you understand >> > the fundamental intentions of the laws rather than the spelling > of the laws! > > Nonsense. The laws are the words on the page; they are not anything > else. The intention of the people who made the laws is very close > to irrelevant; the subjective interpretation of that intention > by other individuals who claim to be acting in accordance with > the "spirit of the game" or some other mythological non-entity > is completely irrelevant. > > Players do not want the laws to be "interpreted", or for rulings > to be made in accordance with what one individual thinks that > another individual may have meant when he wrote a law. Players > want the rules as they are written to be applied; this means > that the words on the page are read out and obeyed. What is truly > amazing is the number of problems caused by people who do not > do this. > Sorry David, but if it were that easy, we would not be here. You read L20F, and so do I. And we arrive at two different conclusions. I believe we owe each other enough respect to realize that this law has more than one interpretation. > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 12:38:13 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 04:38:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <291002302.16694@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >So why on earth do we then bother with commentaries on the laws and education of directors? I don't know. I suppose it keeps us off the streets, and perhaps it gives us the impression that we are doing something worthwhile. >Most people in this business can read. True. If only they could write... >But they need to understand the laws, and that is more than being able to read the text. No, it isn't. The laws are the text, and the text is the laws. All the rest is misplaced subjectivity, and most of it is nonsense. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 12:45:23 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 04:45:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <291002302.17124@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >Sorry David, but if it were that easy, we would not be here. You read L20F, and so do I. >And we arrive at two different conclusions. So it would seem. Perhaps the law isn't written all that clearly (though your "conclusion" in the case of law 20F is, as I will address in a different post, rather more of a delusion). >I believe we owe each other enough respect to realize that this law has more than one interpretation. Even if it did, so what? That just means that nobody would have any idea how to apply it. It does not mean that any purpose would be served by trying to understand the "fundamental intention of the laws", as Sven suggested. The intention behind a set of words is revealed only by the words themselves; to claim that my view of a matter is right while yours is wrong because I, rather than you, understand some "fundamental intention" is no more than arrogant mysticism. We understand the rules insofar as we understand the words, and not a step further. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 13:15:28 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:15:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? In-Reply-To: <005d01c27f3f$b36ff000$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DBE6D2D.4080603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029141119.0245e550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:38 29/10/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" >........... > > I have no access to an English version of the 1987 laws, but I looked > > at the Dutch version and I notice that L20F was then exactly as it is > > now, without the bit between brackets. > >So was the English version. > > > > > I remember that before 1997, there was a discussion whether questions > > about calls not made were allowed. There was general consensus that > > they were, but the WBFLC thought it necessary to include a small part > > in the laws explicitely stating this. > > > > In my opinion, L20F was not changed in 1997. Before 1997, all > > questions were apparently allowed. In 1997, a change was made in the > > wording, but not in the meaning of L20F. the bit between brackets is a > > non-exclusive listing of kinds of questions that are allowed. > > The Lille interpretation cannot be used to modify a law that first > > said "all questions are allowed" and then "all questions are allowed, > > specifically ..." to "all questions are allowed, but only ..." > > > > But rather than using L20F to show that hypothetical questions are > > allowed, I prefer to use L40 and L75. > >I remember when we received notifications on the changes in the laws >of 1997 it was emphasized that the addition of this clause in Law 20F >was to specifically permit follow-up questions like: > >"But what would the call ***** have meant in this position?" > >acknowledging that very often the most important information with any >call is what kinds of hands are excluded because certain other calls >were not used. AG : it allows quite a bit more than questions about alternative calls in the present position. For example, if the bidding goes pass pass pass 1C 2H, it might be interesting to know whether the pair uses some form of weak 2-bid (natural or Multi) ; inferences shed on the 2H bid are relevant. >The purpose was not to generally open up a door for asking about >possible future calls, my personal view is that such questions must >be allowable (only?) to the extent that they are an essential part of >clarifying the call that is explained. AG : so that no type questions is specifically disallowed, but the TD might disallow questions that ask for "non-relevant" information. This limit seems fair. Perhpas it's the time to agree on something ? Best regards, alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 13:07:45 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 05:07:45 -0800 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: <291002302.18466@webbox.com> Herman wrote: L20F : 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). >L20F basically states that one is allowed to ask questions. That is the important bit. No, it does not, and no, it is not. L20F basically states that one is entitled to an explanation of the auction. *That* is the important bit. The parenthesis, like all parentheses, is in brackets because it is not the important bit. It clarifies what questions you may ask; it does not establish some additional right over and above that already expressed. >Furthermore, L20F lists a number of things that are accepted. That does not in itself mean that all other things are not allowed. Yes, it does. If it did not, then words to that effect would appear, as they do elsewhere in the laws. >Thus, hypothetical questions are still questions about the auction, which are allowed by the main part of L20F. Herman, how you can assert that a parenthesis is the "main part" of anything is really beyond me. The main part of law 20F does not, in fact, allow any question at all other than "please may I have a full explanation of your auction?" The parenthesis was added in an attempt to clarify a matter that had previously been obscure: that an explanation of the auction should, if appropriate, include negative inferences. The words, of course, were chosen with the usual lack of attention; what ought to have been written is: "the explanation must include the significance of calls actually made and of relevant calls available but not made." >I realize that this is only one possible interpretation, It is exactly zero possible interpretations. It is not possible. You are entitled to an explanation of what has occurred: "the opponents' auction". This in no way entitles you to an explanation of what might occur in the future, for nothing that might occur in the future could be considered part of "the opponents' auction" except by a time traveller or a lunatic. Nothing in Law 20F can conceivably be construed as granting a right to ask hypothetical questions. >In my opinion, L20F was not changed in 1997. Before 1997, all questions were apparently allowed. They were not. Before 1997, the only question specifically allowed was "please explain the auction." It still would be, but for the ham-fisted addition of the wrong parenthesis to the 1997 law; however, this was done with the best of intentions: to ensure that negative inferences are included in explanations. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that in the course of an explanation of a complex sequence, there might arise the need for further questions on matters of detail. I would surmise that the "request for a full explanation" might be considered to include such supplementary questions. >In 1997, a change was made in the wording, but not in the meaning of L20F. It has taken a while, but Herman has finally made a statement that is factually correct in every particular. >the bit between brackets is a non-exclusive listing of kinds of questions that are allowed. On what basis do you assert that it is non-exclusive, other than that you would like it to be? >The Lille interpretation cannot be used to modify a law that first said "all questions are allowed" There was not, and there has never been, any such law. What you have done is seriously to confuse the right to an explanation (which you have) with the right to ask questions (which you do not have, save as permitted by the rules). >But rather than using L20F to show that hypothetical questions are allowed, I prefer to use L40 and L75. And you prefer to ignore any argument pointing out that while those laws express a theoretical principle, this is not in practice achievable, and that other laws (in this case 20F) determine the practical steps that may be taken to realise the principle, while other steps may not be taken. Oh, as Grattan might say, well... David Burn London, England' From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 29 13:09:26 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:09:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure References: <4A256C60.00773C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029130313.02464870@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007d01c27f4c$69f4fb20$dd9468d5@default> >[Nigel Guthrie] >Richard, as usual, you are a paradigm of ethical >behaviour but would feel completely out of place in >most of the games in which I play, where the main >reason for choosing a relay-system is to deprive >opponents of information to which they are >entitled, using the triumphant cop-out of "relay, >too hard to explain". [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : I'm sorry, sir. Your behavior is akin to accusation of cheating against a whole class of people. Please don't try this when playing against me. It could have extreme consequences (perhaps banishment). No other comment needed. This man has lost his sense of politeness. [Nigel] Occasionally, I may undulge in irony but I try to be polite. Compared with the insolence and impertinance of others, my emails are a model of restraint. For example I never reply "nonsense" or "rubbish" or "you are too stupid to understand" or "you are too ignorant to proffer an opinion" as others so frequently do. I like the idea of relay systems and would never accuse any individual proponent of obfuscation; but I agree with Richard and Steve that some use them as an excuse to avoid full disclosure. [BTW IMO that is far from an accusation of "cheating"] I see no justification for banning me for sharing that opinion. Isn't BLML meant to be a forum for calm discussion of such views, however controversial. I approach BLML with little knowledge and few prejudices so I am an easy target for rational persuasion. Already, BLML arguments have changed my opinions on some issues. Hence you should have no need to use threats against me. From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 13:07:52 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:07:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <291002302.17124@webbox.com> Message-ID: <00bb01c27f4c$30d458e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > > Herman wrote: > > >Sorry David, but if it were that easy, we would not be here. > You read L20F, and so do I. > > >And we arrive at two different conclusions. > > So it would seem. Perhaps the law isn't written all that clearly > (though your "conclusion" in the case of law 20F is, as I will > address in a different post, rather more of a delusion). > > >I believe we owe each other enough respect to realize that this > law has more than one interpretation. > > Even if it did, so what? That just means that nobody would have > any idea how to apply it. It does not mean that any purpose would > be served by trying to understand the "fundamental intention > of the laws", as Sven suggested. The intention behind a set of > words is revealed only by the words themselves; to claim that > my view of a matter is right while yours is wrong because I, > rather than you, understand some "fundamental intention" is no > more than arrogant mysticism. We understand the rules insofar > as we understand the words, and not a step further. Do I understand you correct as claiming that when *you* read and interpret the laws (your way), that you have the correct understanding, and that when somebody else interprets the laws differently that is misplaced subjectivity and nonsense? (Your comments to my last post) Furthermore: Have you never experienced lawyers and judges inspecting the preparations of a law to relly understand it? When we have training of Directors in Norway we frequently go back to notes and commentaries from the WBFLC (mainly) to make sure we not only can read the text, but also that we can understand the purpose and intention of this text. At our last major assembly this Spring we even acknowledged the new (to us) experience that there exist different schools on certain laws (as I suppose will be well known here) and discussed them in order to reach some consensus as to which school we adapt (actually continue to follow) in Norway. I have never appreciated, and hopefully never will appreciate those people who read a law "like the devil reads the Bible". Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 13:11:31 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:11:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <00f601c27ed3$67840620$af9968d5@default> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:43 PM 10/28/02, Nigel wrote: >[Steve Willner] >This is certainly true of the common relay bids >known as Stayman and Blackwood. >[Nigel Guthrie] >You say you can succinctly explain such bids >without describing the meaning of likely replies. >I still don't see how. You said you would explain >Stayman as "forcing" which seems to preclude one >likely reply but you may regard that as a quibble. >In a previous reply I took up your Blackwood >example but you overlooked it so I ask again. >Suppose you bid 4N (Blackwood or RKCB) at a >point in the auction where you might have cue-bid >or made other asking bids e.g. >(a) Jump to 5 of suit = asking about unbid suit, >(c) 5N = pick a slam >How do you reply when an opponent asks what 4N >means without ever alluding to what it is asking >about? How can you explain the alternative asking >bids that you could have made without saying what >they are asking about? Even if you can find some >short form of words that satisfies you, would a >beginner understand your explanation? Even more >to the point, could a beginner come up with his >own adequate explanation if barred from alluding >to the meaning of possible replies? I've been reading this thread with interest, but all the talk of "Stayman and Blackwood" here bothers me. Because in the vast majority of cases they're very different. Agreements should be described in terms of what they show. When asked about 4NT, it is acceptable to reply with "asks for aces", because that implies, and will be assumed to be the equivalent to, "He has any hand with which his subsequent call(s) will depend on the number of aces I hold." For most partnerships, however, when asked about 2C it is not acceptable to reply with "asks for four-card majors", because the same implication is false; partner is asking about four-card majors, but he may not care about them; he may very well be planning a follow-up (e.g. 3C to play in the original version of Stayman, or 2NT (without promising a four-card major) to invite to 3NT in many modern versions) that does not depend on the reply to 2C. IMO, if you make an asking bid but your methods call for making that asking bid with a class of hands that don't care what the reply is, the existence and nature of that class of hands must be disclosed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 13:18:08 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:18:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBE6D2D.4080603@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029141119.0245e550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00c101c27f4d$9fd60d50$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >Sven Pran wrote: > >From: "Herman De Wael" > >........... > >I remember when we received notifications on the changes in the laws > >of 1997 it was emphasized that the addition of this clause in Law 20F > >was to specifically permit follow-up questions like: > > > >"But what would the call ***** have meant in this position?" > > > >acknowledging that very often the most important information with any > >call is what kinds of hands are excluded because certain other calls > >were not used. > > AG : it allows quite a bit more than questions about alternative calls in > the present position. > For example, if the bidding goes pass pass pass 1C 2H, it might be > interesting to know whether the pair uses some form of weak 2-bid (natural > or Multi) ; inferences shed on the 2H bid are relevant. Sure, the 2H overcall by a player who passed in his opening position raises many relevant questions on the possible bids he could have used instead of passing. As a matter of fact I would rule that when asking here it is perfectly OK to almost cross examine about every available alternative to pass in his opening position. (While observing L73B & L74A) > > > >The purpose was not to generally open up a door for asking about > >possible future calls, my personal view is that such questions must > >be allowable (only?) to the extent that they are an essential part of > >clarifying the call that is explained. > > AG : so that no type questions is specifically disallowed, but the TD might > disallow questions that ask for "non-relevant" information. This limit > seems fair. Perhpas it's the time to agree on something ? > > Best regards, > > alain. That is my understanding. regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 13:25:03 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:25:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fire burn and cauldron bubble In-Reply-To: <4A256C60.0080A1A7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029081800.00b91910@pop.starpower.net> At 06:40 PM 10/28/02, richard.hills wrote: >In the thread "Is Stayman alertable?", >Eric Landau wrote: > >[snip] > > >His overcall shows whatever his overcall > >shows, but, unless he is playing totally > >irrational methods, it does not follow > >that his failure to overcall absolutely > >denies any holding with which his methods > >would allow him to. He is not varying > >his methods; he is using his judgment. > > > >To say otherwise is to make it illegal to > >overcall on a given hand and auction at > >one table while passing the same hand on > >the same auction at another; I don't see > >how the law can be read to forbid this. > >In my regular partnership, I have the >old-fashioned unusual agreement that: > >If my side opens with a 1H or higher bid, >doubles of overcalls are *penalty*. > >Our nega-negative double agreement is, of >course, pre-alerted to the opponents. > >Some opponents "totally irrationally" >continue to play their normal agressive >overcalling style, and I am totally >grateful for the occasional 1400 number I >receive. That would seem to be totally irrational, wouldn't it? Do we not all agree that those opponents who persist in going for numbers against Richard's penalty doubles are being foolish? Do we not all agree that they would be better off overcalling less agressively against Richard's methods? And yet, to return to the subject at hand, there appear to be some of us who would argue that for them to do so would be illegal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 13:36:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 05:36:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <291002302.20213@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >Do I understand you correct as claiming that when *you* read and interpret the laws (your way), that you have the correct understanding, and that when somebody else interprets the laws differently that is misplaced subjectivity and nonsense? No. What I said implied that to understand the laws, it is both necessary and sufficient to say: "this word means such-and such; this other word means so-and-so; taken together, the meaning of these words must therefore be...". It is neither necessary, sufficient, nor helpful to say: "The intention of the lawmakers was..." or "the spirit of the game is..." or anything else. All such statements are subjective, and most of them are nonsense. If someone else comes up with a different construction of the laws based on a different reading of the text itself, then it may be that he has the right of the matter while I do not. At least we have a starting point for discussion and a common ground for argument. But if I say: "the text means this because word A means such, word B means such, and so forth", while someone else says: "it can't mean that because this is contrary to equity [or the principle of full disclosure, or some other non-thing], then we have nothing to talk about and no way to make progress. >Furthermore: Have you never experienced lawyers and judges inspecting the preparations of a law to really understand it? Yes. I have concluded that the law must have been rather badly written. >When we have training of Directors in Norway we frequently go back to notes and commentaries from the WBFLC (mainly) to make sure we not only can read the text, but also that we can understand the purpose and intention of this text. I am pleased to hear it. But a piece of text from which one cannot immediately deduce the "purpose and intention" of its author, while perhaps of some value as a work of art such as "Finnegan's Wake", is not really of much use as the rule of a game. >At our last major assembly this Spring we even acknowledged the new (to us) experience that there exist different schools on certain laws (as I suppose will be well known here) and discussed them in order to reach some consensus as to which school we adopt (actually continue to follow) in Norway. Again, I am pleased to hear it; that sounds like a productive exercise. Indeed, it is a necessary exercise while the words of the laws contain so many potential ambiguities. But I very much hope that it is an exercise in textual criticism. >I have never appreciated, and hopefully never will appreciate those people who read a law "like the devil reads the Bible". Well, at least the Devil didn't write the Bible. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 13:35:36 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:35:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fire burn and cauldron bubble References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029081800.00b91910@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00d301c27f50$10bdf170$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" ...... > >Some opponents "totally irrationally" > >continue to play their normal agressive > >overcalling style, and I am totally > >grateful for the occasional 1400 number I > >receive. > > That would seem to be totally irrational, wouldn't it? Do we not all > agree that those opponents who persist in going for numbers against > Richard's penalty doubles are being foolish? Do we not all agree that > they would be better off overcalling less agressively against Richard's > methods? > > And yet, to return to the subject at hand, there appear to be some of > us who would argue that for them to do so would be illegal. Or as it appears to me: The argument is that you cannot deny the defence the right to adapt their agreements according to what they are defending against. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 13:52:13 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:52:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029083237.00bb2dd0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:50 PM 10/28/02, Ed wrote: >In looking for something else on the ACBL web site, I found this on the >page of "General Conditions of Contest": > >"In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the >bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made >rather than misinformation given." > >Is this in fact what Law 75 requires? No. L75fn requires that MI be presumed "in the absense of evidence to the contrary". The converse is neither stated nor implied, leaving us without a prescribed formula for presuming a misbid. Since the laws are silent on the latter, L80F comes into play. IOW, the ACBL's rule is a legally valid interpretation of L75, but not a required one; some other SO's different interpretation could be equally valid. My personal opinion is that the ACBL's rule goes much too far; I'd much prefer "...to show by a preponderance of evidence..." But I believe it is legal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 29 14:01:35 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:01:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> [Eric Landau] Agreements should be described in terms of what they show. When asked about 4NT, it is acceptable to reply with "asks for aces", because that implies, and will be assumed to be the equivalent to, "He has any hand with which his subsequent call(s) will depend on the number of aces I hold." [Nigel Guthrie] Great! that is my previously stated opinion. But -- does Steve Willner agree? [Eric Landau] For most partnerships, however, when asked about 2C it is not acceptable to reply with "asks for four-card majors", because the same implication is false; partner is asking about four-card majors, but he may not care about them; he may very well be planning a follow-up (e.g. 3C to play in the original version of Stayman, or 2NT (without promising a four-card major) to invite to 3NT in many modern versions) that does not depend on the reply to 2C. [Nigel Guthrie] It is hard to be sure that you describe all the kinds of hand that might make a bid. Surely it is OK for a legal-tyro like myself to say something like "His bid asks for four card majors but he himself does not need to hold a four card major. It may be be a preamble to a sign off in 3C. Or it may be his first move on a variety of strong flat or semi-two suited hands." If you were a beginner would you prefer to hear my explanation or yours? [Eric Landau] IMO, if you make an asking bid but your methods call for making that asking bid with a class of hands that don't care what the reply is, the existence and nature of that class of hands must be disclosed. [Nigel Guthrie] Good. That is common sense to me. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 14:22:55 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:22:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <291002302.10608@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029090726.00bb2a00@pop.starpower.net> David may very well be right about the intent of L20F, but he is wrong to argue that the current wording does not lend itself to alternate interpretation. At 05:56 AM 10/29/02, David wrote: >I thought this was a discussion about the future law 20F, which >does not say anything, for it does not exist. The present law >20F says: > >During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at >his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' >auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or >about relevant calls available but not made); replies should >normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call >in question (see Law 75C). The key phrase here is "available but not made". There is no verb in that phrase... >This means that questions may be asked about what has occurred >so far in the auction, and about what might have occurred in >the auction but has not. ...hence no reason to assume that the elided verb is in the past tense. One could easily assume that partner's replies to the call in question *are* (as opposed to "were") "available but not made". >It does not mean that questions may >be asked about what might occur in the auction at some future >point; nothing which has not occurred yet can be considered part >of "the opponents' auction". Nor can calls which were "available but not made" in prior rounds. Those calls cannot "be considered part of 'the opponents' auction'" either, yet the law makes it clear that they *are* considered part of the full explanation of the opponents' auction. >It has been argued that "a full explanation" may in some cases >entail future developments, but this is simply not so; That isn't argument, that's just asserting the conclusion. >it is >possible fully to explain everything that has occurred so far >without reference to anything that might occur in the future. Isn't that the question on the table? If the lawmakers wish to make it clear that David's interpretation is the correct one, they need only add two words in 2007: "...(questions may be asked... about relevant calls that were available but not made)..." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 14:41:56 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:41:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <291002302.11140@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029093113.00a95e30@pop.starpower.net> At 06:05 AM 10/29/02, David wrote: >Sven wrote: > > >There are so many "problems" that disappear once you understand >the fundamental intentions of the laws rather than the spelling >of the laws! > >Nonsense. The laws are the words on the page; they are not anything >else. The intention of the people who made the laws is very close >to irrelevant; the subjective interpretation of that intention >by other individuals who claim to be acting in accordance with >the "spirit of the game" or some other mythological non-entity >is completely irrelevant. > >Players do not want the laws to be "interpreted", or for rulings >to be made in accordance with what one individual thinks that >another individual may have meant when he wrote a law. Players >want the rules as they are written to be applied; this means >that the words on the page are read out and obeyed. What is truly >amazing is the number of problems caused by people who do not >do this. I suspect that most players, given the choice, would prefer that the rules be applied sensibly rather than be applied exactly as written, expecially when there is some consensual understanding of the implications of the former but the implications of the latter must be ferreted out by a detailed examination of every word, comma and quote mark. Double-especially when that detailed examination winds up giving rise to disagreement among knowledgeable folks about the implications of so many of those individual words, commas and quote marks. You don't have to be a member of BLML to understand that not every word and punctuation mark in the laws as written was the exact perfect choice that leaves no room for alternative interpretation or understanding. Ultimately, Sven has it right. Our interpretation of our perforce imperfect and ambiguous laws must be subservient to our idea of how we want and expect the game to be played rather than the other way around. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 15:01:28 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:01:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <007d01c27f4c$69f4fb20$dd9468d5@default> References: <4A256C60.00773C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029130313.02464870@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029154642.0245fc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:09 29/10/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > the main reason for choosing a relay-system is to deprive > >opponents of information to which they are > >entitled, using the triumphant cop-out of "relay, > >too hard to explain". AG : to which I answered (cutting it short) that relay players have every reason to consider this as an insult, and that it shouldn't have been posted here. (Excerpts from Nigel's last post) a) I never reply "nonsense" or "rubbish" or "you are too stupid to understand" or "you are too ignorant to proffer an opinion" >b) you should have no need to use >threats against me. I'll let everybody judge. IMOBO, such an accusation is more offending than telling somebody his opinion is nonsense. Because the former pretends not to be subjective. Perhaps I'm too sensitive. Perhaps it is because I think that withholding information is an extreme offense, and thus the accusation of voluntary withholding is a very harsh one. But the main reason for my brutal reaction (and it was intended as such) is that I think this forum should be the place where we discuss how to avoid libelling "lawyers" spoiling the game, not the place where to spread their sick assertions. Yes, these times, blml has hosted too much firings which I'd rather never have read ; that's no reason for compounding the problem with gratuitious and offensive assertions. Please don't add insult to injury. Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 15:16:16 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:16:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029090726.00bb2a00@pop.starpower.net> References: <291002302.10608@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029160450.024574d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:22 29/10/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at >>his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' >>auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or >>about relevant calls available but not made); replies should >>normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call >>in question (see Law 75C). > >The key phrase here is "available but not made". There is no verb in that= =20 >phrase... > >>This means that questions may be asked about what has occurred >>so far in the auction, and about what might have occurred in >>the auction but has not. > >...hence no reason to assume that the elided verb is in the past=20 >tense. One could easily assume that partner's replies to the call in=20 >question *are* (as opposed to "were") "available but not made". AG : while I support your point of view as to the slight ambigu=EFty in= L20F,=20 IBTD on the point of the meaning of the word "made". This tense is called "past passive participle". This means that, if used=20 alone (as opposed to with an auxiliary) the act referred to occurs in the=20 past, and the subject was the receptor, not the actor, of the action.=20 Participle X is only a short form for "which has/have been X" or "which=20 was/were X". Thus, the little bit about calls made specifies bids "which have been made"= =20 or "which were made". >If the lawmakers wish to make it clear that David's interpretation is the= =20 >correct one, they need only add two words in 2007: "...(questions may be=20 >asked... about relevant calls that were available but not made)..." AG : it would be fine. However, the present formulation says the same. Best regards, Alain. From rwilley@sloan.mit.edu Tue Oct 29 15:27:36 2002 From: rwilley@sloan.mit.edu (richard willey) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:27:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c27f5f$b5d94150$ca06ba12@Herot> Hi Ed I got the text in question from an archived discussion of this same topic that came up a couple years ago. Its possible that the ACBL has adjusted their regulations since then. Sorry if I introduced any confusion. However, I would still interprete the ACBL's current clause 2 as prohibiting adjusting methods based on the opponents countermeasures. I recognize that this regulation only effects North America. I'm not sure whether there are equivalent regulations in other parts of the world. "2. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense." So where does this other wording come from? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 15:45:55 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:45:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> At 09:01 AM 10/29/02, Nigel wrote: >[Eric Landau] > For most partnerships, however, when asked > about 2C it is not acceptable to reply with > "asks for four-card majors", because the same > implication is false; partner is asking about > four-card majors, but he may not care about > them; he may very well be planning a follow-up > (e.g. 3C to play in the original version of > Stayman, or 2NT (without promising a four-card > major) to invite to 3NT in many modern versions) > that does not depend on the reply to 2C. >[Nigel Guthrie] > It is hard to be sure that you describe all > the kinds of hand that might make a bid. > Surely it is OK for a legal-tyro like myself to > say something like "His bid asks for four > card majors but he himself does not need to > hold a four card major. It may be be a preamble > to a sign off in 3C. Or it may be his first > move on a variety of strong flat or semi-two > suited hands." If you were a beginner would > you prefer to hear my explanation or yours? I haven't offered "my explanation", but it would probably be very similar to Nigel's. I would omit the details of my agreements about the strong possibilities, though, not because the opponents' aren't entitled to know all about them, but because (a) they probably don't care, and (b) if they do care, they can ask. But then, if they care, they will have to ask about follow-ups that have not yet occurred, as I have not yet made any call that would, if I were to make it, show one of those hands. If David B. succeeds in convincing me that they are not allowed to ask such follow-up questions, I will perforce feel compelled to spell out the answers to them in response to the original question in order to provide them with information to which they are entitled via the only medium by which I am allowed to do so. This seems perverse, as David rationalizes his interpretation on the grounds that it prevents wasting time, while it seems clear to me that it will force me into giving full disclosure in a manner that will, in the long run, consume more time, not less. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 15:54:51 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:54:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029160450.024574d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029090726.00bb2a00@pop.starpower.net> <291002302.10608@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029104928.00b8ab60@pop.starpower.net> At 10:16 AM 10/29/02, Alain wrote: >AG : while I support your point of view as to the slight ambigu=EFty in=20 >L20F, IBTD on the point of the meaning of the word "made". >This tense is called "past passive participle". This means that, if=20 >used alone (as opposed to with an auxiliary) the act referred to=20 >occurs in the past, and the subject was the receptor, not the actor,=20 >of the action. Participle X is only a short form for "which has/have=20 >been X" or "which was/were X". >Thus, the little bit about calls made specifies bids "which have been=20 >made" or "which were made". It is now 11:00 AM, and I have not made my lunch. Fortunately for me, this does not necessarily mean that I shall go=20 hungry until suppertime. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 29 16:50:53 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:50:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> References: <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029172801.0246b9b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:45 29/10/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >I haven't offered "my explanation", but it would probably be very similar >to Nigel's. I would omit the details of my agreements about the strong >possibilities, though, not because the opponents' aren't entitled to know >all about them, but because (a) they probably don't care, and (b) if they >do care, they can ask. But then, if they care, they will have to ask >about follow-ups that have not yet occurred, as I have not yet made any >call that would, if I were to make it, show one of those hands. AG : yes, the key of explanation is to answer by advance to questions that opponents might think of, that is, to what they do care. Example #1 : opening 2C : shows either a weak major 2-suiter (54+, ca 6-11 HCP) or a variety of strong hands. I explain it as such, because that's what I think they need. If they want to get the list of strong hands, they might ask (which will not transmit much UI). At least, the formulation makes it obvious that there is a whole row of possibilities (eg : 22-23 NT, Acol 2-bid but not in hearts, 4-loser hand with 5+ spades, 4-loser hand with 5+H/4S, game forcing 55+ without hearts). Example #2 : 1NT - 2C : is used with all game-try hands, except those with 5 hearts, or 5s/4+h, all game-going hands that want to learn about majors and/or do further relays, all slammish hands without a 6-card suit or 55 pattern. Not osed as an escape with a weak hand and eg 44 majors. My explanation at the table : positive relay, game try or better, says nothing about majors. I believe that what interesses them is : a) may my partner have a weak hand ? b) does it guarantee presence of a major (especially when the rebid is made in NT) ? If I'm wrong in assuming that detail X is not essential, It'll fetch me the TD, and I know it. Systematically giving the list of possibilities would not only lose time with little reason (my previous argument) but also confuse them by hiding the forest with a row of trees. It will be counter-helpful. Until now, nobody has said or even implied that these two explanations were inadequate. BTW, Stayman shows that, to the contrary of what has been written, one more relay doesn't show a slammish hand. 1NT-2C-2H-2S(R)-3C(4)-3NT isn't stronger than 1NT-2C-2H-3NT, it merely shows that the 3C bid made 3NT a better contract than others (perhaps I was searching for a fifth heart, or for a 4-card spade suit, or perhaps my clubs are weak). Why shiould it be different with other relays ? Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 17:03:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 09:03:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <291002302.32634@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >Ultimately, Sven has it right. Our interpretation of our perforce imperfect and ambiguous laws must be subservient to our idea of how we want and expect the game to be played rather than the other way around. But who are "we"? Are we the people who think that the revoke penalty should be two tricks, or the people who think that there should not be a revoke penalty if the revoke doesn't matter? Are we the people who think that it's OK to lose a round robin match if you thereby enhance your prospects in the tournament, or the people who don't? Are we the people who think that there is such a thing as Convention Disruption, or the Law of Coincidence, or are we some other people altogether? It is precisely because there is no "we" who want the game to be played in a particular way that Sven is wrong. For every group who believes that the right way to play is X, there is another group who believes that the right way to play is not-X. If it were possible to obtain a consensus on what constitutes equity, then I would have no difficulty with the presumption that the game could be ruled according to a set of fundamental principles. But there is no such consensus, and there are no such principles. The words are all we've got. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 17:17:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 29 Oct 2002 09:17:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: <291002302.33476@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >David may very well be right about the intent of L20F, but he is wrong to argue that the current wording does not lend itself to alternate interpretation. >The key phrase here is "available but not made". There is no verb in that phrase... True. Here at last is some textual analysis. And about time too. >....hence no reason to assume that the elided verb is in the past tense. One could easily assume that partner's replies to the call in question *are* (as opposed to "were") "available but not made". Interesting. I suppose that the phrase might refer to calls that are available but have not yet been made. Of course, there are no such calls at the moment at which the question is asked. You see, if I'm asking questions, there are no calls available to you, for it is not your turn to call (and nobody can know which calls may be available to you, for you do not yet know what call I will make). I am not sure that even if one were to allow for the elided verb's being in the present and not the past, there would be any way to allow for its being in the future ("calls [that will be] available but [have] not [yet been] made"). One could argue that if it meant this, the obviously tautologous words "but not made" would be omitted. But I don't say that such an interpretation is completely impossible; only that I would not personally concur with it. >nothing which has not occurred yet can be considered part of "the opponents' auction". >Nor can calls which were "available but not made" in prior rounds. I don't think this is right. If the opponents bid 1C-1S, then 1C and 1S are part of the opponents' auction. But there is a sense in which responder's "not 1H" and "not 1D" are also part of the auction, and may be enquired about. There is no sense, however, in which opener's rebid is part of the auction. >>It has been argued that "a full explanation" may in some cases entail future developments, but this is simply not so; >That isn't argument, that's just asserting the conclusion. Yes, I know. That's why I put a semi-colon there and went on to explain why it wasn't so. >If the lawmakers wish to make it clear that David's interpretation is the correct one, they need only add two words in 2007: "...(questions may be asked... about relevant calls that were available but not made)..." That would certanly help. David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 29 19:15:25 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:15:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: <200210291915.OAA16441@cfa183.harvard.edu> Some comments in this thread are a good example of something we already know in theory: email exchanges omit the "body language" of personal communication. We should all try to avoid drawing inferences that were never intended by the writer. Having just read the thread all at once, it seems to me that some slightly incautious language was read as being much more inflammatory than it truly was. In general, if we see a message that appears on first glance to be rude, it's probably best to reread a few times and ask ourselves if it really was meant to be that way. In my experience, careless language is at least 10 times more likely than deliberate rudeness. On BLML in particular, that 10 is much larger, maybe 100. One further small point: > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > I like the idea of relay systems and would never > accuse any individual proponent of obfuscation; > but I agree with Richard and Steve that some use > them as an excuse to avoid full disclosure. If "Steve" means me, I haven't said that, although it may well be true. ("Some" do almost anything we can imagine!) I have too little experience of opponents who use relay systems to have an opinion. What I have said is that relay users are obliged to explain what the relay shows, not just (or at all) what it asks for. As Richard H. has pointed out, in some methods and for some partnerships, this will be very little. But that is nothing new. Completing a transfer, especially if super-accepts are forbidden, conveys very little information. When that's the case, so be it. But when information is conveyed by the relay, the opponents are entitled to know what it is. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 29 20:02:35 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:02:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBE6D2D.4080603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c27f86$22577f60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > L20F : > > F. Explanation of Calls > > 1. During the Auction > During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his > own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' > auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about > relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be > given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law > 75C). > > It is the bit between parenthesis that causes trouble: > (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant > calls available but not made) > > This bit, combined with the Lille interpretation that anything not > specifically allowed is forbidden, is what leads a number of people to > believe that hypothetical questions are not allowed. Hypothetical questions about calls available but not made are certainly permitted. "His two-spade bid showed a six-card suit, you say? What bids did he have available with only five spades?" That's a hypothetical question. > > First of all, I do agree that hypothetical questions are a third class > of questions, not included in the two classes that are listed in L20F. > > However, there is an alternative interpretation to the one given. > > L20F basically states that one is allowed to ask questions. Questions about the auction that has actually occurred, or could have occurred up to the time of questioning, obviously. >That is > the important bit. > Furthermore, L20F lists a number of things that are accepted. That > does not in itself mean that all other things are not allowed. What is not allowed is not permitted. > > Thus, hypothetical questions are still questions about the auction, > which are allowed by the main part of L20F. And the Lille > interpretation does not apply. Non sequitur. > > I realize that this is only one possible interpretation, but I offer > the following as additional evidence of the intention of the Lawmakers: > > I have no access to an English version of the 1987 laws, but I looked > at the Dutch version and I notice that L20F was then exactly as it is > now, without the bit between brackets. > > I remember that before 1997, there was a discussion whether questions > about calls not made were allowed. There was general consensus that > they were, but the WBFLC thought it necessary to include a small part > in the laws explicitely stating this. > > In my opinion, L20F was not changed in 1997. Before 1997, all > questions were apparently allowed. No, before 1987, not 1997, all questions about calls made (actually made, that is) were allowed. Prior to 1987, we could question individual calls. The ensuing UI problem became so great that the lawmakers removed that right in 1987, changing "explanation of any call" to "explanation of auction." However, we were told over here that one could not ask about calls that were available but not made. The parenthetical addition in 1997 was aimed at fixing that, not at any material change to the main thrust of L20F1. > In 1997, a change was made in the > wording, but not in the meaning of L20F. Correct. You still ask for an explanation of the auction, as in 1987. > the bit between brackets is a > non-exclusive listing of kinds of questions that are allowed. The bit between brackets is subordinate to the main sentence, as indicated by the parentheses. That is, within the context of an explanation of the auction, if a player feels he needs more information than what has been provided about a call, or wants to know about calls available but not made, further questioning is permitted. ,,,"calls actually made or available but not made" is certainly exclusive. It excludes calls that might be made in the future. > The Lille interpretation cannot be used to modify a law that first > said "all questions are allowed" and then "all questions are allowed, > specifically ..." to "all questions are allowed, but only ..." > I cannot find any version of L20F, past or present, that says "all questions are allowed." Why the quotes? The Lille interpretation did not modify the law, it merely clarified that the common practice of questioning an individual call within a set of multiple calls (i.e., the auction) constitutes a violation of L20F1. It neither addressed nor contradicted the parenthetical part of L20F1. > But rather than using L20F to show that hypothetical questions are > allowed, I prefer to use L40 and L75. > L20F is the law that deals with the proper procedure for questioning the opposing auction. No need to look elsewhere in the hopes that the lawmakers forgot to include something in L20F. Everyone should note the distinctions made in L20F1 and F2. F2, like F1, permits a defender to ask for an explantion of the auction. Declarer, however, may question individual calls. Does the parenthetical portion of L20F1 apply to L20F2? Evidently not, although it would seem that declarer should be able to ask about calls available but not made. An "explanation of the auction," by the way, applies only to calls that might need explaining. A defender cannot obtain an illegal review of the auction by asking for an explanation of the auction. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 29 20:24:55 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:24:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bali References: <001601c27bbf$f5d2fb50$6401a8c0@hare> <002c01c27d99$f0112940$1736e150@endicott> <005101c27dd5$ff98b860$73e86944@hr.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029124224.02464140@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c27f89$40a99d60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >From: "Jim Fox" > > > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > +=+ "Today violence is the rhetoric of the period." - > > > > the judgement of Ortegay. We live in a world where > > > > individuals, groups, races, see violence as the only > > > > resource for the purgation of their frustrations. It is > > > > worldwide - Moscow, Kashmir, Israel and Palestine, > > > > Zimbabwe, Ireland, Washington, Euzkadi, Burundi, > > > > Cote d'Ivoire,Uttar Pradesh, Yemen, Shaba, Rwanda, > > > > Myanmar, > > > > > > ...London, Quebec, ... > > > > > > > and more - the list is endless and the > > > > motivation stretches from the bitterness of lowly > > > > citizens of Samashki to the exasperation and the > > > > anger of the President of the United States > > > > > > ..and the Prime Ministers of the U.K, Canada, and more. > > > > >Ah, but not to Chamberlain, that paragon of statesmanlike restraint. > > AG : do you remember where it led ? > Mon cher Alain, that was my point. This veteran of World War II cannot forget that if Hitler's rearming of Germany had been stopped, as President Bush wants to stop the rearming of Iraq (both violations of peace agreements after a war), many millions of deaths would have been prevented. But no, the peaceniks would not allow it, just as they now are parading with "NO VIOLENCE" placards. Didn't someone say that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it? No more from me on this subject, as it is not a suitable one for BLML. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 21:54:23 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:54:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029172801.0246b9b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> At 11:50 AM 10/29/02, Alain wrote: >At 10:45 29/10/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>I haven't offered "my explanation", but it would probably be very >>similar to Nigel's. I would omit the details of my agreements about >>the strong possibilities, though, not because the opponents' aren't >>entitled to know all about them, but because (a) they probably don't >>care, and (b) if they do care, they can ask. But then, if they care, >>they will have to ask about follow-ups that have not yet occurred, as >>I have not yet made any call that would, if I were to make it, show >>one of those hands. > >AG : yes, the key of explanation is to answer by advance to questions >that opponents might think of, that is, to what they do care. That is the key to the initial explanation, provided you believe that that's what you are offering. As the "key" to a sole and entire explanation, it is inadequate. The question we must ask is, if you supply all of the information you believe the opponents care about, but you are wrong, and have omitted something they do in fact care about, what happens next? >Example #1 : opening 2C : shows either a weak major 2-suiter (54+, ca >6-11 HCP) or a variety of strong hands. >I explain it as such, because that's what I think they need. If they >want to get the list of strong hands, they might ask (which will not >transmit much UI). At least, the formulation makes it obvious that >there is a whole row of possibilities (eg : 22-23 NT, Acol 2-bid but >not in hearts, 4-loser hand with 5+ spades, 4-loser hand with 5+H/4S, >game forcing 55+ without hearts). > >Example #2 : 1NT - 2C : is used with all game-try hands, except those >with 5 hearts, or 5s/4+h, all game-going hands that want to learn >about majors and/or do further relays, all slammish hands without a >6-card suit or 55 pattern. Not osed as an escape with a weak hand and >eg 44 majors. >My explanation at the table : positive relay, game try or better, says >nothing about majors. >I believe that what interesses them is : >a) may my partner have a weak hand ? >b) does it guarantee presence of a major (especially when the rebid is >made in NT) ? > >If I'm wrong in assuming that detail X is not essential, It'll fetch >me the TD, and I know it. That's the best that can happen if we accept David B.'s position -- sometimes it will fetch you silent opponents for the moment, a good score, questions about your original explanation after the hand is over, a TD call at that time, a claim by the opponents that they were misinformed by your omission, an adverse ruling, a tentative bad score, an appeal, several hours in the waiting and committee rooms, and very little sleep that night. Whereas in my world (or Herman's) all it will fetch you is a follow-up question, albeit quite likely one that David would consider illegal. But we are told that our lawmakers consider this impractical because it would waste time! >Systematically giving the list of possibilities would not only lose >time with little reason (my previous argument) but also confuse them >by hiding the forest with a row of trees. It will be counter-helpful. Which is why you should be able to fulfill your obligations without depriving the opponents of disclosure they are entitled to by just letting them know that the list of possibilities exists, and letting them ask about it on the (presumably rare) occasions that they care about them. But you can't do that if they're not permitted to ask. >Until now, nobody has said or even implied that these two explanations >were inadequate. That is undoubtedly because Alain, like me, has never offered such an explanation to David B. or to anyone else who believes that they are not permitted to follow it up by asking about whatever else they might want to know. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 29 23:28:54 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:28:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: <4A256C61.007F9488.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >>We should all try to avoid drawing inferences that were >>never intended by the writer. [snip] >>In my experience, careless language is at least 10 >>times more likely than deliberate rudeness. On BLML in >>particular, that 10 is much larger, maybe 100. [snip] >>I have too little experience of opponents who use relay >>systems to have an opinion. >> >>What I have said is that relay users are obliged to >>explain what the relay shows, not just (or at all) what >>it asks for. As Richard H. has pointed out, in some >>methods and for some partnerships, this will be very >>little. But that is nothing new. Completing a >>transfer, especially if super-accepts are forbidden, >>conveys very little information. When that's the case, >>so be it. But when information is conveyed by the >>relay, the opponents are entitled to know what it is. In the thread, "Is Stayman alertable?", Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [snip] >Once and for all, let's use a simple syllogism : > >a) what opponents are entitled to know is the meaning of > the bid >b) the bid doesn't tell ; it asks >c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to > nothing about this bid In the spirit of Steve Willner's posting, I hope that Alain does not take any offence when I argue that his syllogism is flawed. My syllogism would be: a) what opponents are entitled to know are explicit and implicit partnership agreements about a relay bid b) the relay bid asks, but there is a partnership agreement about when the relay bid would *not* be used c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to the agreed negative inferences about this bid [snip] >The main reason why no more people play relay systems >is that they are always suspected of hiding information. >I was an optimist : I thought that in blml, at least, >this would not happen. > >Too bad ... Totally disagree. None of my opponents have ever suspected that I hide information. I have, however, had opponents souvenir my relay auction written-bidding slips to show off to their friends. :-) Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 29 22:36:44 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:36:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <291002302.32634@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029171425.00aeec10@pop.starpower.net> At 12:03 PM 10/29/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >Ultimately, Sven has it right. Our interpretation of our perforce >imperfect and ambiguous laws must be subservient to our idea >of how we want and expect the game to be played rather than the >other way around. > >But who are "we"? Are we the people who think that the revoke >penalty should be two tricks, or the people who think that there >should not be a revoke penalty if the revoke doesn't matter? >Are we the people who think that it's OK to lose a round robin >match if you thereby enhance your prospects in the tournament, >or the people who don't? Are we the people who think that there >is such a thing as Convention Disruption, or the Law of Coincidence, >or are we some other people altogether? > >It is precisely because there is no "we" who want the game to >be played in a particular way that Sven is wrong. For every group >who believes that the right way to play is X, there is another >group who believes that the right way to play is not-X. > >If it were possible to obtain a consensus on what constitutes >equity, then I would have no difficulty with the presumption >that the game could be ruled according to a set of fundamental >principles. But there is no such consensus, and there are no >such principles. The words are all we've got. But that's patently false; we have so much more: - We have the interpretation of the words given by their original author(s). - We have the interpretation of the words given by the WBFLC. - We have the interpretation of the words given by NCBO LCs charged with making regulations that are "not in conflict with" them. - We have the interpretation of the words derived from a consensus of BLML contributors. - We have the interpretations of the words given us by individual TDs, ACs, and CoC authors. And there are many others. So we consensually agree whose interpretations shall be considered definitive (presumably the WBFLC's, unless one happens to be an ACBL official), and they become the "official 'we'" in answer to David's, "But who are 'we'?" All I'm suggesting is that when "we" (a) make a general statement as to how we want or expect the game to be played, (b) write a law or regulation pertinent to an area of concern covered by that general statement, and (c) find ourselves having to choose between alternative interpretations of the words we have written, it makes a lot more sense to choose the interpretation that is most consistent with our general principles rather than the interpretation that would be selected by a panel of men from Mars, who, unaware that (a) exists, are forced to base their choice solely on their examination of (b). All the more so when, as in the subject of the current debate, the words of (b) (L20F1) include a cross-reference to (a) (L75C). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 22:41:42 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:41:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004401c27f9c$5a7359d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sorry, my comments accidently went to Eric instead of to blml From: "Eric Landau" > At 11:50 AM 10/29/02, Alain wrote: > > >At 10:45 29/10/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >>I haven't offered "my explanation", but it would probably be very > >>similar to Nigel's. I would omit the details of my agreements about > >>the strong possibilities, though, not because the opponents' aren't > >>entitled to know all about them, but because (a) they probably don't > >>care, and (b) if they do care, they can ask. But then, if they care, > >>they will have to ask about follow-ups that have not yet occurred, as > >>I have not yet made any call that would, if I were to make it, show > >>one of those hands. > > > >AG : yes, the key of explanation is to answer by advance to questions > >that opponents might think of, that is, to what they do care. > > That is the key to the initial explanation, provided you believe that > that's what you are offering. As the "key" to a sole and entire > explanation, it is inadequate. > > The question we must ask is, if you supply all of the information you > believe the opponents care about, but you are wrong, and have omitted > something they do in fact care about, what happens next? When opponents ask, and you give what you believe is a complete explanation (at least as complete as you think they need), but you are wrong, then: 1: Unless opponents have a definite reason to suspect that you have omitted something essential they have no obligation to ask any further. 2: If the Director judges that your incomplete explanation has damaged opponents in any way he shall award an assigned score. It is your responsibility if any detail in your explanation that turns out to having been essential is missing. ......... > >If I'm wrong in assuming that detail X is not essential, It'll fetch > >me the TD, and I know it. It will fetch you the Director afterwards when opponents discover that you explanation (in their opinion) was incomplete. > > That's the best that can happen if we accept David B.'s position -- > sometimes it will fetch you silent opponents for the moment, a good > score, questions about your original explanation after the hand is > over, a TD call at that time, a claim by the opponents that they were > misinformed by your omission, an adverse ruling, a tentative bad score, > an appeal, several hours in the waiting and committee rooms, and very > little sleep that night. > > Whereas in my world (or Herman's) all it will fetch you is a follow-up > question, albeit quite likely one that David would consider > illegal. But we are told that our lawmakers consider this impractical > because it would waste time! If your declaration was correct there should be no need for any follow-up question. Note that this is the same principle you have after a missing alert: Opponents have no obligation to pose any question after a missing alert unless they have (strong) reason to suspect that there should indeed have been one. Opponents have no obligation to pose another question after an explanation unless they have (strong) reason to suspect that the first answer was incomplete in any essential way. ...... > That is undoubtedly because Alain, like me, has never offered such an > explanation to David B. or to anyone else who believes that they are > not permitted to follow it up by asking about whatever else they might > want to know. Theyt are certainly permitted, but they are not supposed to suspect that you have (accidently) withheld any essential information. (Sorry - I'm repeating myself) Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 29 22:44:52 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:44:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure References: <4A256C61.007F9488.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004a01c27f9c$cb533990$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: ...... > In the thread, "Is Stayman alertable?", Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > [snip] > > >Once and for all, let's use a simple syllogism : > > > >a) what opponents are entitled to know is the meaning of > > the bid > >b) the bid doesn't tell ; it asks > >c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to > > nothing about this bid > > In the spirit of Steve Willner's posting, I hope that > Alain does not take any offence when I argue that his > syllogism is flawed. My syllogism would be: > > a) what opponents are entitled to know are explicit and > implicit partnership agreements about a relay bid > > b) the relay bid asks, but there is a partnership > agreement about when the relay bid would *not* be > used > > c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to the > agreed negative inferences about this bid Hear, hear! IMO you hit the bull's eye. regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 22:43:24 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:43:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007501c27f9c$9798e280$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote [some of this is not what Eric himself wrote, but I have got a bit confused trying to follow who wrote what]: > >>I haven't offered "my explanation", but it would probably be very > >>similar to Nigel's. I would omit the details of my agreements about > >>the strong possibilities, though, not because the opponents' aren't > >>entitled to know all about them, but because (a) they probably don't > >>care, and (b) if they do care, they can ask. But then, if they care, > >>they will have to ask about follow-ups that have not yet occurred, as > >>I have not yet made any call that would, if I were to make it, show > >>one of those hands. They don't have to ask any such thing. If they want to know what kind of hand you can have to open (say) 2D, you can tell them without telling them what you are going to rebid in various different scenarios. I tend to answer the question (in my own system) with: "a weak two in a major, or 23-24 balanced, or 20-24 with some 4441 shape". Now, if they want to know whether we sometimes have five cards or always at least six for our weak 2M, I tell them (it's on the convention card anyway); if they want to know whether we might have 5431 shape for 23-24 balanced, I tell them that as well (this is also on the convention card). But I don't tell them that if I have a 4-1-4-4 21 count, I am going to bid 3D after 2D-2H. They don't care. > >AG : yes, the key of explanation is to answer by advance to questions > >that opponents might think of, that is, to what they do care. The key to an explanation is to set out everything you know, as succinctly and clearly as you can. Don't worry too much about what the opponents might want to know. I would say as a practical matter also that you should not worry too much about what might be "partnership experience" and what "general bridge knowledge". Suppose, for example, that I am asked: "How often is this opening a weak 2M as opposed to one of the stronger hands?" Since I know (because I've worked it out, not because I've counted occasions in our partnership history) that the relative frequency is about 17 to 3, I will provide that information, even though it is strictly speaking an inference from bridge knowledge. > The question we must ask is, if you supply all of the information you > believe the opponents care about, but you are wrong, and have omitted > something they do in fact care about, what happens next? You are declared an international terrorist, and will shortly find yourself at war with Tony Blair. Just supply all the information there is, either by means of the convention card or in reply to a question, and you cannot be wrong in terms of providing for your opponents that to which they are entitled. > >Example #1 : opening 2C : shows either a weak major 2-suiter (54+, ca > >6-11 HCP) or a variety of strong hands. > >I explain it as such, because that's what I think they need. If they > >want to get the list of strong hands, they might ask (which will not > >transmit much UI). At least, the formulation makes it obvious that > >there is a whole row of possibilities (eg : 22-23 NT, Acol 2-bid but > >not in hearts, 4-loser hand with 5+ spades, 4-loser hand with 5+H/4S, > >game forcing 55+ without hearts). Fine - say this if you like, or point your opponent in the direction of your convention card. > >If I'm wrong in assuming that detail X is not essential, it'll fetch > >me the TD, and I know it. And quite right too. > That's the best that can happen if we accept David B.'s position -- > sometimes it will fetch you silent opponents for the moment, a good > score, questions about your original explanation after the hand is > over, a TD call at that time, a claim by the opponents that they were > misinformed by your omission, an adverse ruling, a tentative bad score, > an appeal, several hours in the waiting and committee rooms, and very > little sleep that night. > Whereas in my world (or Herman's) all it will fetch you is a follow-up > question, albeit quite likely one that David would consider > illegal. I would not consider questions of this form illegal: "Does he have to have a four-card major? Can he have a bad hand?" if those points had not been addressed in the original explanation. Nor would I consider a claim for damage invalid if the original explanation had been defective, provided that the player had taken what steps the SO deems appropriate to protect himself. I would consider such questions illegal if, the relevant points having been clearly addressed in the original explanation, I thought that the reason for asking further questions was to provide partner with some information. I confess that I am having some difficulty in determining what this has to do with whether or not one is permitted to ask questions about calls that might be made in some future development of the auction, as opposed to questions about what has and has not actually happened in the auction so far. > But we are told that our lawmakers consider this impractical > because it would waste time! Well, that is something that I gave as a justification for not being able to ask "hypothetical questions". It is likely that not all of these would in fact waste very much time, but the difficulty is that if you allow one such question, you must allow all such questions, and it is very likely that at some point, a lot of time is going to be wasted. > >Systematically giving the list of possibilities would not only lose > >time with little reason (my previous argument) but also confuse them > >by hiding the forest with a row of trees. It will be counter-helpful. > Which is why you should be able to fulfill your obligations without > depriving the opponents of disclosure they are entitled to by just > letting them know that the list of possibilities exists, and letting > them ask about it on the (presumably rare) occasions that they care > about them. But you can't do that if they're not permitted to ask. They are permitted to ask all they like about calls that have been made. I have said that the only question explicitly permitted by L20F is: "Please explain the auction". But I do not assert that further questions relating to calls made may not be asked if a full explanation is not forthcoming; such questions may be regarded merely as repetitions or continuations of the original request for an explanation. "What strong types can he have to open 2C?" is a legal question. "If I overcall 2S, will I be doubled for penalty if opener has a strong hand with spades?" is not. > >Until now, nobody has said or even implied that these two explanations > >were inadequate. > That is undoubtedly because Alain, like me, has never offered such an > explanation to David B. or to anyone else who believes that they are > not permitted to follow it up by asking about whatever else they might > want to know. I don't believe that at all. I believe only that you are not permitted to ask about calls not yet made. You can ask about calls made; you can ask about calls bypassed; but you cannot ask about calls yet to come. I don't know why Eric believes that I think otherwise. I must have expressed myself badly, for which I am sorry. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 29 23:03:00 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:03:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure References: <4A256C61.007F9488.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <008801c27f9f$545b6a80$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > In the spirit of Steve Willner's posting, I hope that > Alain does not take any offence when I argue that his > syllogism is flawed. My syllogism would be: > > a) what opponents are entitled to know are explicit and > implicit partnership agreements about a relay bid > > b) the relay bid asks, but there is a partnership > agreement about when the relay bid would *not* be > used > > c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to the > agreed negative inferences about this bid This seems about right. I don't play a lot of relays, but when they do arise, I say words to this effect: "partner has done no more than ask a series of questions about my hand; if his hand were of a particular type, he would have no option but to do this, while if his hand were of some other type, he might have chosen to ask about my hand or to show his. If you would like more information about what types would be forced to ask, and what types might follow some other route, I will provide it." David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 30 01:38:53 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:38:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique Message-ID: <4A256C62.0007A308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: >>Imps, Dealer N, Vul NS >> >>You, North, hold: >> >>A >>AT96 >>KJ87 >>KJ54 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> 1C (1) 1D (2) >>Pass (3) 5C (4) X XX (5) >>Pass 5H X Pass >>Pass 5S (6) Pass Pass >>X Pass ? >> >>(1) Strong club >>(2) Majors or minors >>(3) At least two controls (A=2, K=1) >> and an unspecified seven card suit >>(4) Correctable >>(5) Majors >>(6) Suggests a heart lead in preference >> to a spade lead >> >>What are your logical alternatives? This problem misfired somewhat; Roger Pewick and Gordon Bower considered Pass the only logical alternative. Nigel Guthrie replied: >Pass is the obvious "logical alternative" >especially as Partner's double is for blood >(or else I would alert it). > >But as partner has 2+controls perhaps we can >look for a slam. > >I am afraid I have rely on crude Judo >techniques i.e. believe my opponents and use >the information they have given against them. >(1) LHO seems to be 5+5+ in the major suits. >(2) RHO seems to be 5+5+ in the round suits. >Hence is the logical bid 6D? >No! wait! Cunning old RHO may have 5+diamonds >but "prefer a club lead to a diamond lead" so >perhaps 6C is the contract. Still, a bid of 6C >would be daft and unilateral. But 5N (choose >a minor) is a distinct possibility. > >Hence I mark the logical alternatives as... >P=10 5N=4 6D=3 6C=2 6H/S/N=1. One issue that Nigel did not discuss in his analysis is the possibility that the opponents have had a giant bidding stuffup, and pard's unspecified 7-card suit is ... ... *spades*. Is an opposition stuffup a logical possibility? If so, would Nigel agree that that possibility reduces Pass to the only logical alternative? This hand came from the 1992 Canadian Teams, subsequently discussed in the December 1994 Bridge World editorial. At the table, South broke tempo when passing 5Hx, and again when doubling 5S. North then bid 5NT, which led to a successful 6D contract. Neither the TD nor the AC adjusted the score. :-( Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 01:09:03 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:09:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure References: <4A256C60.00773C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029130313.02464870@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029154642.0245fc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <016b01c27fb0$f325af20$dd9468d5@default> Hi Alain, You may be amused to learn that I am reading the "Viking Club", "Precision in the 90's", and the "Power System", with a view to adopting a relay methods. Hence I may soon encounter the problem of explaining such bids for myself. I am happy to argue on BLML about the law on how relay bids should be explained, but this is my last public attempt to defuse our personality clash. Nor do I relish a private version. So I will not answer you in kind. If you do continue unilaterally, I humbly ask, however: please feel free to snip sentences out of their email context but please do not 'quote' partial sentences, when the resulting sentence fragments have nuances that the original will not bear. In pursuance of peace, I will of course withdraw unreservedly my unsubstantiated, subjective, and potentially libellous opinion that local players have adopted relay systems to be "economical with the truth" -- anyway, that rash statement was inconsistent with my contention that the laws should concern themselves as little as possible with motive. Regards, Nigel From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Oct 30 01:09:11 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:09:11 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] tres scientifique In-Reply-To: <4A256C62.0007A308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I wrote: > > This problem misfired somewhat; Roger Pewick > and Gordon Bower considered Pass the only > logical alternative. I should admit I hadn't considered Redouble when I first wrote you about it.. I could be convinced to accept that too. I do think 5NT, 6D, etc are really quite off the deep end. 'Course, I haven't won all that many world championships yet:)) GRB From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 02:42:22 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:42:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique References: <4A256C62.0007A308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000501c27fbd$fe8a05c0$239c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] More reflections on the bizarre auction. Richard, you speculate that a wheel may have come off opponent's auction. What about ours? If my explanation that partner's double of 1D showed 2 controls and a 7 card suit really describes our understanding, I must be careful not to field a possible psyche by partner. But were I on the AC (again Heaven forfend), I would peruse the North-South system notes (submitted before the competition?) to establish that this surreal understanding was documented. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 02:50:53 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:50:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique Message-ID: <001301c27fbf$2c2fb3c0$239c68d5@default> [Richard Hills] One issue that Nigel did not discuss in his analysis is the possibility that the opponents have had a giant bidding stuffup, and pard's unspecified 7-card suit is ...... *spades*. Is an opposition stuffup a logical possibility? If so, would Nigel agree that that possibility reduces Pass to the only logical alternative? [Nigel] Sorry Richard, I have sent this reply to you as well as BLML; but I offer my view FWIW. After posting my original reply, I re-evaluated the alternatives as P=10 5N=7 etc... IMO You would be wrong to ascribe a high probability to a screw-up by opponents of this calibre, although I agree with you that it is more likely in this rare kind auction. [Richard] This hand came from the 1992 Canadian Teams, subsequently discussed in the December 1994 Bridge World editorial. At the table, South broke tempo when passing 5Hx, and again when doubling 5S. North then bid 5NT, which led to a successful 6D contract. Neither the TD nor the AC adjusted the score. :-( [Nigel] Although I still rate 5N as an LA., your emoticon and I share the same opinion of the TD's decision. From adam@tameware.com Wed Oct 30 03:37:42 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:37:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique In-Reply-To: <4A256C62.0007A308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C62.0007A308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: At 11:38 AM +1000 10/30/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This hand came from the 1992 Canadian Teams, >subsequently discussed in the December 1994 >Bridge World editorial. ... >Neither the TD nor the AC adjusted the score. > >:-( Dreadful! I like to think things have improved since then. In particular committees nowadays seem to pay more attention to the laws. For the record here's an excerpt from TBW's reply: "We think, on the facts as presented here, the ruling was wrong." and "Why did North pass the 5S bid around to partner, if not for South's decision." and "We bet that most Norths would pass the sort of double that most Souths would produce when holding seven trumps." I miss Edgar! Here's a question for the BLML. How would you critique a director or committee who let the result stand, or let a part of it stand, if they claimed they had applied 12C3? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Oct 30 06:58:48 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:58:48 -0600 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique References: <4A256C62.0007A308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] tres scientifique > > > I wrote: > > >>Imps, Dealer N, Vul NS > >> > >>You, North, hold: > >> > >>A > >>AT96 > >>KJ87 > >>KJ54 > >> > >>The bidding has gone: > >> > >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > >> 1C (1) 1D (2) > >>Pass (3) 5C (4) X XX (5) > >>Pass 5H X Pass > >>Pass 5S (6) Pass Pass > >>X Pass ? > >> > >>(1) Strong club > >>(2) Majors or minors > >>(3) At least two controls (A=2, K=1) > >> and an unspecified seven card suit > >>(4) Correctable > >>(5) Majors > >>(6) Suggests a heart lead in preference > >> to a spade lead > >> > >>What are your logical alternatives? > > This problem misfired somewhat; Roger Pewick > and Gordon Bower considered Pass the only > logical alternative. > > Nigel Guthrie replied: > > >Pass is the obvious "logical alternative" > >especially as Partner's double is for blood > >(or else I would alert it). > > > >But as partner has 2+controls perhaps we can > >look for a slam. > > > >I am afraid I have rely on crude Judo > >techniques i.e. believe my opponents and use > >the information they have given against them. > >(1) LHO seems to be 5+5+ in the major suits. > >(2) RHO seems to be 5+5+ in the round suits. > >Hence is the logical bid 6D? > > >No! wait! Cunning old RHO may have 5+diamonds > >but "prefer a club lead to a diamond lead" so > >perhaps 6C is the contract. Still, a bid of 6C > >would be daft and unilateral. But 5N (choose > >a minor) is a distinct possibility. > > > >Hence I mark the logical alternatives as... > >P=10 5N=4 6D=3 6C=2 6H/S/N=1. > > One issue that Nigel did not discuss in his > analysis is the possibility that the > opponents have had a giant bidding stuffup, > and pard's unspecified 7-card suit is ... > > ... *spades*. > > Is an opposition stuffup a logical possibility? > If so, would Nigel agree that that possibility > reduces Pass to the only logical alternative? > This hand came from the 1992 Canadian Teams, > subsequently discussed in the December 1994 > Bridge World editorial. > At the table, South broke tempo when passing 5Hx, I would wager that the seven card suit is not hearts, a large sum that is. > and again when doubling 5S. I would wager that the seven card suit is not spades, a large sum that is. In fact, I would wager that he doesn't have the SK either, again a large sum. Hey this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Oh well, I'll wager that he has a bit more than only an ace- after all, the only place to go is the six level and he had something to think about other than doubling and pass when he doesn't know how good or bad my hand is. > North then bid 5NT, which led > to a successful 6D contract. Since I expect he does not have the spade K then to make up two controls he needs an ace which must be useful. And if he doesn't have a Q in a short minor suit then there is the chance [a] it is finessable and [b] ruffable. yessiree, these oddball agreements sure are accurate. There is no LA to 5N. Thanx for a good chuckle. roger pewick > Neither the TD nor the AC adjusted the score. > :-( > > Best wishes > > Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 30 07:41:38 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:41:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <291002302.20213@webbox.com> Message-ID: <000901c27fe7$de1adab0$5b0ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > Well, at least the Devil didn't write the Bible. > +=+ allegedly+=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 30 09:36:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:36:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <004a01c27f9c$cb533990$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C61.007F9488.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021030103001.0246e6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:44 29/10/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: >...... > > In the thread, "Is Stayman alertable?", Alain Gottcheiner > > wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >Once and for all, let's use a simple syllogism : > > > > > >a) what opponents are entitled to know is the meaning of > > > the bid > > >b) the bid doesn't tell ; it asks > > >c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to > > > nothing about this bid > > > > In the spirit of Steve Willner's posting, I hope that > > Alain does not take any offence when I argue that his > > syllogism is flawed. My syllogism would be: > > > > a) what opponents are entitled to know are explicit and > > implicit partnership agreements about a relay bid > > > > b) the relay bid asks, but there is a partnership > > agreement about when the relay bid would *not* be > > used > > > > c) as a consequence, the opponents are entitled to the > > agreed negative inferences about this bid AG : I fully agree with that. I only meant that in relays sytems, many relays have *no* negative inferences ; in this case, apply my syllogism. I don't feel my syllogism is flawed : it only comes after yours : take your c) as the primary, and follow with "this particular bid has no inferences ; thus there is nothing to disclose". Just one more question : when explaining 1NT p 2H as a transfer, do you mention that partner should not have a good 6-card spade suit, no singleton and a slammish hand, else he would bid 3S (or perhaps 3H) ? Negative inferences of relay bids, when they exist are as slim as that. Best regards, Alain. From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 09:31:08 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:31:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] Message-ID: > > From: "Ed Reppert" < > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > >So it does, but it doesn't say anything about future calls. You > > >can ask the opponents what they've done. You can't ask them what > > >they're going to do. > > > > That's what I thought. But DWS had convinced me otherwise, > and now Sven > > concurs. As I've said before, my primary interest is in > knowing *how* to > > rule, so can we please get some kind of consensus as to > which side is > > right? :-) This is why I get tired in this group once in a while. How in heaven is it possible to get consensus when people don't even accept clear language and statements? You don't need to like people as Grattan and me (though I advise you to like at least Grattan out of those two) but when both of us - being members of the WBFLC - dare to say that asking questions about future calls during an auction is not allowed, and when to support this statement we point to L 20F, why then are you still asking for consensus? This is not a group that decides about the meaning of the laws, lucky bridge world. What this group might do is giving input to those who are asked to make such decisions. That is why I asked you about your opinion of changing L20F, making it possible to ask about future calls. The only reaction came from David B. telling that he considers the present L20F satisfactory. No other opinions? Not interested? Just showing your distrust for even the mildest form of authority, Grattan's I mean? ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 09:33:56 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:33:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: > On 10/28/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >far too much bandwith on blml is being used by people not accepting > >quite clear argumentation. > I agree, but we only take a step forwards if we also succeed in agreeing who those people are. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 30 09:49:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:49:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <016b01c27fb0$f325af20$dd9468d5@default> References: <4A256C60.00773C3F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029130313.02464870@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021029154642.0245fc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021030103826.0246e120@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:09 30/10/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: AG : okay, let's try and defuse it. >You may be amused to learn that I am reading >the "Viking Club", "Precision in the 90's", >and the "Power System", with a view to adopting >a relay methods. Hence I may soon encounter the >problem of explaining such bids for myself. > AG : that it a very interesting point ! If you explain your bids to the opponents as you have explained them to yourself and your partner, including inferences that were discussed, you are, in my mind, perfectly right and correct. That's why I was fairly sure that most relays don't hide anything : they were only defined as "relays". Take a system book on a pure relay system like Monaco, Alpha, la Majeure d'Abord, Omega or several others, and you will see that, the more bidding rounds have been completed, the less intrinsic meaning relays do have. (often, non-relay bids are only defined as "definitive"). Of course, the first relay in those systems (especially Monaco) has many inferences, and those you should disclose. >In pursuance of peace, I will of course withdraw >unreservedly my unsubstantiated, subjective, and potentially libellous >opinion that local players >have adopted relay systems to be "economical with >the truth" -- anyway, that rash statement was >inconsistent with my contention that the laws >should concern themselves as little as possible >with motive. AG : granted. You see, I'm quite hot on the subject of rumours, and loudly advocate the idea that persons of responsibility should be twice careful before letting them pass through. I humbly admit that I did it too loudly this time. Best regards, Alain. >Regards, Nigel > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 30 09:48:53 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:48:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure References: <4A256C61.007F9488.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021030103001.0246e6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002b01c27ff9$8f4c1ef0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" ....... > Just one more question : when explaining 1NT p 2H as a transfer, do you > mention that partner should not have a good 6-card spade suit, no singleton > and a slammish hand, else he would bid 3S (or perhaps 3H) ? Negative > inferences of relay bids, when they exist are as slim as that. The way I use transfers over 1NT partner's hand may very well include any of those "features". His intention will be revealed with his next action(s) after my response in 2S. The only thing he really "tells" with his 2H bid is that he holds at least 5 spades. He may have anything from 0 to 25 HCP (I have 15 to 17!) and any distribution of his other 8 cards. But to your fundamental question: You may at your own risk filter the information you pass to opponents when explaining a call or the auction. If it later becomes apparent that you filtered out essential information and opponents were damaged because of this then the Director shall award an assigned adjusted score even when you cannot be blamed for believing that the information you filtered out was essential. (If you *can* be blamed then the Director should consider adding a PP!) Sven From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 09:55:41 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:55:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: David B and Herman (and you read who is who): > > >Then please stay out of discussions that involve the future > law 20F with statements that say nothing more than that L20F > forbids them now. > > What "future law 20F"? If the question is: should Law 20F be > amended to permit hypothetical questions, then my opinion is > that it should not, since there are good reasons for not permitting > them; it is for those good reasons that the current law 20F exists. > > >That is what you have done in some posts in the past. > > Again, I apologise humbly. I was trying only to express the view > that the current law 20F is adequate for practical purposes, > and should not be amended. Perhaps, though, what I should do > is to send my proposed messages to you rather than to the list; > then, you can decide whether or not I am entitled to express > my views, and whether or not they fit in with your agenda. If > I am not, or they do not, the messages can be deleted unread > by the others on this list. > > >Now let's get on to more pressing matters. > > >A) does L20F actually say this ? > > I thought this was a discussion about the future law 20F, which > does not say anything, for it does not exist. The present law > 20F says: > > During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at > his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' > auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or > about relevant calls available but not made); replies should > normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call > in question (see Law 75C). > > This means that questions may be asked about what has occurred > so far in the auction, and about what might have occurred in > the auction but has not. It does not mean that questions may > be asked about what might occur in the auction at some future > point; nothing which has not occurred yet can be considered part > of "the opponents' auction". > > It has been argued that "a full explanation" may in some cases > entail future developments, but this is simply not so; it is > possible fully to explain everything that has occurred so far > without reference to anything that might occur in the future. > > >B) should hypothetical questions be (or remain) banned after > 2007 ? You should not assume that your contributions will delay our plans to present new laws not after 2005. Furthermore, ignore my statements earlier this morning, where I tried to express my mixed feelings about some of these contributions. As long as David B. promises me to take part in it, you can do what you want (as if I have the slightest possibility to change that; if so it had been done) ton > > Yes. > > >I shall get back to both. > > Be still, my beating heart. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 10:06:43 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:06:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: The WBFLC is willing to tell you that you are wrong. When I was studying bridge laws a long time ago my professors in the Netherlands told me that asking questions about relevant alternative calls from the one made were not allowed and they pointed to L20F to proof that approach (I studied these laws before '97 and even before '87 and even before '75). I didn't think that to be the right approach, but for many years I directed bridge events using this approach. And then at last we added that questions about those alternative calls were allowed. That is the explanation for this addition, nothing else. You should not try to construct mis-explanations to support your view. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@skynet.be] > Verzonden: dinsdag 29 oktober 2002 12:13 > Aan: blml > Onderwerp: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? > > > This is what some people on this list have maintained, and I have > often said I don't agree with this, but have never ventured why. > > L20F : > > F. Explanation of Calls > > 1. During the Auction > During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his > own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' > auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about > relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be > given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law > 75C). > > It is the bit between parenthesis that causes trouble: > (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant > calls available but not made) > > This bit, combined with the Lille interpretation that anything not > specifically allowed is forbidden, is what leads a number of > people to > believe that hypothetical questions are not allowed. > > First of all, I do agree that hypothetical questions are a > third class > of questions, not included in the two classes that are listed in L20F. > > However, there is an alternative interpretation to the one given. > > L20F basically states that one is allowed to ask questions. That is > the important bit. > Furthermore, L20F lists a number of things that are accepted. That > does not in itself mean that all other things are not allowed. > > Thus, hypothetical questions are still questions about the auction, > which are allowed by the main part of L20F. And the Lille > interpretation does not apply. > > I realize that this is only one possible interpretation, but I offer > the following as additional evidence of the intention of the > Lawmakers: > > I have no access to an English version of the 1987 laws, but I looked > at the Dutch version and I notice that L20F was then exactly as it is > now, without the bit between brackets. > > I remember that before 1997, there was a discussion whether questions > about calls not made were allowed. There was general consensus that > they were, but the WBFLC thought it necessary to include a small part > in the laws explicitely stating this. > > In my opinion, L20F was not changed in 1997. Before 1997, all > questions were apparently allowed. In 1997, a change was made in the > wording, but not in the meaning of L20F. the bit between > brackets is a > non-exclusive listing of kinds of questions that are allowed. > The Lille interpretation cannot be used to modify a law that first > said "all questions are allowed" and then "all questions are allowed, > specifically ..." to "all questions are allowed, but only ..." > > But rather than using L20F to show that hypothetical questions are > allowed, I prefer to use L40 and L75. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 10:10:00 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:10:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: > The purpose was not to generally open up a door for asking about > possible future calls, my personal view is that such questions must > be allowable (only?) to the extent that they are an essential part of > clarifying the call that is explained. IMO the answering rules to > many conventional calls fall within this category. > > regards Sven Thank you Sven, useful contribution ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 10:15:16 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:15:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: Herman: > > Sorry David, but if it were that easy, we would not be here. > You read L20F, and so do I. > And we arrive at two different conclusions. > I believe we owe each other enough respect to realize that this law > has more than one interpretation. We don't need respect for that, it is a simple fact. To keep bridge playable we should strive for a unique interpretation. That is why I tried to help you. Have fun in Belgium. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 30 10:27:56 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:27:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <002b01c27ff9$8f4c1ef0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C61.007F9488.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021030103001.0246e6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021030111149.02464ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:48 30/10/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >But to your fundamental question: You may at your own risk filter the >information you pass to opponents when explaining a call or the auction. > >If it later becomes apparent that you filtered out essential information >and opponents were damaged because of this then the Director shall >award an assigned adjusted score even when you cannot be blamed >for believing that the information you filtered out was essential. AG : I would be delighted if this was taken as _modus vivendi_. Please note the word 'essential' in Sven's text. To show where I draw the line : if 1NT p 2H denies as much as 4 hearts, the information is essential. If it denies 6 hearts, it isn't. Or, if a 1H opening denies 4 spades unless strong (playing Flannery), I would alert it. If it denies 5 spades, I wouldn't. The problem is, opponents may have another idea of what was essential, or pretend they have, and the TD/AC will then have to decide. To this avail, we should have available a series of examples like the above. An interesting case is the sequence I referred to earlier : pass pass pass 1C 2H. Some players use fairly loose weak twos, and have thus decided that the only reason for this bid is that overcaller has 64 majors. This must be disclosed. Others have more rigid standards, or they sometimes do not open a weak two when they hold one. Then the inferences are few. Nothing essential has been omitted if you don't alert. Of course, you must be ready to answer completely to a question about your standards for opening a weak 2 (or Multi). (The answer could also be "we have none. We don't play them") One way to state it is : in the second case, the inference is that you thought, for some reason, that your weak 2 was flawed. Since this is not system, but bridge logic, it isn't alertable. Best regards, Alain. From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 10:34:46 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:34:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: > Sven wrote: > > >So why on earth do we then bother with commentaries on the laws > and education of directors? > > I don't know. I suppose it keeps us off the streets, and perhaps > it gives us the impression that we are doing something worthwhile. > > >Most people in this business can read. > > True. If only they could write... > > >But they need to understand the laws, and that is more than > being able to read the text. > > No, it isn't. The laws are the text, and the text is the laws. > All the rest is misplaced subjectivity, and most of it is nonsense. > > David Burn > London, England > Here we (David and I) disagree and we know that. Not about the nonsense part, it is a pity to have to share that opinion. But formidable mathematicians have proven that language isn't able to describe it all with a unique meaning. It is worse, even logical statements can lead to unsolvable paradoxes. There is a 'law' describing that the energy or tools needed to improve something with a certain amount grows to infinity with the steps taken. Translated this means that our lawbook would need all the trees in the world to come close to David's objective. And then the copying has still to be done. And let us not forget that each sentence written is a source for disasters in itself. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 30 10:39:59 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:39:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: Message-ID: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> OK, Ton, thank you. You seem to imply ("have fun in Belgium") that I have been argueing on the wrong side of an argument. I have not done so. I have merely tried to point out to people in this thread that their arguments have been wrong. Not necessarily their conclusions. Let me summarize what we have learnt so far: - L20F seems to prohibit the asking of hypothetical questions. I am willing to admit that - having explored the options and listened to the WBF. - The answers to hypothetical questions seem to be information that an opponent is entitled to. There have been not many replies argueing against that. - A player is allowed to base his actions upon the methods his opponents are using in defence. Idem ditto. - Ergo there are pieces of information that you are entitled to, but are not allowed to ask after. Is that the full picture? Is it the way we (*) want the laws to be? (*) whoever "we" is. Kooijman, A. wrote: > The WBFLC is willing to tell you that you are wrong. > > > When I was studying bridge laws a long time ago my professors in the > Netherlands told me > that asking questions about relevant alternative calls from the one made > were not allowed and they pointed to L20F to proof that approach (I studied > these laws before '97 and even before '87 and even before '75). I didn't > think that to be the right approach, but for many years I directed bridge > events using this approach. And then at last we added that questions about > those alternative calls were allowed. That is the explanation for this > addition, nothing else. You should not try to construct mis-explanations to > support your view. > > ton > > > > >>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >>Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@skynet.be] >>Verzonden: dinsdag 29 oktober 2002 12:13 >>Aan: blml >>Onderwerp: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? >> >> >>This is what some people on this list have maintained, and I have >>often said I don't agree with this, but have never ventured why. >> >>L20F : >> >>F. Explanation of Calls >> >> 1. During the Auction >> During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his >>own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' >>auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about >>relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be >>given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law >>75C). >> >>It is the bit between parenthesis that causes trouble: >>(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant >>calls available but not made) >> >>This bit, combined with the Lille interpretation that anything not >>specifically allowed is forbidden, is what leads a number of >>people to >>believe that hypothetical questions are not allowed. >> >>First of all, I do agree that hypothetical questions are a >>third class >>of questions, not included in the two classes that are listed in L20F. >> >>However, there is an alternative interpretation to the one given. >> >>L20F basically states that one is allowed to ask questions. That is >>the important bit. >>Furthermore, L20F lists a number of things that are accepted. That >>does not in itself mean that all other things are not allowed. >> >>Thus, hypothetical questions are still questions about the auction, >>which are allowed by the main part of L20F. And the Lille >>interpretation does not apply. >> >>I realize that this is only one possible interpretation, but I offer >>the following as additional evidence of the intention of the >>Lawmakers: >> >>I have no access to an English version of the 1987 laws, but I looked >>at the Dutch version and I notice that L20F was then exactly as it is >>now, without the bit between brackets. >> >>I remember that before 1997, there was a discussion whether questions >>about calls not made were allowed. There was general consensus that >>they were, but the WBFLC thought it necessary to include a small part >>in the laws explicitely stating this. >> >>In my opinion, L20F was not changed in 1997. Before 1997, all >>questions were apparently allowed. In 1997, a change was made in the >>wording, but not in the meaning of L20F. the bit between >>brackets is a >>non-exclusive listing of kinds of questions that are allowed. >>The Lille interpretation cannot be used to modify a law that first >>said "all questions are allowed" and then "all questions are allowed, >>specifically ..." to "all questions are allowed, but only ..." >> >>But rather than using L20F to show that hypothetical questions are >>allowed, I prefer to use L40 and L75. >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 30 10:43:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:43:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: Message-ID: <3DBFB7BE.3060709@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > This is why I get tired in this group once in a while. How in heaven is it > possible to get consensus when people don't even accept clear language and > statements? You don't need to like people as Grattan and me (though I advise > you to like at least Grattan out of those two) but when both of us - being > members of the WBFLC - dare to say that asking questions about future calls > during an auction is not allowed, and when to support this statement we > point to L 20F, why then are you still asking for consensus? This is not a > group that decides about the meaning of the laws, lucky bridge world. Hear hear - for once these two have said something positive, I for one am holding still and apply it like that. > What this group might do is giving input to those who are asked to make such > decisions. That is why I asked you about your opinion of changing L20F, > making it possible to ask about future calls. The only reaction came from > David B. telling that he considers the present L20F > satisfactory. > No other opinions? Not interested? Just showing your distrust for even the > mildest form of authority, Grattan's I mean? > Count me firmly in the camp of those that want to see this version of L20F changed. If one is entitled to some piece of information, surely one should be allowed to ask about it. I don't mind adding a reference to L16 with that permission though. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 10:56:07 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:56:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: Herman: > OK, Ton, thank you. > > You seem to imply ("have fun in Belgium") that I have been > argueing on > the wrong side of an argument. I have not done so. I have > merely tried > to point out to people in this thread that their arguments have been > wrong. Not necessarily their conclusions. > > Let me summarize what we have learnt so far: > > - L20F seems to prohibit the asking of hypothetical questions. I am > willing to admit that - having explored the options and listened to > the WBF. > - The answers to hypothetical questions seem to be > information that an > opponent is entitled to. There have been not many replies argueing > against that. > - A player is allowed to base his actions upon the methods his > opponents are using in defence. Idem ditto. > - Ergo there are pieces of information that you are entitled to, but > are not allowed to ask after. > > Is that the full picture? Almost. You are not allowed to ask at certain moments. > Is it the way we (*) want the laws to be? Now we are on the same track even, that is my question as well. And I know your answer, for which I have sympathy. ton From rwilley@mit.edu Wed Oct 30 11:09:57 2002 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:09:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1035976197.3dbfbe05dd47f@webmail.mit.edu> Quoting "Kooijman, A." : Here is another direct question then: Herman wrote: > > Let me summarize what we have learnt so far: > > > > - A player is allowed to base his actions upon the methods his > > opponents are using in defence. Idem ditto. > > Is that the full picture? Ton replied > Almost. You are not allowed to ask at certain moments. Does this consititute an endorsement of the position that players are allowed to change their methods based on the opponent's defenses? Specifically, can a partnership significantly "tighten up" their preemptive style versus players using penalty doubles while loosening it up against players using negative doubles? From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 11:30:32 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:30:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: > Quoting "Kooijman, A." : > > Here is another direct question then: > > Herman wrote: > > > > Let me summarize what we have learnt so far: > > > > > > - A player is allowed to base his actions upon the methods his > > > opponents are using in defence. Idem ditto. > > > Is that the full picture? > > Ton replied > > > Almost. You are not allowed to ask at certain moments. > > Does this consititute an endorsement of the position that > players are allowed > to change their methods based on the opponent's defenses? > Specifically, can a > partnership significantly "tighten up" their preemptive style > versus players > using penalty doubles while loosening it up against players > using negative > doubles? Now I am the very personal ton again, hardly anything to do with my LC-job. And then my very personal opinion is that you are allowed to do so, unless the sponsoring organisation has regulations forbidding it. You don't want my opinion about this strategy? Next question, let us do it the Socratesian way. I have to admit now already that I do not have an answer for the problem that both sides only know what to do when the opponents have made their choice. A toss may be, or even/odd boards? ton > From rwilley@mit.edu Wed Oct 30 11:32:55 2002 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:32:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1035977575.3dbfc367990a0@webmail.mit.edu> Herman wrote: >Yes, they can. They are allowed to play weak pre-empts against >negative doublers and strong pre-empts (I do hope we're talking about >the same thing : 9-11 you call strong and 5-11 is weak ?) against >penalty doublers. Provided they also state what they will play >against alternative doublers. Here we have the crux of the matter. Herman pictures three discrete sets of doublers: Set A = Negative Doublers Set B = Penalty Doublers Set C = Alternative Doublers Herman and I both agree that it is necessary to pre-specify methods against Set C. Where we differ is in our interpretation of Set A and Set B. I claim that both of these sets are "empty". At the extremes, everyone is ultimately an alternative doubler. I believe that if we make the requirements for an overcall strick enough, virtually anyone will shift over from a penalty double to a negative double. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 11:55:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <291002302.10608@webbox.com> DALB wrote: > This means that questions may be asked about what has occurred > so far in the auction, and about what might have occurred in > the auction but has not. It does not mean that questions may > be asked about what might occur in the auction at some future > point; nothing which has not occurred yet can be considered part > of "the opponents' auction". Ok. But surely a "hypothetical question" is one that asks "What systemic (or experiential) agreement would you have with regard to this call in this sequence?". Perhaps my understanding is deeply flawed but I believe this to be information to which I am entitled under L75a: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents. It also seems to be information that I should expect opponents to provide in response to an enquiry. L75c. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. Law20F1 says During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). Now we appear to be lacking a law that explicitly permits questions about partnership agreements while a having a law explicitly requiring that such questions be answered (Yes I know the heading isn't part of the law). It does not, therefore, seem unreasonable to say that since hypothetical questions are not explicitly barred under L20f1 they are implicitly permitted due to the requirements of L75. Or put another way, L75 requires us to interpret "calls available but not made" as being inclusive of "calls not yet made". A permissible, if slightly awkward, interpretation of the actual text." Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 11:55:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ton wrote: > > I believe we owe each other enough respect to realize that this law > > has more than one interpretation. > > We don't need respect for that, it is a simple fact. > To keep bridge playable we should strive for a unique interpretation. I hope what you really meant was that we should strive for laws that need no interpretation. Any ambiguity where a law is capable of multiple interpretations can only lead to endless, and fruitless*, struggles to achieve consensual usage in practice. Frightening thought, there is a small chance I may have written a paragraph with which DALB will agree. *OK some small fruit may be provided if these struggles aid the WBF in deciding which, amongst logical alternatives, is the suggested one for inclusion in future editions of the laws. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 11:55:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ton wrote: > How in heaven is it possible to get consensus when people don't even > accept clear language and statements? You don't need to like people as > Grattan and me (though I advise you to like at least Grattan out of > those two) but when both of us - being members of the WBFLC - dare to > say that asking questions about future calls during an auction is not > allowed, and when to support this statement we point to L 20F, why then > are you still asking for consensus? Are players, in the course of the auction, permitted to ask questions about the systemic agreements of opponents the answers to which would influence their immediate choice of call? You, and Grattan, as members of the WBFLC say no (or if you say yes I don't know under which law). This is far from the experience of ordinary players in ordinary clubs (although quite possibly appropriate in world championships). Perhaps that is why we still seek consensus. Tim From gester@lineone.net Wed Oct 30 12:02:07 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:02:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? > > Let me summarize what we have learnt so far: > > - L20F seems to prohibit the asking of hypothetical questions. I am > willing to admit that - having explored the options and listened to > the WBF. > - The answers to hypothetical questions seem to be information that an > opponent is entitled to. There have been not many replies argueing > against that. > - A player is allowed to base his actions upon the methods his > opponents are using in defence. Idem ditto. > - Ergo there are pieces of information that you are entitled to, but > are not allowed to ask after. > +=+ Dear Herman, I am sceptical of the submission that "we" have learnt anything out of these exchanges. However, it is perhaps still worth suggesting that nowhere in the laws is 'hypothesis' referred to or authorized. I see no case supported in the laws for a view that you are entitled to propose a hand to opponent and ask him what calls his partner might make on it as a matter of partnership understanding. Law 20 contains explicit wording as to what supplementary enquiries are authorized: the player may ask questions about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made. Having been informed that a bid shows a six card spade suit calls that might be made by agreement on a hypothetical hand with only five spades are not relevant. The expansion of the explanation should concern other calls that can be made on hands with the given feature(s). Q. "What other calls might be made on a hand with six spades, and why would he choose one rather than another.?" A. "He could pass if he felt the hand was not worth a bid or that his prospects of a good score were better if he passed; he could bid seven if he believed he could make thirteen tricks. He could ... etc. etc. " As to your other assertions I will reserve my position for the time being; failure to comment is not to be interpreted as agreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 12:14:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1035977575.3dbfc367990a0@webmail.mit.edu> rwilley@mit.edu wrote: > I claim that both of these sets are "empty". At the extremes, everyone > is ultimately an alternative doubler. I believe that if we make the > requirements for an overcall strick enough, virtually anyone will shift > over from a penalty double to a negative double. In theory perhaps, irrelevant in practice. You will almost never get into the auction if you make your standards that strict. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 12:14:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3DBFB7BE.3060709@skynet.be> > Count me firmly in the camp of those that want to see this version of > L20F changed. If one is entitled to some piece of information, surely > one should be allowed to ask about it. > I don't mind adding a reference to L16 with that permission though. I'd prefer the reference to go to L75. It wouldn't do any harm to add such a reference regardless of whether L20 is changed. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 30 12:18:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 30 Oct 2002 04:18:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: <301002303.15537@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >Are players, in the course of the auction, permitted to ask questions about the systemic agreements of opponents the answers to which would influence their immediate choice of call? You, and Grattan, as members of the WBFLC say no No, they don't. They say "Yes" to the question "Are you allowed to ask about the auction so far?" and "No" to the question "Are you allowed to ask about what might happen in the future auction?" So do I. Cheap rhetorical tricks such as the above are unlikely to work in a case where we are already examining the language closely. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 30 12:29:52 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 30 Oct 2002 04:29:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: <301002303.16193@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >I'd prefer the reference to go to L75. It wouldn't do any harm to add such a reference regardless of whether L20 is changed. You mean, another reference to Law 75 in addition to the one that's already there? Personally, I don't think that if Law X references Law Y, Law Y should reference Law X. That just makes it appear that you're saying the same thing twice. Of course, when you actually are saying the same thing twice, this does not matter very much - but it is a good idea to look as though you know what you are doing, even (or especially) when you don't. But if, in the case of Law 75 and Law 20, you are saying one thing in one place and a different thing in another place, then it is really not a good idea to make this obvious. Law 75 should contain a reference to Law 20 and, if it really is the case that L20 details the implementation of the principle in L75, then words to that effect should appear somewhere. Law 20 should not refer to Law 75, or to anything else. David Burn London, England From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Oct 30 12:31:28 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:31:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: > TWM wrote: > > >Are players, in the course of the auction, permitted to ask > questions about the systemic agreements of opponents the answers > to which would influence their immediate choice of call? You, > and Grattan, as members of the WBFLC say no > > No, they don't. They say "Yes" to the question "Are you allowed > to ask about the auction so far?" and "No" to the question "Are > you allowed to ask about what might happen in the future auction?" > So do I. Cheap rhetorical tricks such as the above are unlikely > to work in a case where we are already examining the language > closely. > I agree that TWM could have known, so the infraction exists. But did he know? > David Burn > London, England when are you adding Europe? (yes, with Belgium in it, but notice the change Herman made) ton > From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 30 13:13:56 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:13:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <003401c27f9b$1d6175a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021030080144.00b8d680@pop.starpower.net> At 05:32 PM 10/29/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > At 11:50 AM 10/29/02, Alain wrote: > > > > >At 10:45 29/10/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > >>I haven't offered "my explanation", but it would probably be very > > >>similar to Nigel's. I would omit the details of my agreements about > > >>the strong possibilities, though, not because the opponents' aren't > > >>entitled to know all about them, but because (a) they probably don't > > >>care, and (b) if they do care, they can ask. But then, if they care, > > >>they will have to ask about follow-ups that have not yet occurred, as > > >>I have not yet made any call that would, if I were to make it, show > > >>one of those hands. > > > > > >AG : yes, the key of explanation is to answer by advance to questions > > >that opponents might think of, that is, to what they do care. > > > > That is the key to the initial explanation, provided you believe that > > that's what you are offering. As the "key" to a sole and entire > > explanation, it is inadequate. > > > > The question we must ask is, if you supply all of the information you > > believe the opponents care about, but you are wrong, and have omitted > > something they do in fact care about, what happens next? > >When opponents ask, and you give what you believe is a complete >explanation (at least as complete as you think they need), but you are >wrong, then: > >1: Unless opponents have a definite reason to suspect that you have >omitted something essential they have no obligation to ask any further. > >2: If the Director judges that your incomplete explanation has damaged >opponents in any way he shall award an assigned score. > >It is your responsibility if any detail in your explanation that turns out >to >having been essential is missing. > >......... > > >If I'm wrong in assuming that detail X is not essential, It'll fetch > > >me the TD, and I know it. > >It will fetch you the Director afterwards when opponents discover >that you explanation (in their opinion) was incomplete. > > > > > That's the best that can happen if we accept David B.'s position -- > > sometimes it will fetch you silent opponents for the moment, a good > > score, questions about your original explanation after the hand is > > over, a TD call at that time, a claim by the opponents that they were > > misinformed by your omission, an adverse ruling, a tentative bad score, > > an appeal, several hours in the waiting and committee rooms, and very > > little sleep that night. > > > > Whereas in my world (or Herman's) all it will fetch you is a follow-up > > question, albeit quite likely one that David would consider > > illegal. But we are told that our lawmakers consider this impractical > > because it would waste time! > >If your declaration was correct there should be no need for any follow-up >question. > >Note that this is the same principle you have after a missing alert: > >Opponents have no obligation to pose any question after a missing >alert unless they have (strong) reason to suspect that there should >indeed have been one. > >Opponents have no obligation to pose another question after an >explanation unless they have (strong) reason to suspect that the first >answer was incomplete in any essential way. All true, but not what we were talking about. Alain's scenario is one in which the reply was left deliberately but obviously incomplete. 1NT-P-2S Alert! "That shows an invitation to 3NT, or a signoff in clubs, or any of various strong hands interested in slam." Usually the opponents won't care what the strong hands might be, but if they do, the reply will be taken as an open invitation to ask about them. That's what happens in real life, and it works fine. But it relies on the assumption that the opponents are free to ask questions about follow-up actions that have not yet occurred. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 30 13:37:01 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:37:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <007501c27f9c$9798e280$89a223d9@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021030082324.00a96660@pop.starpower.net> At 05:43 PM 10/29/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote [some of this is not what Eric himself wrote, but I have got >a bit confused trying to follow who wrote what]: > > > >>I haven't offered "my explanation", but it would probably be very > > >>similar to Nigel's. I would omit the details of my agreements about > > >>the strong possibilities, though, not because the opponents' aren't > > >>entitled to know all about them, but because (a) they probably don't > > >>care, and (b) if they do care, they can ask. But then, if they >care, > > >>they will have to ask about follow-ups that have not yet occurred, >as > > >>I have not yet made any call that would, if I were to make it, show > > >>one of those hands. > >They don't have to ask any such thing. If they want to know what kind of >hand you can have to open (say) 2D, you can tell them without telling >them what you are going to rebid in various different scenarios. I tend >to answer the question (in my own system) with: "a weak two in a major, >or 23-24 balanced, or 20-24 with some 4441 shape". Now, if they want to >know whether we sometimes have five cards or always at least six for our >weak 2M, I tell them (it's on the convention card anyway); if they want >to know whether we might have 5431 shape for 23-24 balanced, I tell them >that as well (this is also on the convention card). But I don't tell >them that if I have a 4-1-4-4 21 count, I am going to bid 3D after >2D-2H. They don't care. But imagine that they do. Perhaps if you had told them that you would rebid 2NT or 3D with a strong hand they would risk trying to get in your way by taking away your rebid with a 3H or 3S call, but would be unwilling to bid more than that to shut out a higher-level rebid. Or at least imagine that that's what they tell the AC you're on. You might be inclined to believe them, or you might decide that they made the whole thing up after the fact to get something for nothing and keep their deposit, or anything in between. Whereas if they had been allowed to simply ask what the possible rebids were, you would be in your room sleeping. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Oct 30 13:47:33 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:47:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> <007501c27f9c$9798e280$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? > Eric wrote [some of this is not what Eric himself wrote, but I have got > a bit confused trying to follow who wrote what]: -s- > The key to an explanation is to set out everything you know, as > succinctly and clearly as you can. Don't worry too much about what the > opponents might want to know. I would say as a practical matter also > that you should not worry too much about what might be "partnership > experience" and what "general bridge knowledge". Suppose, for example, > that I am asked: "How often is this opening a weak 2M as opposed to one > of the stronger hands?" Since I know (because I've worked it out, not > because I've counted occasions in our partnership history) that the > relative frequency is about 17 to 3, I will provide that information, Does the bidding of 2D really convey that the probability is 17-3 weak2M vs Strong? Or does it convey "a weak two in a major, or 23-24 balanced, or 20-24 with some 4441 shape".? Yet, if it is really something more then it really is something more. But the statistic being the result of a calculation was not information conveyed. Which is to say that if the information is not conveyed is it really a matter that ought to [or even should] be required to be made available to the opponents [while a hand is in progress]? regards roger pewick > even though it is strictly speaking an inference from bridge knowledge. > David Burn > London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 30 14:15:40 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:15:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021030084450.00bb94a0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:31 AM 10/30/02, Kooijman wrote: >This is why I get tired in this group once in a while. How in heaven is it >possible to get consensus when people don't even accept clear language and >statements? You don't need to like people as Grattan and me (though I >advise >you to like at least Grattan out of those two) but when both of us - >being >members of the WBFLC - dare to say that asking questions about future >calls >during an auction is not allowed, and when to support this statement we >point to L 20F, why then are you still asking for consensus? This is not a >group that decides about the meaning of the laws, lucky bridge world. >What this group might do is giving input to those who are asked to >make such >decisions. That is why I asked you about your opinion of changing L20F, >making it possible to ask about future calls. The only reaction came from >David B. telling that he considers the present L20F >satisfactory. >No other opinions? Not interested? Just showing your distrust for even the >mildest form of authority, Grattan's I mean? I think we are all prepared to accept the word of Ton and Grattan as to the current state of the interpretation of the law promulgated by the WBF. David has not been pursuing this thread entirely by himself, though, and I'm not imagining having read numerous dissents (including my own) from his position (that the current interpretation is preferable to the alternative of allowing unrestricted questioning subject only to contraints in laws other than L20F1) by any number of us who would prefer that the law, or its interpretation by the WBF, be changed. The dissenting opinions have concentrated on three lines of argument: (1) Full disclosure is better served by the alternative interpretation. L20F1 should be interpreted in light of the principle expressed in L75C. Players have a right to complete information about the opponents' methods, and the law shouldn't put obstacles in the way of their getting all of the information they are entitled to. (2) David's contention that the alternative interpretation would cost too much time compared to the current one is false. In real life, it costs more time to litigate the MI hassles that would be precluded by the alternative interpretation than to answer a few extra questions that are now illegal. If a player abuses that right and wastes time in doing so, there are other laws to cover that as an infraction in its own right. A similar argument can be made for UI concerns. (3) The current state of the law notwithstanding, most of the ordinary bridge players out there believe that they are allowed to ask any questions they want to about the opponents' bidding agreements, and are obligated to answer any such questions. That is the way they want and expect bridge to be played. The law (or its interpretation) should be changed to reflect what the majority of players think it is, are happy with, and will continue to act in accordance with. The WBF interpretation has been quietly but effectively rejected by "the court of public opinion". If Ton has heard only David's opinion, and thinks nobody else is interested in this question, he needs to review his killfile. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 30 14:22:46 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:22:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <002201c2801f$d1736f60$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: ...... > Law 20 contains explicit wording as to what > supplementary enquiries are authorized: the > player may ask questions about calls actually made > or about relevant calls available but not made. > Having been informed that a bid shows a six card > spade suit calls that might be made by agreement > on a hypothetical hand with only five spades are not > relevant. The expansion of the explanation should > concern other calls that can be made on hands with > the given feature(s). Q. "What other calls might be > made on a hand with six spades, and why would he > choose one rather than another.?" A. "He could > pass if he felt the hand was not worth a bid or that > his prospects of a good score were better if he > passed; he could bid seven if he believed he could > make thirteen tricks. He could ... etc. etc. " With all due respect I have a feeling that Grattan here is on very dangerous land? The way I understand Law 20 it does not permit specifying any particular hand and a question like "what would he have called with that hand?" What Law 20 permits is specifying a call different from the one being explained but which would have been a legal alternative to the call actually made; and the question: "what would this call have indicated?". There is a difference, do I hear any support? Sven From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Wed Oct 30 15:07:15 2002 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:07:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertab l e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <3DBE60E10008346E@ocpmta6.be.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021030155708.00dabc00@MDWexc1> At 15:17 30/10/2002, Eric Landau wrote: >(3) The current state of the law notwithstanding, most of the ordinary >bridge players out there believe that they are allowed to ask any >questions they want to about the opponents' bidding agreements, and are >obligated to answer any such questions. That is the way they want and >expect bridge to be played. The law (or its interpretation) should be >changed to reflect what the majority of players think it is, are happy >with, and will continue to act in accordance with. The WBF >interpretation has been quietly but effectively rejected by "the court >of public opinion". Should this "principle of expectancy of the majority of players" also be applied to L40E2 (the words "at his own turn to call or play")? Almost every player I meet grabs his opponents' CC when LHO makes a call that is alerted - and sometimes he does even so when the call is not alerted. Simon From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Oct 30 15:21:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:21:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> <002201c2801f$d1736f60$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DBFF90A.1030609@skynet.be> Sven touches on something fundamental in Bridge: Sven Pran wrote: > From: > ...... > > > With all due respect I have a feeling that Grattan here > is on very dangerous land? > > The way I understand Law 20 it does not permit > specifying any particular hand and a question like > "what would he have called with that hand?" > > What Law 20 permits is specifying a call different > from the one being explained but which would have > been a legal alternative to the call actually made; and > the question: "what would this call have indicated?". > > There is a difference, do I hear any support? > Not from me, you don't. There are far too many bridge players out there who think that a call must necessarily "show" a hand, easily described in points and distribution. That there is automatic misinformation if the hand does not conform to the parameters ascribed to it. This is not the case. Rather, a call can convey a meaning to partner - expecting him to add the information contained therein to his own hand and arrive at a sensible solutioin about what to do next. This meaning has to be told opponents, of course, but the meaning does not in itself depict a hand. Which is why one should allow enough leniency to the opponents in trying to figure out what the hand can look like from the information given. They should be allowed to draw a number of hands and ask what likely bid would be made with it, trying to figure out where the border between one bid and another is. They should be given every leniency in this matter. Which of course does not necessarily include future bids, although the same would be true if those questions were allowed. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 15:51:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <301002303.16193@webbox.com> > >I'd prefer the reference to go to L75. It wouldn't do any harm > to add such a reference regardless of whether L20 is changed. > > You mean, another reference to Law 75 in addition to the one > that's already there? Apologies. L73 was the intended target. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 15:51:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <301002303.15537@webbox.com> > > TWM wrote: > > >Are players, in the course of the auction, permitted to ask > questions about the systemic agreements of opponents the answers > to which would influence their immediate choice of call? You, > and Grattan, as members of the WBFLC say no > > No, they don't. They say "Yes" to the question "Are you allowed > to ask about the auction so far?" You don't say! Perhaps that's why I didn't bother asking that question. > and "No" to the question "Are > you allowed to ask about what might happen in the future auction?" > So do I. Cheap rhetorical tricks I don't know where you get the idea of a cheap rhetorical trick. I wanted to confirm that, despite the words of L75 (no typo here) clearly stating that such information should be fully and freely available to me, I am not permitted to ask. > such as the above are unlikely > to work in a case where we are already examining the language > closely. In other words they say that I may never ask about the systemic agreements - I may only ask about specific calls (and then only calls that might previously have been made). I may not ask, for example, the level to which they play negative doubles. I may not ask whether the opponents are able to make a game try in the sequence (1s)-2H-(2s)-3H. If Opps start with 2S (weak), 2N (enquiry) I may not ask whether any of the possible systemic responses take opponents beyond 3S. Still seems crazy to me (and since I have never played bridge anywhere where opponents don't think I am entitled to ask, and receive answers to, such questions I believe we are still miles away from consensus). Tim From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Oct 30 15:57:55 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:57:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] tres scientifique Message-ID: <200210301557.KAA06875@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > This hand came from the 1992 Canadian Teams, > subsequently discussed in the December 1994 > Bridge World editorial. This is an interesting hand, and what it mostly shows is how hard bridge judgments can be, especially when you know the final result. This demonstrates the merit of asking expert players for advice without telling them all the information. FWIW, my opinion before reading any other answers was that I wanted to play in partner's 7-card suit, and that it could not realistically be spades. However, I decided that pass was a LA in the ACBL but not elsewhere in the world because of the very stringent ACBL rule about LA's. > At the table, South > broke tempo when passing 5Hx, and again when > doubling 5S. North then bid 5NT, which led > to a successful 6D contract. I think there is also a question of what the hesitation suggests. With a 7-card spade suit, might South think about letting the opponents play undoubled rather than escape into a better fit? Probably not, at the unfavorable vulnerability, but a question to be asked. I don't think North's bidding is inconsistent. He was presumably planning to raise a voluntary slam bid by South to seven and pull a double. That looks a bit optimistic but not crazy. As I say, though, bridge judgments can be very difficult. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 30 16:03:20 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:03:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertab l e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021030155708.00dabc00@MDWexc1> References: <3DBE60E10008346E@ocpmta6.be.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021030105545.00bb99d0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:07 AM 10/30/02, Simon wrote: >At 15:17 30/10/2002, Eric Landau wrote: > >>(3) The current state of the law notwithstanding, most of the ordinary >>bridge players out there believe that they are allowed to ask any >>questions they want to about the opponents' bidding agreements, and are >>obligated to answer any such questions. That is the way they want and >>expect bridge to be played. The law (or its interpretation) should be >>changed to reflect what the majority of players think it is, are happy >>with, and will continue to act in accordance with. The WBF >>interpretation has been quietly but effectively rejected by "the court >>of public opinion". > >Should this "principle of expectancy of the majority of players" also >be applied to L40E2 (the words "at his own turn to call or play")? >Almost every player I meet grabs his opponents' CC when LHO makes a >call that is alerted - and sometimes he does even so when the call is >not alerted. Sure it should. But it only suggests that changing the law to bring it in line with general understanding should be considered, not necessarily that it should be done. I suspect that several contributors to BLML would be prepared to offer arguments, which might be considered compelling, that such a change to L40E2 would be a bad idea. In contrast, we've been discussing L20F1 for several weeks, and have heard no substantive reason why changing it would be a bad idea, unless one finds David B.'s "it would take too much time" argument, which ISTM has garnered more dissent than support, compelling. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 30 16:26:28 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 30 Oct 2002 08:26:28 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in Message-ID: <301002303.30388@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >In other words they say that I may never ask about the systemic agreements - I may only ask about specific calls (and then only calls that might previously have been made). I may not ask, for example, the level to which they play negative doubles. This isn't cheap rhetoric - this is sheer blind incomprehension of plain English. Law 20F applies *only to an auction in progress*, and neither Grattan nor Ton nor I have suggested otherwise for an instant. Of course you can find out to what level the opponents play negative doubles. It's on their convention card, or you can ask before the round starts. Because it's on their convention card, you can even discover it during the auction if you must. >I may not ask whether the opponents are able to make a game try in the sequence (1s)-2H-(2s)-3H. Again, if it's going to bother you, ask them about it before you start (or look at the CC to ascertain whether it says anything about maximal doubles). >If Opps start with 2S (weak), 2N (enquiry) I may not ask whether any of the possible systemic responses take opponents beyond 3S. Why anyone would care a toss about that is more than I can imagine. It is partly in order to protect people from havihng to answer such fatuous questions that the law is the way it is in the first place. But this does not matter. I do not know whence has come the notion that I believe you are never allowed to know what your opponents might bid. It is nothing I have said, and I have said the contrary on numerous occasions. But I will say it again, since I can only imagine Tim's interpretation of my position to be based on a genuine misunderstanding. You are allowed to know what your opponents might bid if: the information is on the convention card (which you may examine during play); or you have ascertained it before the start of play. You are not allowed to know what your opponents might bid if, to ascertain it, you have to ask a question forbidden by L20F. The reason for this is that although L75 confers the right to complete information, this right may be difficult to obtain in practice without either time-wasting or the creation of UI problems. You may not think that this is a very good reason, and you may be right. David Burn London, England From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Oct 30 16:30:00 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:30:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Marvin L. French'" ; "Ed Reppert" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:31 AM Subject: RE: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] > > From: "Ed Reppert" < > > > > > David Burn wrote: -s- > What this group might do is giving input to those who are asked to make such > decisions. That is why I asked you about your opinion of changing L20F, > making it possible to ask about future calls. The only reaction came from > David B. telling that he considers the present L20F > satisfactory. > No other opinions? I do not want to suggest an opinion in isolation of the current Law about should questions about future calls be permitted, but will offer an opinion on the basis that it fits with a version of law, not necessarily with the 1997 promulgation. I believe that it is a mistake to contemplate changing or creating something without having the whole fit it. My opinion is that it depends. [a] First of all, in general the time for asking about hypothetical/ future calls is not during a hand. At other times there ought to be freedom to ask and answer. [b] When relevant system has been made available to the opponents before the hand, that is answer enough for hypothetical wonderings and it is unsuitable to ask such questions during the hand. If need be during the hand the player might look at the CC and draw conclusions. [c] When relevant system has not been made available to the opponents before the hand, and the possible consequences of taking action are germane in deciding what, if any, action to take there now is no other apparent way to accomplish things than by use of the question once the CC has been found deficient. I have not thought it through but it occurs to me that it would be a good idea in that event to take asker and responder from the table to curtail the creation of UI. regards roger pewick > Not interested? Just showing your distrust for even themildest form of authority, Grattan's I mean? > > > > ton From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 16:35:22 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:35:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique References: <200210301557.KAA06875@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000c01c28032$5e9c0ac0$2a9868d5@default> [Steve Willner] I don't think North's bidding is inconsistent. He was presumably planning to raise a voluntary slam bid by South to seven and pull a double. That looks a bit optimistic but not crazy. [Nigel Guthrie] I confess I had not noticed that North passed 5S before pulling the double. In most circles, in circumstances like these, where pass may be forcing, pass and pull is more likely to be a grand slam try than anything else. Since North's hand hardly qualifies for a small slam gamble, I am even keener to see the North South system notes. From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Oct 30 16:49:09 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in In-Reply-To: <301002303.30388@webbox.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > > You are allowed to know what your opponents might bid if: the > information is on the convention card (which you may examine > during play); Why should any distinction be made between conventions appearing in sufficient detail on a convention card and those conventions not appearing in sufficient detail such that questions would have to be asked? > or you have ascertained it before the start of play. You have given the time-wasting argument over and again. In practice, asking before play starts delays the start of play and wastes time. Why does your time-wasting argument not apply here? > You are not allowed to know what your opponents might bid > if, to ascertain it, you have to ask a question forbidden by > L20F. If you believe that statement, do you also believe that shuffling the cards is forbidden by L20F? L20F grants rights and restricts none. > The reason for this is that although L75 confers the right > to complete information, this right may be difficult to obtain > in practice without either time-wasting or the creation of UI > problems. You may not think that this is a very good reason, > and you may be right. Bureaucracies work under this assumption. You make an option available but so arduous to exercise that most people would abandon the quest to exercise it. It's good for PR and the pocket. But making a task impractical does not make it illegal nor forbidden. -Todd From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 17:13:18 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:13:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: Message-ID: <003801c28037$a5bed9a0$2a9868d5@default> [Ton Kooijman] And then my very personal opinion is that you are allowed to do so, unless the sponsoring organisation has regulations forbidding it. You don't want my opinion about this strategy? Next question, let us do it the Socratesian way. I have to admit now already that I do not have an answer for the problem that both sides only know what to do when the opponents have made their choice. A toss may be, or even/odd boards? {Nigel Guthrie] I recall this "Hen and Egg" problem being discussed about 50 years ago. If in all this time, the law has failed to ban players from changing their offensive actions only after establishing what opponent's defenses are, it makes you want to throw up. The correct rule has always been simple and obvious -- you must specify meanings in chronological order -- actions before reactions. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 17:31:05 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:31:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030080144.00b8d680@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005201c2803a$27051c20$2a9868d5@default> [Alain Gottcheiner] 1NT-P-2S Alert! "That shows an invitation to 3NT, or a signoff in clubs, or any of various strong hands interested in slam." Usually the opponents won't care what the strong hands might be, but if they do, the reply will be taken as an open invitation to ask about them. [Eric Landau] That's what happens in real life, and it works fine. But it relies on the assumption that the opponents are free to ask questions about follow-up actions that have not yet occurred. [Nigel Guthrie] If a complete explanation would take a long time and probably not help greatly, then Alain's form of words seems ideal. To take up the invitation to expand the answer, rather than continue with specific questions (which I think should be banned) all an opponent needs to do is to ask Richard's general question "Tell me more." From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 30 17:58:27 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:58:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> <002201c2801f$d1736f60$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <002001c2803e$6b943d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > What Law 20 permits is specifying a call different > from the one being explained but which would have > been a legal alternative to the call actually made; and > the question: "what would this call have indicated?". > > There is a difference, do I hear any support? > Too much UI, pointing to a particular call. The proper question is, "What would be the significance of relevant calls that were available but not made?" Note that L20F1 speaks of "relevant calls," not "relevant call." The principle is the same as what the main part of the sentence conveys, which is that individual calls should not be pinpointed unnecessarily. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 30 18:02:00 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:02:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <003801c28037$a5bed9a0$2a9868d5@default> Message-ID: <002501c2803f$1fa383e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > I recall this "Hen and Egg" problem being > discussed about 50 years ago. If in all this time, > the law has failed to ban players from changing > their offensive actions only after establishing > what opponent's defenses are, it makes you want > to throw up. The correct rule has always been > simple and obvious -- you must specify meanings > in chronological order -- actions before reactions. Which is exactly what the ACBL requires in its Election regarding L40E. The law has not failed in ACBL-land. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From David.Barton@cwcom.net Wed Oct 30 18:17:05 2002 From: David.Barton@cwcom.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:17:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: Message-ID: <000a01c28040$90efeba0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Roger pewick wrote:- > [c] When relevant system has not been made available to the opponents > before the hand, and the possible consequences of taking action are > germane in deciding what, if any, action to take there now is no other > apparent way to accomplish things than by use of the question once the > CC has been found deficient. I have not thought it through but it > occurs to me that it would be a good idea in that event to take asker > and responder from the table to curtail the creation of UI. > A concrete example to consider:- Game all Dealer North imp scoring The auction starts 3H 3S P(1) 4H(2) and on to a making 6S (1) South examines E-W convention card and finds double of 4H is penalty but no mention of the meaning of 4H (2) Explained at the appropriate time as a UCB ie good raise to 4S but not necessarily a H control At the end of play E comments "system worked well - without your 4H bid we may have missed this one". South calls the director and claims if he had known what 4H would have meant he would have bid it first. Chance of redress is virtually zero. Now it is nonsense to suggest that NS should have asked before the auction started and the CC was not surprisingly silent on the point. Now I am not claiming that the current laws DO give NS the right to find out the meaning of W hypothetical 4H bid - I think DB has won that discussion. But place me firmly in the camp of those that believe that in a game of full disclosure S SHOULD have the information he needs before choosing his bid. David.Barton@cwcom.net From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 30 18:19:40 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 30 Oct 2002 10:19:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in Message-ID: <301002303.37181@webbox.com> Todd wrote: >Why should any distinction be made between conventions appearing in sufficient detail on a convention card and those conventions not appearing in sufficient detail such that questions would have to be asked? I will say this once more, very slowly. [1] The right to full disclosure is in principle conferred by Law 75. [2] But full disclosure is in practice impossible. [3] Therefore, there are practical limits to the extent to which disclosure is required, both in advance of and during play. [4] Those limits are defined by: the regulations of the SO (in terms of disclosure before play); and the restrictions in Law 20 (in terms of disclosure during play). I hope that the distinction for which Todd asks may be obvious from the above. I know that there are people who do not agree with [3]; Herman and others think that the only practical limit should be that defined by what players can do before being fined for slow play. I am not unsympathetic to this view myself - but I have never been asked (nor have I ever asked) a question of the form "What might he bid if the auction takes this hypothetical course"? >You have given the time-wasting argument over and again. In practice, asking before play starts delays the start of play and wastes time. Why does your time-wasting argument not apply here? You are supposed to look at the opponents' convention card before you start to play. You don't have to do it, but you are given time in which to do it. If you play methods that will be contingent upon the development of the opponents' auction in certain positions, it is to be imagined that you will look rather more carefully at the relevant sections of the opponents' card than otherwise. This might, it is true, consume some additional time, but the cost will be small compared with a dialogue beginning: "What might he do if I make a penalty double at this point?" >f you believe that statement, do you also believe that shuffling the cards is forbidden by L20F? L20F grants rights and restricts none. Don't be ridiculous. Or at any rate, try not to be. David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 30 18:23:46 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:23:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> <007501c27f9c$9798e280$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article , Roger Pewick writes >> relative frequency is about 17 to 3, I will provide that information, > >Does the bidding of 2D really convey that the probability is 17-3 weak2M >vs Strong? Or does it convey > >"a weak two in a major, or 23-24 balanced, or 20-24 with some 4441 >shape".? Yet, if it is really something more then it really is >something more. But the statistic being the result of a calculation was >not information conveyed. > >Which is to say that if the information is not conveyed is it really a >matter that ought to [or even should] be required to be made available >to the opponents [while a hand is in progress]? > I'd probably tell the guy just to save him the bother of doing the sum in his head, but I'm nice like that, and want to get back to the bar. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 18:37:13 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:37:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <003801c28037$a5bed9a0$2a9868d5@default> Message-ID: <003001c28043$628d8080$2a9868d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] In a previous email I said "The correct rule has always been simple and obvious -- you must specify meanings in chronological order -- actions before reactions". Let me hasten to qualify that. Most cases are clear-cut. e.g. Richard plays "Business" rather than "Sputnik" doubles. IMO opponents should not be allowed to counter this by strenghtening their overcalls. But consider this auction... (1N) X (Pa) ? Your passing opponent alerts because his partner must redouble. As the next to bid, are you allowed to distinguish the meanings of immediate actions (before the redouble) from delayed actions (after the redouble)? e.g bid immediately with a weak hand and a long suit but delay if you want to scramble? You could argue "No, because the redouble comes after your immediate action" but I would argue "Yes, as the pass was forcing." In more complex auctions, I dare say that it might be harder to echelon agreements. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Oct 30 18:48:46 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:48:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> <007501c27f9c$9798e280$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:47:33 -0600, "Roger Pewick" wrote: >From: "David Burn" >> Since I know (because I've worked it out, not >> because I've counted occasions in our partnership history) that the >> relative frequency is about 17 to 3, I will provide that information, > >Does the bidding of 2D really convey that the probability is 17-3 weak2M >vs Strong? Or does it convey > >"a weak two in a major, or 23-24 balanced, or 20-24 with some 4441 >shape".? Yet, if it is really something more then it really is >something more. But the statistic being the result of a calculation was >not information conveyed. > >Which is to say that if the information is not conveyed is it really a >matter that ought to [or even should] be required to be made available >to the opponents [while a hand is in progress]? In practice, the players who actually play the system have often taken the trouble beforehand to figure out (or count) approximately how often which variant occurs. So this is general bridge information that is not a part of the system agreement itself, but which happens to be relevant only because of the system agreeement. Information which one side happens to have worked out beforehand, probably because they play the system, and which the other side may not have time to work out in the middle of the hand. I would happily provide such information if I had it, and I would also find it reasonable to require me to do so - but I don't think the laws require it. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Oct 30 19:25:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <301002303.30388@webbox.com> DALB wrote: > >I may not ask whether the opponents are able to make a game > try in the sequence (1s)-2H-(2s)-3H. > > Again, if it's going to bother you, ask them about it before > you start Of course I can never know what might bother me before I start. I am expected to play 2 boards in fifteen minutes - tricky if one spends 20 minutes on questions that are 98% likely to be irrelevant - opps will no doubt be trying to work out the approximate location of my home planet. > (or look at the CC to ascertain whether it says anything > about maximal doubles). Do these decisions only come up in major tournaments? The laws are supposed to cover club bridge, on-line bridge and bridge weekends as well as the world championships. This information isn't on the (often non-existent) CC. There's no point calling a TD and asking for an adjustment after the hand either - even if there is one he will say "If you were worried about it at the time why didn't you ask". Personally I would have thought that the "protect yourself" philsophy of the WBF would also create the need to ask questions about systemic arrangements not immediately obvious from the CC, though perhaps less frequently. Tim From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Oct 30 19:12:14 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in In-Reply-To: <301002303.37181@webbox.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:20 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] questions about future calls [was: > > Todd wrote: > > >Why should any distinction be made between conventions > appearing > in sufficient detail on a convention card and those conventions > not appearing in sufficient detail such that questions would > have to be asked? > > I will say this once more, very slowly. > > [1] The right to full disclosure is in principle conferred by > Law 75. > [2] But full disclosure is in practice impossible. > [3] Therefore, there are practical limits to the extent to which > disclosure is required, both in advance of and during play. > [4] Those limits are defined by: the regulations of the SO (in > terms of disclosure before play); and the restrictions in Law > 20 (in terms of disclosure during play). > > I hope that the distinction for which Todd asks may be obvious > from the above. Halfway there. This explains the causes that lead to the effect. It does not explain why (or even assert that) this specific effect is desireable. (Your opinion of whether this would ever be good or bad bridge will be beside the point.) Say my LHO opens 2H (weak), pass, and RHO bids 2NT. If they are playing feature responses, I want that information myself before bidding 4S. If they are playing ogust, I want to deny that information to RHO by bidding 4S immediately. This appears on the ACBL convention card because it is common. I can look, know, and bid accordingly. Now say my RHO opens 1C (strong, artificial). I have borderline hand with a diamond stack and am deciding between a double or bidding 1D. I want to know the response structure to both bids before deciding. This does not appear on the ACBL convention card because it is uncommon. I am arbitrarily denied information I would have if strong clubs were as common in the ACBL as 2-level preempts. All the worse, opponents have benefitted by using an uncommon bidding system not because the opponents are unfamiliar, but because the regulations favor their use. Excuse me for pouting, but that just ain't fair. A recent partner and I played a quaint little homebrewed system he devised. We had pages of notes for specific auctions for which there is either no space or conflicting use of space on the ACBL convention card. Are you suggesting we could have legally and righteously avoided disclosing our response structures (until actually bid) by fulfilling the barest of regulation requirements, specifically filling out an inadequate, one-page, ACBL-prescribed convention card? I think making official policy of forbidding questions about response structures and use of conventions not yet bid in an auction would encourage people to become weazels. -Todd From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Oct 30 19:57:19 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:57:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in In-Reply-To: <301002303.37181@webbox.com> References: <301002303.37181@webbox.com> Message-ID: <7qd0sugpm181svnblpo3ecl0vc916vmhr7@nuser.dybdal.dk> On 30 Oct 2002 10:19:40 -0800, "David Burn" wrote: >[1] The right to full disclosure is in principle conferred by >Law 75. >[2] But full disclosure is in practice impossible. >[3] Therefore, there are practical limits to the extent to which >disclosure is required, both in advance of and during play. >[4] Those limits are defined by: the regulations of the SO (in >terms of disclosure before play); and the restrictions in Law >20 (in terms of disclosure during play). I agree; that is the law. As to "future calls", I can also only agree that L20F does not allow questions about those. But I think there may be situations where the meanings of possible future calls could have had an influence on the choice of a past call: in that case, the best way to explain to opponents what hands the call could be made on might well be to explain how the system works, also in the future. And if the full explanation is not forthcoming, this might require follow-up questions which seem to be about future calls, but which are intended to improve the understanding of a past call. I hope that we agree that such questions are allowed. Though they are not very common: I couldn't think of a really good example. >I know that there are people who do not agree with [3]; Herman >and others think that the only practical limit should be that >defined by what players can do before being fined for slow play. I think my favorite choice of law would be something like "You can ask anything you like about the opponents' system, as long as you are neither wasting time nor asking in order to annoy the opponents". And I think this is what happens in practice, because questions are only limited in practice by what makes the opponents call the TD. The difficulty would be in the interpretation of "wasting time", of course. Causing a slow play penalty by asking would usually be "wasting time", and so would asking questions that are obviously irrelevant to the hand. But I don't think I can give a usable definition of "obviously irrelevant to the hand". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 20:12:11 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:12:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <003801c28037$a5bed9a0$2a9868d5@default> Message-ID: <006f01c28050$a5da95a0$2a9868d5@default> Having re-read laws 20 and 75, I agree with David Burn that they appear to contradict each other unless, as he implies, you interpret law 20 as a restriction on when you may question opponents about the information, to which law 75 gives you a right. As the law is stated, however, surely there is rarely a problem, in practice? If I want to know hypothetical or future understandings that law 20 may prevent me from asking opponents about, may I look at opponents' CC? If I cannot find what I want there, may I call the director and ask him to enforce law 75? Presumably the TD will make sure that I am not disadvantaged relative to those who play against opponents who are more forthcoming or whose CCs are less secretive about their methods? [e.g. my CC has notes that describe responses to (Puppet) Stayman, (Roman Keycard) (Reverse) Lebensohl, Blackwood, and other common conventions; and how we deal with common interventions]. Surely all this is the correct interpretation of the current law? My interest is mainly in how the rules should be changed (and I feel these laws should be). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 30 21:46:40 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:46:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: <4A256C62.0076363F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [snip] >But if, in the case of Law 75 and Law 20, you >are saying one thing in one place and a >different thing in another place, then it is >really not a good idea to make this obvious. [snip] Disagree. In my opinion, L20 describes the proper format of questions, while L75 prescribes the proper amount of explanations. Therefore, in my opinion, L20 and L75 are consistent with each other. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 30 21:18:43 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:18:43 -0500 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <004d01c27f38$12512880$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 10/29/02, Sven Pran wrote: >There are so many "problems" that disappear once you understand the >fundamental intentions of the laws rather than the spelling of the laws! Spelling is irrelevant. You will be assim... wait a minute. :-) Spelling *is* irrelevant. The problem is that the laws have evolved over time, and that apparently the words in the laws say things (or seem to say things) which contradict either (a) the original intention of the lawmakers or (b) the current intention of the lawmakers. Some will now argue that we should rule in accordance with those intentions, rather than in accordance with what the laws actually say. I say nay. Much as we may dislike doing it, as Tournament Directors we are *required* to rule IAW what the laws actually say (Law 81B4, Law 82A, Law 84, Law 85). Law 81C5 requires TDs to "administer and interpret the laws", so we have discretion in some cases where the wording seems ambiguous. But generally speaking, absent an edict from higher authority (NCBO, Zone, or WBF LC) on how to apply a given law, the words of the law itself, and not some perceived intent of early or current LCs, must govern. Or so it seems to me. Hm, I seemed to have assumed a mantle to which I hold no title - I am not a TD. Natheless, I stand by the intent of what I say above. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 30 21:03:27 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:03:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75 In-Reply-To: <006601c27f0d$cf373780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/28/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >The words "prove beyond reasonable doubt" are a bit strong, but they >do not contradict the footnote. I suppose it depends on the meaning of "contradict". :-) It's the " beyond reasonable doubt" criterion that I question. Since the footnote simply says "absence of evidence", it seems to me that if there is *no* evidence, the TD must rule misinformation, but if there is *any* evidence, he must consider it. This seems to me to imply a standard of "preponderance of evidence" (as in a civil suit in US law) rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" (as in a criminal case). >That footnote, while it looks like a mere informal commentary on L75, >has the full force of law, as Edgar Kaplan explained to me once. Understood. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 30 21:34:16 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:34:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertab l e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <3DBE60E10008346E@ocpmta6.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030105545.00bb99d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003d01c2805c$1b720900$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > In contrast, we've been discussing L20F1 for several weeks, and > have heard no substantive reason why changing it would be a bad idea, > unless one finds David B.'s "it would take too much time" argument, > which ISTM has garnered more dissent than support, compelling. > A better argument is that asking about future actions leads logically to the possibility of changing system in anticipation of the future action(s). This is not permitted in ACBL-land, and L20F1 should not be revised to make it possible. Wait for the future action, then react accordingly, is the only feasible approach.. Otherwise you get the chicken and egg problem: "If you raise, will that be weak or invitational?" "It depends. If I raise, would your double be takeout or penaltyish?" "That depends on whether a raise would be weak or not." "That depends on whether a double would be takeout or penaltyish" "That depends...." Here's something from an old BLML thread: "If I double your partner's opening bid for takeout, would your pass be to play or would it be non-committal?" This is an improper question in ACBL-land, possibly leading to a modification of the partnership's takeout double agreements based on an anticipated reaction to the double. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 30 21:21:41 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:21:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? In-Reply-To: <3DBE6D2D.4080603@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 10/29/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Thus, hypothetical questions are still questions about the auction, >which are allowed by the main part of L20F. And the Lille >interpretation does not apply. Why does it not apply? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 30 21:35:31 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:35:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <007d01c27f4c$69f4fb20$dd9468d5@default> Message-ID: On 10/29/02, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >For example I never reply "nonsense" >or "rubbish" or "you are too stupid to understand" >or "you are too ignorant to proffer an opinion" >as others so frequently do. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said either of those last two things. At least, not here. As for the first two, they are attacks against the opinions expressed, not the person expressing them. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 30 21:53:06 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:53:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertab l e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <003d01c2805c$1b720900$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <3DBE60E10008346E@ocpmta6.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030105545.00bb99d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021030164638.00b93220@pop.starpower.net> At 04:34 PM 10/30/02, you wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > In contrast, we've been discussing L20F1 for several weeks, and > > have heard no substantive reason why changing it would be a bad idea, > > unless one finds David B.'s "it would take too much time" argument, > > which ISTM has garnered more dissent than support, compelling. > >A better argument is that asking about future actions leads logically >to the >possibility of changing system in anticipation of the future >action(s). This >is not permitted in ACBL-land, and L20F1 should not be revised to make it >possible. That's just silly. In ACBL-land, even if L20F1 is changed to make it theoretically possible to change system according to the answer, it will still be illegal to do so. After all, it is now theoretically possible to do so before the auction starts, which has nothing to do with L20, but it is illegal. I may be permitted to bring a gun to the grocery store, but that doesn't make it legal for me to shoot someone with it. And outside of ACBL-land, shouldn't the players who *are* allowed to change their methods depending on the answer to such mid-auction questions be entitled to the information they need in order to do so? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 30 22:54:58 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:54:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/30/02, Kooijman, A. wrote: >This is why I get tired in this group once in a while. How in heaven >is it possible to get consensus when people don't even accept clear >language and statements? You don't need to like people as Grattan and >me (though I advise you to like at least Grattan out of those two) but >when both of us - being members of the WBFLC - dare to say that >asking questions about future calls during an auction is not allowed, >and when to support this statement we point to L 20F, why then are you >still asking for consensus? This is not a group that decides about the >meaning of the laws, lucky bridge world. What this group might do is >giving input to those who are asked to make such decisions. That is >why I asked you about your opinion of changing L20F, making it >possible to ask about future calls. The only reaction came from David >B. telling that he considers the present L20F satisfactory. No other >opinions? Not interested? Just showing your distrust for even the >mildest form of authority, Grattan's I mean? I think, sir, that you do me a disservice, just as you seem to think I have done you and Grattan one. Three things: 1. I do not dislike either of you. How could I, having met you only through this forum? 2. I do know that the WBFLC is the final arbiter of the meaning of the laws. I accept that. I know that you and Grattan are members of that body. I accept that, although in fact at the time I wrote my question I did not consider it. I also seem to remember Grattan saying that the opinions expressed here by members of that body are theirs alone, and not necessarily those of the body. Of course, if you or Grattan has said that what you have expressed *is* the opinion of the LC, that caveat does not apply. I recognize and accept that, too. 3. While I do not necessarily trust "authority" just because it *is* authority, I was not attempting to show any distrust of it in this case. I was honestly trying to get fixed in my own mind what the current law *is* regarding questions. That is, has been, and will continue to be, my primary focus in these discussions. As for whether Law 20F is adequate in its current wording, although there might be minor quibbles about the wording of the parenthetical expression in that law, it seems to me that its essence is clearly that one may ask for an explanation of opponents' auction, but not, except in amplification of that explanation, about specific calls, and when questions about specific calls *are* asked, those specific calls are limited to calls actually made or, if not made, which *could* have been made, thus precluding any questions about calls which might be made in the future. If that is (as I believe it is) what you and Grattan have been saying, then I suppose I have all the "consensus" I need - or would save for the caveat in the last sentence of #2 above, if it applies. Still, it leaves me to wonder if regulations regarding alerts, all of which I know of allow questions about a specific alerted call *without* prior questions about the auction, are legal. But I suppose that's another question, and perhaps another thread. One other thought: it is precisely when all the experts on this list start arguing whether one side or the other of a question of law is correct that I want to nail down which side is right. As I am by no means as experienced or knowledgeable as most of those experts, it seems to me that your objection that people on this list are not accepting your statements regarding such points as correct should be directed more at those experts than at this, at best, apprentice. From jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz Wed Oct 30 23:21:18 2002 From: jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz (Julie Atkinson) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:21:18 +1300 Subject: [blml] A new question re Law 20F References: Message-ID: <002601c2806b$0dc893a0$0100a8c0@mshome.net> Law 20 F has been quoted many times recently. It states you can ask questions about bids made or not made during the auction and before the final pass. It seems rather bizarre that when on opening lead, you wish to understand the auction and at this point may have a valid reason for asking about bids not made, that you are no longer allowed to. Law 20F 2 allows to ask about the meaning of the auction, and restricts declarer to asking the meaning of calls made. Given that asking about bids not made has the potential for UI, it is strange that we force people to ask questions in the midst of the auction, rather than allowing them to ask at a time when it is most appropriate and therefore UI far less of a possibility??? Julie From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 30 23:18:41 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:18:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <3DBE60E10008346E@ocpmta6.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030105545.00bb99d0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030164638.00b93220@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007c01c2806a$b1e29360$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > In contrast, we've been discussing L20F1 for several weeks, and > > > have heard no substantive reason why changing it would be a bad idea, > > > unless one finds David B.'s "it would take too much time" argument, > > > which ISTM has garnered more dissent than support, compelling. > > Marv wrote: > >A better argument is that asking about future actions leads logically > >to the > >possibility of changing system in anticipation of the future > >action(s). This > >is not permitted in ACBL-land, and L20F1 should not be revised to make it > >possible. > > That's just silly. In ACBL-land, even if L20F1 is changed to make it > theoretically possible to change system according to the answer, it > will still be illegal to do so. No, because the current optional election would itself become illegal, as conflicting with the new L20F1 > > And outside of ACBL-land, shouldn't the players who *are* allowed to > change their methods depending on the answer to such mid-auction > questions be entitled to the information they need in order to do so? Perhaps an SO Election could be added to L20F1 in order to provide this right for SOs who unwisely want players to have it. Let them then be prepared to handle the Chicken and Egg paradox. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 30 23:22:18 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:22:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure References: Message-ID: <013201c2806b$35564f20$2a9868d5@default> [Ed Reppert] To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said either of those last two things. At least, not here. As for the first two, they are attacks against the opinions expressed, not the person expressing them. [Nigel] In my short expereince of BLML, I have seen several accusations of ignorance and stupidity some of them directed at me. David Burn often says that his critics do not understand even the simplest things. Since we are not wilfully obtuse, I conclude that we must all be stupid. Several people have said of a submission that it offers an opinion on a topic about which the author knows nothing. Ignorance is relative and although I do not claim to know much I hope I know enough to offer an opinion. I concede that "Nonsense" and "Rubbish" may be attacks on opinions rather than their holders but they are cheap, nasty, empty attacks. IMO, in a discussion forum for adults, even a short counter-example or counter-argument is always preferable. From adam@irvine.com Wed Oct 30 23:47:51 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:47:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] A new question re Law 20F In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:21:18 +1300." <002601c2806b$0dc893a0$0100a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <200210302347.PAA05093@mailhub.irvine.com> Julie Atkinson wrote: > Law 20 F has been quoted many times recently. It states you can ask > questions about bids made or not made during the auction and before the > final pass. > > It seems rather bizarre that when on opening lead, you wish to understand > the auction and at this point may have a valid reason for asking about bids > not made, that you are no longer allowed to. Law 20F 2 allows to ask about > the meaning of the auction, and restricts declarer to asking the meaning of > calls made. > > Given that asking about bids not made has the potential for UI, it is > strange that we force people to ask questions in the midst of the auction, > rather than allowing them to ask at a time when it is most appropriate and > therefore UI far less of a possibility??? I don't think that's the intent of the Law, and I wouldn't interpret it that way. The 1987 Laws didn't say anything about "calls available but not made". Here's what L20F looks like in the 1987 Laws: 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction; replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75 , section C). 2. During the Play Period After the final pass and throughout the play period, declarer or either defender (but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply) at his own turn to play may request such an explanation of opposing auction, and declarer may request an explanation of the defenders' card play conventions. Law L20F2 used the word "such", which indicates to me that the rights to inquire granted by L20F2 were intended to be the same as those granted by L20F1. The question of whether one could ask about relevant calls not made generated some controversy, if my memory serves. In fact, I remember being caught up in this exact issue (but it was probably before 1987) when a bid my partner made was disallowed by an appeals committee. This was, in part, due to a question I had asked about a bid the opponents could have made but did not, and in part because it took some time for me to pass. At the time, the interpretation of the Law was that one could *not* ask about calls that were not made. A few weeks later, I spoke to Roger Putnam (a respected director), who told me that that was how the Law was currently being applied, but he thought it was incorrect because one needs to know about calls that could have been made to find out about negative inferences. Eventually, that became the official interpretation: that getting a "full explanation of the opponents' auction" necessarily included the right to ask about relevant calls that weren't made. I'm writing this all from memory, but I believe this became the official interpretation a number of years before 1997, and that caused the parenthesized phrase currently in L20F1 to be added in the 1997 Laws. It might have been an oversight that the same phrase wasn't added to L20F2. I notice also that the word "such" is no longer in L20F2. Anyway, based on my recollection of the history involved and the fact that the important phrase is in parentheses, my interpretation is this: The phrase "(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)" is not an *addition* to the right to ask for a full explanation, but rather an *explanatory* note to clarify that the right to request an explanation includes the right to ask about calls not made. Given this, my interpretation is that the right to request is the same in L20F2 as in L20F1, and thus the same parenthesized explanatory note given in L20F1 also applies to L20F2, despite the fact that it is not repeated there. (It doesn't bother me that L20F1 uses the word "full" and L20F2 doesn't---I don't think this is relevant.) Of course, someone will probably explain why they interpret this differently. -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 31 04:48:12 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:48:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] A new question re Law 20F References: <200210302347.PAA05093@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <008b01c28098$bd281460$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" (snip of history which strikes me as being absolutely correct.) > > Anyway, based on my recollection of the history involved and the fact > that the important phrase is in parentheses, my interpretation is > this: The phrase "(questions may be asked about calls actually made or > about relevant calls available but not made)" is not an *addition* to > the right to ask for a full explanation, but rather an *explanatory* > note to clarify that the right to request an explanation includes the > right to ask about calls not made. Precisely. > Given this, my interpretation is > that the right to request is the same in L20F2 as in L20F1, and thus > the same parenthesized explanatory note given in L20F1 also applies to > L20F2, despite the fact that it is not repeated there. (It doesn't > bother me that L20F1 uses the word "full" and L20F2 doesn't---I > don't think this is relevant.) Nor do I, but the deletion of the "such" from L20F2 could mean there is a difference intended. I now think this is very unlikely, as surely declarer must have the L20F1 rights. > Of course, someone will probably explain why they interpret this > differently. Part of the misunderstanding of L20F1 was caused by the failure to correct the title of L20 and L20F1 in 1987, when the right to question calls was changed to the right to ask for a full explanation of the auction. To agree with the current text, the title of L20 should be REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF AUCTION, and L20F1's title should be Explanation of Auction. No one seems to have noticed that the change to L20F1 in 1987 brought it in line with L20C's footnote in regard to a review of the auction: "A player may not ask for a partial restatement of previous calls and may not halt the review until it is completed." Everyone has accepted that without question, the reason for it is obvious, and that reason certainly applies to an explanation of the auction. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 31 06:05:21 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:05:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] A new question re Law 20F References: <002601c2806b$0dc893a0$0100a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <00ab01c280a3$984cf4c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Julie Atkinson" > Law 20 F has been quoted many times recently. It states you can ask > questions about bids made or not made during the auction and before the > final pass. > > It seems rather bizarre that when on opening lead, you wish to understand > the auction and at this point may have a valid reason for asking about bids > not made, that you are no longer allowed to. Law 20F 2 allows to ask about > the meaning of the auction, and restricts declarer to asking the meaning of > calls made. > > Given that asking about bids not made has the potential for UI, it is > strange that we force people to ask questions in the midst of the auction, > rather than allowing them to ask at a time when it is most appropriate and > therefore UI far less of a possibility??? > As Adam Beneschan writes, it is logical to assume that the parenthetical insert to L20F1 applies to L20F2 also. The insert only makes clear that necessary questions with regard to *any* explanation of the auction may properly include questions about relevant calls available but not made. No need to repeat that in L20F2, it goes without saying. Similarly, we can assume that the omission of "full" in regard to an L20F2 explanation does not mean that the explanation need not be a "full explanation," as L20F1 says. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 31 06:23:09 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:23:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: Message-ID: <00bf01c280a6$651078e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > As for whether Law 20F is adequate > in its current wording, although there might be minor quibbles about the > wording of the parenthetical expression in that law, it seems to me that > its essence is clearly that one may ask for an explanation of opponents' > auction, but not, except in amplification of that explanation, about > specific calls, and when questions about specific calls *are* asked, > those specific calls are limited to calls actually made or, if not made, > which *could* have been made, thus precluding any questions about calls > which might be made in the future. That is a masterful explanation of L20F1, Ed, a very clear presentation of something that many people have difficulty understanding. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 30 21:07:57 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:07:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <3DBFB7BE.3060709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c280ad$af2c0370$dd40e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] > > Count me firmly in the camp of those that want to > see this version of L20F changed. If one is entitled > to some piece of information, surely one should be > allowed to ask about it. > +=+ I do not think anyone would disagree with this statement in principle. But it does not answer in any way the question "When should you be allowed to ask about it?". David Burn has touched upon this point once or twice. As a basic point I would say that if you know before the round starts that a piece of information is important for you, there seems to be no case for leaving the question to be asked in the middle of the auction. I have in mind those players whose call will have a different meaning, depending upon the meaning of the opponent's call. Knowing this, the player, in my view, should find out what his opponents' method is before taking his cards from the board. When it comes to changing the meaning of a call after you find out what will be the meaning of opponent's next call, I do not think there is any logic in allowing this; I consider the natural sequence is announcement of the defence after the player knows what he is defending against. I have some history of the subject somewhere and will try to make time to look it up. If the question is not one of meaning but rather one of bidding judgement, I doubt if there is much other than 'double' (or occasionally 'redouble') that it would involve - again something to establish before playing the first board of the round. The style of regulation that lists certain matters to be found out at the start of a round commends itself to me; I am not convinced it is a matter to put into the laws - but I am always open to hear argument on the point. I do favour an opinion that questions during the auction and play are desirably kept to a minimum. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 07:30:09 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:30:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new question re Law 20F References: <002601c2806b$0dc893a0$0100a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <3DC0DC01.10100@skynet.be> Which is just another proof that the WBF intended the bit between brackets to be an explanation of the main bit, and that this explanation also extends to part 2. Julie Atkinson wrote: > Law 20 F has been quoted many times recently. It states you can ask > questions about bids made or not made during the auction and before the > final pass. > > It seems rather bizarre that when on opening lead, you wish to understand > the auction and at this point may have a valid reason for asking about bids > not made, that you are no longer allowed to. Law 20F 2 allows to ask about > the meaning of the auction, and restricts declarer to asking the meaning of > calls made. > > Given that asking about bids not made has the potential for UI, it is > strange that we force people to ask questions in the midst of the auction, > rather than allowing them to ask at a time when it is most appropriate and > therefore UI far less of a possibility??? > > Julie > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 07:33:33 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:33:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: Message-ID: <3DC0DCCD.40107@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On 10/29/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Thus, hypothetical questions are still questions about the auction, >>which are allowed by the main part of L20F. And the Lille >>interpretation does not apply. >> > > Why does it not apply? > It does, but it does not matter. I read L20F as "questions may be asked", and the brackets as a non-exclusive list of types of questions. Lille then applies to the main bit, but that only prohibits breathing, not hypothetical questions. But, as Ton pointed out, the WBF seems to consider otherwise. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 31 07:44:05 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:44:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <00bf01c280a6$651078e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004801c280b1$574c9a80$279468d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] Is this the official interpretation? You are entitled to ask the meaning of hypothetical and future auctions [Laws 40 and 75] except when you might want to hear the answer [Law 20]. Some of the relevant laws from the ACBL website: [20F1] During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). [20F2] After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions. [40B] A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. [75A] Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. [75C] When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 07:42:53 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:42:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <3DBFB7BE.3060709@skynet.be> <000a01c280ad$af2c0370$dd40e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DC0DEFD.40802@skynet.be> No Grattan, you have not grasped the true problem here. Grattan Endicott wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>Count me firmly in the camp of those that want to >>see this version of L20F changed. If one is entitled >>to some piece of information, surely one should be >>allowed to ask about it. >> >> > +=+ I do not think anyone would disagree with this > statement in principle. But it does not answer in any > way the question "When should you be allowed to > ask about it?". David Burn has touched upon this > point once or twice. When ? Why not immediately prior to the moment you need the information? > As a basic point I would say that if you know > before the round starts that a piece of information > is important for you, there seems to be no case > for leaving the question to be asked in the middle > of the auction. I have in mind those players whose > call will have a different meaning, depending upon > the meaning of the opponent's call. Knowing this, > the player, in my view, should find out what his > opponents' method is before taking his cards from > the board. You say "should". I agree. In order to minimize UI, he should. But he didn't. Has he now lost his right to full disclosure ? Remember that UI issues are not important here - we may well be playing behind screens, or if there is UI, we still have L16. > When it comes to changing the meaning of a call > after you find out what will be the meaning of > opponent's next call, I do not think there is any logic > in allowing this; I consider the natural sequence is > announcement of the defence after the player knows > what he is defending against. As I have explained before, the chicken and egg problem is not a problem at all. We may well be talking of conversations like : "What would your methods be if I double this 2Di ?" "depends, what would double mean ?" "diamonds" "then we simply bid as if there was a pass, except that we pass if we also have (5+) diamonds". Perfectly normal, I think, no chicken and egg, no time wasting, and information to which the doubler is entitled to. UI to partner of course, but behind screens - no problem. > I have some history > of the subject somewhere and will try to make time > to look it up. If the question is not one of meaning > but rather one of bidding judgement, I doubt if there > is much other than 'double' (or occasionally > 'redouble') that it would involve - again something > to establish before playing the first board of the > round. The above example is only one of 357 possible auctions that one might like to know about. And it most probably is not even on the CC. I know these are questions that create problems for the asker, but I don't see that as a reason to categorically ban them. > The style of regulation that lists certain > matters to be found out at the start of a round > commends itself to me; I am not convinced it is > a matter to put into the laws - but I am always > open to hear argument on the point. I do favour > an opinion that questions during the auction > and play are desirably kept to a minimum. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 07:59:07 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:59:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertab l e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <3DBE60E10008346E@ocpmta6.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030105545.00bb99d0@pop.starpower.net> <003d01c2805c$1b720900$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3DC0E2CB.30604@skynet.be> Marv, please give sensible examples: Marvin L. French wrote: > > Wait for the future action, then react accordingly, is the only feasible > approach.. Otherwise you get the chicken and egg problem: > > "If you raise, will that be weak or invitational?" > > "It depends. If I raise, would your double be takeout or penaltyish?" > apparently it is the raiser who has the problem, not the first asker. > "That depends on whether a raise would be weak or not." > correct answer. You are allowed to play penalty doubles over weak raises and take-out over invitational ones. > "That depends on whether a double would be takeout or penaltyish" > And that method may well be not illegal, but certainly silly. Opponents have stated what their double will mean. Now raise or not, and please explain correctly, and then they will double with the meaning that they have told you. If you want to play a system that caters for only 2 out of 3 possibilities, then that is your problem, not the lawmakers'. > "That depends...." > > Here's something from an old BLML thread: > > "If I double your partner's opening bid for takeout, would your pass be to > play or would it be non-committal?" > > This is an improper question in ACBL-land, possibly leading to a modification > of the partnership's takeout double agreements based on an anticipated > reaction to the double. > Marv, there are 7 other zones. We would like to have an answer as well. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 31 08:28:36 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:28:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events?] References: <3DBFB7BE.3060709@skynet.be> <000a01c280ad$af2c0370$dd40e150@endicott> <3DC0DEFD.40802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c280b7$81d537c0$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > No Grattan, you have not grasped the true problem here. I am sure that he will recover shortly. > When ? Why not immediately prior to the moment you need the information? Because... oh, well. If you haven't grasped the true problem here by now, you probably won't. > You say "should". I agree. In order to minimize UI, he should. > But he didn't. Has he now lost his right to full disclosure ? Yes. Too much risk of UI. Too much risk of time-wasting. Too much risk of asking a "queen of trumps" question. All in all, too much risk of doing something that really will be a job for Herman de Wael, SuperTD. But for crying out loud, if you want to know whether your opponents are playing ROPI, can't you just look at their convention card before you double 4NT? > Remember that UI issues are not important here - we may well be > playing behind screens, or if there is UI, we still have L16. Playing behind screens, Herman, you can ask me whatever you like, and I will tell you the answer. No UI. No loss of time. Maybe still the "queen of trumps" question, but you can scream blue murder and I will confess. You are allowed full disclosure, up to the point where we can give it you without falling foul of other things; if we have screens, you are allowed more than if we don't. It's a practical matter, that's all. > > When it comes to changing the meaning of a call > > after you find out what will be the meaning of > > opponent's next call, I do not think there is any logic > > in allowing this; I consider the natural sequence is > > announcement of the defence after the player knows > > what he is defending against. This is something else altogether. It only arose with respect to HUMs; it has no place in the current discussion, but it has been introduced therein by mad people. Just because people are mad, it does not follow that they have no contribution to make, but they must wait their turn. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 31 08:37:41 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:37:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DC0DCCD.40107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c280b8$c6fcf6c0$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > It does, but it does not matter. I read L20F as "questions may be > asked", and the brackets as a non-exclusive list of types of > questions. Lille then applies to the main bit, but that only prohibits > breathing, not hypothetical questions. You are using the word "read" in a way with which I am not familiar. The words "questions may be asked" are in brackets; the parenthesis in which they appear would be presumed by anyone who could do what I think of as reading to define those questions which may be asked. Since there would be no point in doing this if other questions may be asked as well, it is a logical assumption that questions other than those that may be asked per the parenthesis may not be asked at all. > But, as Ton pointed out, the WBF seems to consider otherwise. Has he really? Well, stone the crows. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 08:57:07 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:57:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: Message-ID: <003001c280bb$ef9f7640$dd40e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:54 PM Subject: RE: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] > > I think, sir, that you do me a disservice, just as you seem to think I > have done you and Grattan one. > +=+ You have said nothing which I have considered in the least personally offensive. You never do. +=+ > > Three things: > > 1. I do not dislike either of you. How could I, having met you only > through this forum? > +=+ Oh, it is easy enough to dislike the tedium of a subscriber's arguments +=+ > > 2. I do know that the WBFLC is the final arbiter of the meaning of the > laws. I accept that. I know that you and Grattan are members of that > body. I accept that, although in fact at the time I wrote my question I > did not consider it. I also seem to remember Grattan saying that the > opinions expressed here by members of that body are theirs alone, and > not necessarily those of the body. Of course, if you or Grattan has said > that what you have expressed *is* the opinion of the LC, that caveat > does not apply. I recognize and accept that, too. > +=+ This is fair enough. However, given the willingness of ton and I to disagree publicly on occasion, you should be attentive if we are in firm agreement (especially if Kojak is not doubting us, publicly or privately) I want to make time if I can to turn up in older files what I may on the subject. It will involve blowing some dust away. At the moment I am conscious that there have been appeals committee decisions, but no WBFLC minute that I know of. The opinions I am expressing are based (a) on reading the text of the law, and (b) cumulative recollection of appeals committees - without having a relevant record in front of me. +=+ > 3. While I do not necessarily trust "authority" just > because it *is* authority, I was not attempting to show any > distrust of it in this case. I was honestly trying to get fixed > in my own mind what the current law *is* regarding questions. > That is, has been, and will continue to be, my primary focus > in these discussions. > +=+ I believe this is a fair reflection of your position, and that the whole thread reflects a widespread search for the truth of the matter. The common blml practice of repetition and circular motion is apparent; those who do not want to go anywhere are not going, as usual. +=+ > > One other thought: it is precisely when all the experts on this > list start arguing whether one side or the other of a question > of law is correct that I want to nail down which side is right. > +=+ Opinions should, of course, be weighed not counted. And I think there is evidence that the future law must say what it means more sharply. Consulting earlier law books I note that in the 1963 laws players could only enquire during the auction at their own turn to call - and the enquiry could only be for explanation of a conventional call that had been made (it does not say how you would know it was conventional but I imagine the answer is 'from the CC'). The 1975 book changes this: a player may 'request' (but only at his own turn to call) a 'full explanation of any call made by an opponent', Law 16 may apply. In 1987 we changed this to "a full explanation of the opponents' auction" - we intended to put a stop to enquiry during the auction about a single call; the cross reference to 75C intended that the 75C standard should be met in respect of each single call within an explanation of the whole auction. And now we have the 1997 law. We did not alter our intention that during the auction enquiry should be about the full auction and that 75C applied to each call within the explanation of the whole auction; however, we managed to confuse issues by insertion of the words in parenthesis, intending this to allow a request for extra information about specific calls where the responder had left doubt during the explanation of the full auction. None of this had any intention to open up enquiry about calls not yet made. At no time since my arrival in the WBFLC have I heard any member suggest that it would be desirable to allow questions about potential future actions - but, of course, the matter (as such) has not been on the agenda. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 07:35:39 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:35:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75 References: Message-ID: <002f01c280bb$ee6e4940$dd40e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75 > It's the " beyond reasonable doubt" criterion that > I question. Since the footnote simply says "absence > of evidence", it seems to me that if there is *no* > evidence, the TD must rule misinformation, but if > there is *any* evidence, he must consider it. This > seems to me to imply a standard of "preponderance > of evidence" (as in a civil suit in US law) rather than > "beyond reasonable doubt" (as in a criminal case). > +=+ In my experience when the game is at a level higher than a social level or that in most clubs, the mere assertion of players is not accepted as sufficient; evidence on the CC or in the system file is normally required. At the table the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is one for the TD to judge, which he will do in accordance with any guidelines or training that he may have been given. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 31 08:55:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:55:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] A new question re Law 20F References: <002601c2806b$0dc893a0$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <3DC0DC01.10100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c280bc$54fa6c20$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > Which is just another proof that the WBF intended the bit between > brackets to be an explanation of the main bit, and that this > explanation also extends to part 2. Even if it were, which it isn't, what good would it do? > Julie Atkinson wrote: > > Law 20 F has been quoted many times recently. It states you can ask > > questions about bids made or not made during the auction and before the > > final pass. > > It seems rather bizarre that when on opening lead, you wish to understand > > the auction and at this point may have a valid reason for asking about bids > > not made, that you are no longer allowed to. Eh? The defenders can have an explanation of the auction during the entire defence; there is nothing in 20F2 to suggest that this be any less full than the explanation defined in 20F1. > > Law 20F 2 allows to ask about > > the meaning of the auction, and restricts declarer to asking the meaning of > > calls made. No, it doesn't. An explanation of a defender's call extends to the negative inferences also; he can ask about relevant calls that were not made. > > Given that asking about bids not made has the potential for UI, it is > > strange that we force people to ask questions in the midst of the auction, > > rather than allowing them to ask at a time when it is most appropriate and > > therefore UI far less of a possibility??? Well, you are never forced to ask about anything. If you don't care what their bids mean until you start defending, ask then - there is no reason why not. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 09:40:57 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:40:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events?] References: <3DBFB7BE.3060709@skynet.be> <000a01c280ad$af2c0370$dd40e150@endicott> <3DC0DEFD.40802@skynet.be> <000d01c280b7$81d537c0$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DC0FAA9.2080503@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > > >>When ? Why not immediately prior to the moment you need the >> > information? > > Because... oh, well. If you haven't grasped the true problem here by > now, you probably won't. > I have grasped the problem - I'm just saying that this is not a problem that NEEDS to be solved by L20F. > >>You say "should". I agree. In order to minimize UI, he should. >>But he didn't. Has he now lost his right to full disclosure ? >> > > Yes. Too much risk of UI. Too much risk of time-wasting. Too much risk > of asking a "queen of trumps" question. All in all, too much risk of > doing something that really will be a job for Herman de Wael, SuperTD. > But for crying out loud, if you want to know whether your opponents are > playing ROPI, can't you just look at their convention card before you > double 4NT? > And what of the things that are not on the CC? > >>Remember that UI issues are not important here - we may well be >>playing behind screens, or if there is UI, we still have L16. >> > > Playing behind screens, Herman, you can ask me whatever you like, and I > will tell you the answer. No UI. No loss of time. Maybe still the "queen > of trumps" question, but you can scream blue murder and I will confess. > You are allowed full disclosure, up to the point where we can give it > you without falling foul of other things; if we have screens, you are > allowed more than if we don't. It's a practical matter, that's all. > David, David, David, ... L20F is also valid behind screens. If the reason for disallowing these questions is only UI, then say so. But why not simply allow the question and let UI be solved by L16? Remember that I am talking 2007 mode here ... > >>>When it comes to changing the meaning of a call >>>after you find out what will be the meaning of >>>opponent's next call, I do not think there is any logic >>>in allowing this; I consider the natural sequence is >>>announcement of the defence after the player knows >>>what he is defending against. >>> > > This is something else altogether. It only arose with respect to HUMs; > it has no place in the current discussion, but it has been introduced > therein by mad people. Just because people are mad, it does not follow > that they have no contribution to make, but they must wait their turn. > And I do hope you realize that I am not among the mad people - in this part of the discussion. > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 09:45:13 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:45:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <003001c280bb$ef9f7640$dd40e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DC0FBA9.9000004@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > And now we have the 1997 law. We did not alter our > intention that during the auction enquiry should be > about the full auction and that 75C applied to each > call within the explanation of the whole auction; however, > we managed to confuse issues by insertion of the words > in parenthesis, intending this to allow a request for > extra information about specific calls where the responder > had left doubt during the explanation of the full auction. > None of this had any intention to open up enquiry about > calls not yet made. At no time since my arrival in the > WBFLC have I heard any member suggest that it would > be desirable to allow questions about potential future > actions - but, of course, the matter (as such) has not > been on the agenda. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But of course this was before the Lille interpretation. Before 1999, anything not forbidden in the law could be deemed to be allowed. So since the question never came up, hypothetical questions were allowed before Lille. Since Lille, anything not allowed became forbidden, so since then hypothetical questions have been no longer possible. Which is why we are currently discussing whether or not we should (re-)allow these questions. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 31 12:02:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000a01c280ad$af2c0370$dd40e150@endicott> Grattan wrote: > If the question is not one of meaning > but rather one of bidding judgement, I doubt if there > is much other than 'double' (or occasionally > 'redouble') that it would involve - again something > to establish before playing the first board of the > round. I know that in all instances where I have wished to know more about opponents system before choosing a call it has been a matter of judgement not method (ie I have a choice of calls according to my own methods but judge that one will work better against Method A and another better against Method B). Where opps have CCs this information is often available from that source. What frightens me is that the WBFLC is apparently saying that I lose my right to obtain disclosure if opps don't have that information on their CC. Now I know such questions can create UI, I might even choose not to ask if I think the UI will restrict partner's actions. I can trust my regular partners not to take advantage of such UI. But even if UI is created, and taken advantage of so what? L73/16 will deal with it - just as L73/16 deal with UI created by asking about a call not made when asking for an explanation. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 31 12:02:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000d01c280b7$81d537c0$89a223d9@pbncomputer> DALB wrote: > Playing behind screens, Herman, you can ask me whatever you like, and I > will tell you the answer. No UI. No loss of time. Maybe still the "queen > of trumps" question, but you can scream blue murder and I will confess. > You are allowed full disclosure, up to the point where we can give it > you without falling foul of other things; if we have screens, you are > allowed more than if we don't. It's a practical matter, that's all. Where on earth did you find this in the laws? Either asking a question of a certain type is permitted or it isn't. (Not that these systemic type questions are often necessary when screens are in use - since in those circumstances opps probably have decent CCs). It is legal to ask questions that create UI - it has to be legal since (absent screens) there is no such thing as a question that doesn't. And if a player thinks there is an advantage in making UI available to his partner then he can do so with equal facility under your interpretation of L20F - the ability to ask about relevant systemic agreements changes nothing in that respect. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 31 13:07:29 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:07:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? In-Reply-To: <007c01c2806a$b1e29360$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <3DBE60E10008346E@ocpmta6.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030105545.00bb99d0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021030164638.00b93220@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021031075921.00b23f00@pop.starpower.net> At 06:18 PM 10/30/02, Marvin wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >Marv wrote: > > > >A better argument is that asking about future actions leads logically > > >to the > > >possibility of changing system in anticipation of the future > > >action(s). This > > >is not permitted in ACBL-land, and L20F1 should not be revised to > make it > > >possible. > > > > That's just silly. In ACBL-land, even if L20F1 is changed to make it > > theoretically possible to change system according to the answer, it > > will still be illegal to do so. > >No, because the current optional election would itself become illegal, as >conflicting with the new L20F1 I still don't follow this argument. You are entitled to complete knowledge of the opponents' methods. L20F1 constrains the time and manner in which you may obtain this information, but it is always available to you provided you obtain it at the appropriate time in the appropriate manner. The ACBL regulation constrains what you may do with the information once you've obtained it; how you got it doesn't matter. They are completely independent of one another. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gester@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 13:12:29 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:12:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DC0DCCD.40107@skynet.be> <001501c280b8$c6fcf6c0$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001f01c280e1$9ffab5c0$91242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? > Herman wrote: > > > It does, but it does not matter. I read L20F as "questions may be > > asked", and the brackets as a non-exclusive list of types of > > questions. Lille then applies to the main bit, but that only prohibits > > breathing, not hypothetical questions. > > You are using the word "read" in a way with which I am not familiar. The > words "questions may be asked" are in brackets; the parenthesis in which > they appear would be presumed by anyone who could do what I think of as > reading to define those questions which may be asked. Since there would > be no point in doing this if other questions may be asked as well, it is > a logical assumption that questions other than those that may be asked > per the parenthesis may not be asked at all. > > > But, as Ton pointed out, the WBF seems to consider otherwise. > > Has he really? Well, stone the crows. > +=+ We'll leave ton to say what he has pointed out. Meanwhile I can quote a little history which shows, clearly enough I would say, that the wording in parenthesis relates to calls already actually made and relevant alternative calls that were not made. See parallel emasil. +=+ From gester@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 12:53:31 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:53:31 -0000 Subject: the Herman hypothesis : was Re [blml] questions about future calls References: <003001c280bb$ef9f7640$dd40e150@endicott> <3DC0FBA9.9000004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001d01c280e1$9df3e940$91242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:45 AM > > But of course this was before the Lille interpretation. > Before 1999, anything not forbidden in the law could > be deemed to be allowed.So since the question never > came up, hypothetical questions were allowed before > Lille. < +=+ Only in your imagination, Herman, not in the law book. The Lille statement was an interpretation of the law that already existed. It was not a reinterpretation; it changed nothing, only clarified. +=+ < > Since Lille, anything not allowed became > forbidden, so since then hypothetical questions have > been no longer possible. > +=+ Not so; Lille only made sure that everyone knew what the law is, and has been since it was written. The Committee simply stated what was/is in the Scope of the Laws +=+ > > Which is why we are currently discussing whether > or not we should (re-)allow these questions. > +=+ Are we? I have noticed that you are discussing some such idea. I have not entered any such discussion, nor have I observed much relevant to it. At this time any thought of creating such authorization attracts me not at all. I am inclined to an opinion that the long standing situation should remain (but be more carefully stated in the laws), unless we receive strong opinions from the Zonal orgs in favour of a new departure. I might consider some marginal relaxation in specified circumstances. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 13:04:25 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:04:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DC0DCCD.40107@skynet.be> <001501c280b8$c6fcf6c0$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001e01c280e1$9ef74f80$91242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? > Herman wrote: > > > It does, but it does not matter. I read L20F as "questions may be > > asked", and the brackets as a non-exclusive list of types of > > questions. Lille then applies to the main bit, but that only prohibits > > breathing, not hypothetical questions. > > You are using the word "read" in a way with which I am not familiar. The > words "questions may be asked" are in brackets; the parenthesis in which > they appear would be presumed by anyone who could do what I think of as > reading to define those questions which may be asked. Since there would > be no point in doing this if other questions may be asked as well, it is > a logical assumption that questions other than those that may be asked > per the parenthesis may not be asked at all. > > > But, as Ton pointed out, the WBF seems to consider otherwise. > > Has he really? Well, stone the crows. > +=+ We'll leave ton to say what he has pointed out. Meanwhile I can quote a little history which shows, clearly enough I would say, that the wording in parenthesis relates to calls already actually made and relevant alternative calls that were not made. From my file: From gester@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 13:25:13 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:25:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 20F1. Message-ID: <002001c280e1$a0f67ae0$91242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott <003001c280bb$ef9f7640$dd40e150@endicott> <3DC0FBA9.9000004@skynet.be> <001d01c280e1$9df3e940$91242850@pacific> Message-ID: <3DC133B4.9030601@skynet.be> gester@lineone.net wrote: > >>But of course this was before the Lille interpretation. >>Before 1999, anything not forbidden in the law could >>be deemed to be allowed.So since the question never >>came up, hypothetical questions were allowed before >>Lille. >> > < > +=+ Only in your imagination, Herman, not in the law > book. The Lille statement was an interpretation of the > law that already existed. It was not a reinterpretation; > it changed nothing, only clarified. +=+ > < Maybe in my imagination, but in that of many others as weel - otherwise, why need the Lille interpretation ? > > Since Lille, anything not allowed became > >>forbidden, so since then hypothetical questions have >>been no longer possible. >> >> > +=+ Not so; Lille only made sure that everyone knew > what the law is, and has been since it was written. The > Committee simply stated what was/is in the Scope of > the Laws +=+ > I doubt if anyone would have answered this question any differently before Lille than what they would have said two weeks ago. I know I wouldn't have. >>Which is why we are currently discussing whether >>or not we should (re-)allow these questions. >> >> > +=+ Are we? Well, Ton asked for opinions, did he not ? And if this is not what we have been discussing, then what was? The discussion as to whether or not L20F actually prohibited such a question was a short one, and resolved at that. > I have noticed that you are discussing some such > idea. I have not entered any such discussion, nor have > I observed much relevant to it. At this time any thought > of creating such authorization attracts me not at all. I am > inclined to an opinion that the long standing situation > should remain (but be more carefully stated in the laws), > unless we receive strong opinions from the Zonal orgs in > favour of a new departure. I might consider some > marginal relaxation in specified circumstances. Long standing situation - that no-one was aware of ?????? I still feel it is silly not to allow a question on a sublect that the asker is entitled to. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 13:49:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:49:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL... References: <186.105b0551.2af28898@aol.com> Message-ID: <3DC134EC.9060308@skynet.be> Bill, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/31/2002 4:42:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hermandw@skynet.be writes: > > And I do hope you realize that I am not among the mad people - in this > part of the discussion. > > That was me saying I agreed with David in one part of the discussion. Surely not a bad idea, in your opinion. > > Finally sucked me in on this. Which English meaning of "mad" did you > have in mind? > > Since Ton, Grattan, and David are not sufficient "authority" for you as > to what the Law permits, why not just stop using up the time of all > those subscribers who must certainly have better things to do than read > repetitive drivel? Yeah, to me what Ton and Grattan say is 100% correct > on the interpretation of today's law, but adding my weight to theirs > would be like "carrying coals to Newcastle" -- other English words you > might not be totally familiar with. (Explanation on request) > Have I not given in on this ? I agree that the current law, using the Lille interpretation, makes asking these questions illegal. If you feel I am not allowed to state that I believe this law ought to be changed, then please don't read my posts. And no explanation needed on shipping coal to Newcastle. > =K= -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 13:55:59 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:55:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F1. References: <002001c280e1$a0f67ae0$91242850@pacific> Message-ID: <3DC1366F.9090108@skynet.be> gester@lineone.net wrote: > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Referred to in a parallel email today. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > In the notes sent by Edgar Kaplan, June 15 1994, > concerning the preliminary list of suggested changes > developed by the ACBL Laws Commission drafting > committee the following comment was made on > Law 20: > > " Law 20F1: After "opponents' auction" and before > the semi-colon, insert :# (questions may be asked > about calls actually made, or about calls available but > not made) # We intended the "full" explanation of the > current Law to imply this, but it is apparently > necessary to state it explicitly. " > > In his reply (30 August 1994), Grattan Endicott, > Chairman, European Laws Committee, remarked: > > " Law 20F1: The concept of relevance should be > introduced. Something like: > " ..... or about alternative potential calls not made. " > > > These were the first stirrings on the 1997 laws. > > +=+ Not explicitly enough, perhaps? +=+ > Indeed, and exactly what I alluded to. The words between brackets were not intended to change the law, only to clarify it. Questions about alternative calls were also allowed before 1997 (if perhaps not in some previous version) since they were included in the "full" bit. Which only strengthens my feeling that hypothetical questions were not prohibited prior to 1997, nor that the WBFLC decided to prohibit them after 1997, nor even that the WBFLC in Lille was aware that the writing on their interpretation would mean that hypothetical questions were now prohibited. I doubt if the WBFLC has ever thought about this problem, has ever formulated an explicit ban on this. Yet now people are argueing for a status quo, with no more argumentation than that a status quo is in itself good. Why not simply let the WBFLC decide if these questions ought to be allowed. Has anyone - barring David, and you know what I think of his arguments - yet argued that this prohibition is the better solution to the one many of us have now already spoken in favour of, namely to allow these questions and deal with the UI issues as per L16? > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 13:58:58 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:58:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in References: Message-ID: <000f01c280e5$ca20ab80$501e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:02 PM > > What frightens me is that the WBFLC is > apparently saying that I lose my right to > obtain disclosure if opps don't have that > information on their CC. > +=+ I think it is a case of losing something that you never possessed. +=+ > > Now I know such questions can create UI, > I might even choose not to ask if I think the > UI will restrict partner's actions. > +=+ I think you are right that the ACBL drafting committee which had instigated the change to 'full' and 'auction' had very much in mind to stop enquiry about specific calls, substituting the whole of the auction up to the point of enquiry. The insertion of the parenthetical amplification of their intention did not extend the authorization of enquiry beyond calls actually made and calls that could have been made alternatively and which could be relevant. The correct form of question, therefore, cites the explanation given of the actual call made and asks whether there is any alternative call that could have been made on a hand with such features and, if so, what would condition selection of one over the other. I recall an appeal case where a Dutch pair had raised an overcall competitively, bidding 3H over 2S by opponent; it came to light that he had 2NT available to show the same raise with better cards, so his failure to select 2NT on a passed hand with two Aces and a Queen lost him his appeal. I think this may be the kind of territory that the bracketed insertion has in mind. None of it has ever related to questions during the auction about what is still to come. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Oct 31 14:52:05 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:52:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 20F1. References: <002001c280e1$a0f67ae0$91242850@pacific> <3DC1366F.9090108@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 20F1. > gester@lineone.net wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Referred to in a parallel email today. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > In the notes sent by Edgar Kaplan, June 15 1994, > > concerning the preliminary list of suggested changes > > developed by the ACBL Laws Commission drafting > > committee the following comment was made on > > Law 20: > > > > " Law 20F1: After "opponents' auction" and before > > the semi-colon, insert :# (questions may be asked > > about calls actually made, or about calls available but > > not made) # We intended the "full" explanation of the > > current Law to imply this, but it is apparently > > necessary to state it explicitly. " > > > > In his reply (30 August 1994), Grattan Endicott, > > Chairman, European Laws Committee, remarked: > > > > " Law 20F1: The concept of relevance should be > > introduced. Something like: > > " ..... or about alternative potential calls not made. " > > > > > > These were the first stirrings on the 1997 laws. > > > > +=+ Not explicitly enough, perhaps? +=+ > > > > > Indeed, and exactly what I alluded to. > The words between brackets were not intended to change the law, only > to clarify it. Questions about alternative calls were also allowed > before 1997 (if perhaps not in some previous version) since they were > included in the "full" bit. > Which only strengthens my feeling that hypothetical questions were not > prohibited prior to 1997, nor that the WBFLC decided to prohibit them > after 1997, nor even that the WBFLC in Lille was aware that the > writing on their interpretation would mean that hypothetical questions > were now prohibited. > I doubt if the WBFLC has ever thought about this problem, has ever > formulated an explicit ban on this. Yet now people are argueing for a > status quo, with no more argumentation than that a status quo is in > itself good. Why not simply let the WBFLC decide if these questions > ought to be allowed. > > Has anyone - barring David, and you know what I think of his arguments > - yet argued that this prohibition is the better solution to the one > many of us have now already spoken in favour of, namely to allow these > questions and deal with the UI issues as per L16? I will argue this. A system specifies the framework for information conveyed by a call. I believe that such information is contained within five classes: 1. range of expected strength 2. expected length of one or more suits 3. identifiable holdings [two of top three honors.] 4. instructions [signoff, invite, force, bid 3C.] 5. interrogations [how many keycards, what is heart length,..] So when a call is made that is the information to be processed. What calls a player makes when he has agreed to his system are a matter of his judgement. And asking what call would be made with such and such a hand serves only to reveal what the thought processes in the responder 's mind are at the time. As such this is not revealing what the system is, merely how it might be applied; and, quite probably a window to view the player's cards by drawing inferences from what the player is thinking while he is looking at his non-hypothetical hand. The thoughts of a person are fleeting and must be taken with a grain of salt. The game calls for when partners communicate it should be solely by calls and plays. Surely, during the hand this is what the opponents are entitled to as well. Knowing how the opponents will solve hypothetical problems is a skill of bridge and should be a matter for times other than when a board is in play. And if a player wants to know how he would solve a hypothetical problem in his opponent's system he can work it out [a] before a board or [b] during a hand from his knowledge of the system/ reading the CC. Bridge skill is what ought to be brought to the table, and if it is acquired during a hand, it should not be done so in a way that could put the opponents in the position of asking for redress [as when such questions could have unfairly influenced the outcome of the hand]. regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 15:45:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:45:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in References: <000f01c280e5$ca20ab80$501e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <3DC1502A.90509@skynet.be> gester@lineone.net wrote: > Grattan Endicott >> What frightens me is that the WBFLC is >>apparently saying that I lose my right to >>obtain disclosure if opps don't have that >>information on their CC. >> >> > +=+ I think it is a case of losing something > that you never possessed. +=+ > I think that is simply wrong, Grattan. I believe - and so do many - that a player has a right to know this, it is part of the "prior announcement". By forbidding a player to ask a certain type of question at a particular moment, that player is no longer in a position that he can exercise the right he has. If Tim wants to call that losing that right, then I agree with him. But you cannot now say that he has lost something he never possessed in the first place. He does possess that right, unless you now want to change your position and say he is not entitled to this piece of information. >>Now I know such questions can create UI, >>I might even choose not to ask if I think the >>UI will restrict partner's actions. >> >> > +=+ I think you are right that the ACBL > drafting committee which had instigated the > change to 'full' and 'auction' had very much > in mind to stop enquiry about specific calls, > substituting the whole of the auction up to > the point of enquiry. The insertion of the > parenthetical amplification of their intention > did not extend the authorization of enquiry > beyond calls actually made and calls that > could have been made alternatively and > which could be relevant. The correct form > of question, therefore, cites the explanation > given of the actual call made and asks > whether there is any alternative call that could > have been made on a hand with such features > and, if so, what would condition selection of > one over the other. > I recall an appeal case where a Dutch > pair had raised an overcall competitively, > bidding 3H over 2S by opponent; it came to > light that he had 2NT available to show the > same raise with better cards, so his failure to > select 2NT on a passed hand with two Aces > and a Queen lost him his appeal. I think this > may be the kind of territory that the bracketed > insertion has in mind. > None of it has ever related to questions > during the auction about what is still to come. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Oct 31 15:54:54 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:54:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F1. References: <002001c280e1$a0f67ae0$91242850@pacific> <3DC1366F.9090108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DC1524E.8@skynet.be> Sorry Roger, but I am not one to ignore a response simply because I don't understand it. Roger Pewick wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>Has anyone - barring David, and you know what I think of his arguments >>- yet argued that this prohibition is the better solution to the one >>many of us have now already spoken in favour of, namely to allow these >>questions and deal with the UI issues as per L16? >> > > I will argue this. A system specifies the framework for information > conveyed by a call. I believe that such information is contained within > five classes: > > 1. range of expected strength > 2. expected length of one or more suits > 3. identifiable holdings [two of top three honors.] > 4. instructions [signoff, invite, force, bid 3C.] > 5. interrogations [how many keycards, what is heart length,..] > > So when a call is made that is the information to be processed. > > What calls a player makes when he has agreed to his system are a matter > of his judgement. And asking what call would be made with such and such > a hand serves only to reveal what the thought processes in the responder > 's mind are at the time. As such this is not revealing what the system > is, merely how it might be applied; and, quite probably a window to view > the player's cards by drawing inferences from what the player is > thinking while he is looking at his non-hypothetical hand. The thoughts > of a person are fleeting and must be taken with a grain of salt. The > game calls for when partners communicate it should be solely by calls > and plays. Surely, during the hand this is what the opponents are > entitled to as well. Knowing how the opponents will solve hypothetical > problems is a skill of bridge and should be a matter for times other > than when a board is in play. And if a player wants to know how he > would solve a hypothetical problem in his opponent's system he can work > it out [a] before a board or [b] during a hand from his knowledge of the > system/ reading the CC. > > Bridge skill is what ought to be brought to the table, and if it is > acquired during a hand, it should not be done so in a way that could put > the opponents in the position of asking for redress [as when such > questions could have unfairly influenced the outcome of the hand]. > My question was: Do you believe that prohibiting hypothetical questions is better than allowing them ? I cannot really see if you are replying positive or negative to this, but I assume negative, since that is what your first sentence implies. I quote once more: "Knowing how the opponents will solve hypothetical problems is a skill of bridge and should be a matter for times other than when a board is in play." you say - should be - maybe you're right. But if I don't do it at some other time, is that a reason to refuse me my rights at this time? You argue quite well that this is a skill, and a good one to have, but why should we prohibit it's use except after preparation? "And if a player wants to know how he would solve a hypothetical problem in his opponent's system he can work it out [a] before a board or [b] during a hand from his knowledge of the system/ reading the CC." Again, why? Why does this make it necessary to prohibit it other times? OK, Roger, I see you have expressed your personal opinion, and I will class it with David's. You have not given a convincing reason for that opinion though. Thanks for the opinion and the continuing interest in our ramblings. > regards > roger pewick > > > >>Herman DE WAEL >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 31 17:04:17 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:04:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in In-Reply-To: <3DC1502A.90509@skynet.be> References: <000f01c280e5$ca20ab80$501e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021031115255.00bbf840@pop.starpower.net> At 10:45 AM 10/31/02, Herman wrote: >gester@lineone.net wrote: > >>Grattan Endicott> >>>What frightens me is that the WBFLC is apparently saying that I lose >>>my right to obtain disclosure if opps don't have that information on >>>their CC. >>+=+ I think it is a case of losing something >>that you never possessed. +=+ >I think that is simply wrong, Grattan. >I believe - and so do many - that a player has a right to know this, >it is part of the "prior announcement". >By forbidding a player to ask a certain type of question at a >particular moment, that player is no longer in a position that he can >exercise the right he has. If Tim wants to call that losing that >right, then I agree with him. > >But you cannot now say that he has lost something he never possessed >in the first place. He does possess that right, unless you now want to >change your position and say he is not entitled to this piece of >information. Of course you have "lost" something. Nobody denies that you have a right to the information; nobody denies that you are absolutely entitled to ask for it before the auction starts. Under the current interpretation of L20F, however, you lose that opportunity as soon as the auction begins. Those who defend the interpretation say, "So all you have to do is ask your question before the auction starts. What's the problem?" The problem, of course, is that there are 3,947,622 situations in which my choice of call (NOT MY METHODS!) will be affected by expectation of how the opponents' auction is likely to develop. Do the folks who tell me to ask before the auction starts expect me to ask all of my 3,947,622 questions (knowing that the answer to at most one of them will be relevant)? Or ask just one, and pray to God to send me that particular situation in the forthcoming auction rather than one of the 3,947,621 others? Wouldn't it make sense to let me wait until I know which of my questions, if any, are relevant to this particular auction before forcing me to choose which one to ask? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Oct 31 17:56:31 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:56:31 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 20F1. References: <002001c280e1$a0f67ae0$91242850@pacific> <3DC1366F.9090108@skynet.be> <3DC1524E.8@skynet.be> Message-ID: > Sorry Roger, but I am not one to ignore a response simply because I > don't understand it. Maybe it is the idea being a novel one to you or the way it was expressed? Whatever, you ask good questions. > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> > >>Has anyone - barring David, and you know what I think of his arguments > >>- yet argued that this prohibition is the better solution to the one > >>many of us have now already spoken in favour of, namely to allow these > >>questions and deal with the UI issues as per L16? > >> > > > > I will argue this. A system specifies the framework for information > > conveyed by a call. I believe that such information is contained within > > five classes: > > > > 1. range of expected strength > > 2. expected length of one or more suits > > 3. identifiable holdings [two of top three honors.] > > 4. instructions [signoff, invite, force, bid 3C.] > > 5. interrogations [how many keycards, what is heart length,..] > > > > So when a call is made that is the information to be processed. > > > > What calls a player makes when he has agreed to his system are a matter > > of his judgement. And asking what call would be made with such and such > > a hand serves only to reveal what the thought processes in the responder > > 's mind are at the time. As such this is not revealing what the system > > is, merely how it might be applied; and, quite probably a window to view > > the player's cards by drawing inferences from what the player is > > thinking while he is looking at his non-hypothetical hand. The thoughts > > of a person are fleeting and must be taken with a grain of salt. The > > game calls for when partners communicate it should be solely by calls > > and plays. Surely, during the hand this is what the opponents are > > entitled to as well. Knowing how the opponents will solve hypothetical > > problems is a skill of bridge and should be a matter for times other > > than when a board is in play. And if a player wants to know how he > > would solve a hypothetical problem in his opponent's system he can work > > it out [a] before a board or [b] during a hand from his knowledge of the > > system/ reading the CC. > > > > Bridge skill is what ought to be brought to the table, and if it is > > acquired during a hand, it should not be done so in a way that could put > > the opponents in the position of asking for redress [as when such > > questions could have unfairly influenced the outcome of the hand]. > My question was: > Do you believe that prohibiting hypothetical questions is better than > allowing them ? Yes. For instance, the hypothetical question here is a form of a ploy used in poker to read what is in the mind of an opponent so as to make inferences, hopefully winning inferences that would not be available otherwise. It has been my impression that this form of poker has no place at the bridge table, but providing such a rule legitimizes it. Imo, calls and plays should speak for themselves. That opponents have the system available permits them to draw their own inferences. > I cannot really see if you are replying positive or negative to this, > but I assume negative, since that is what your first sentence implies. > > I quote once more: > > "Knowing how the opponents will solve hypothetical > problems is a skill of bridge and should be a matter for times other > than when a board is in play." > > you say - should be - maybe you're right. But if I don't do it at some > other time, is that a reason to refuse me my rights at this time? Just what rights are being refused? Their system was announced at the beginning of the round, they handed you their CC with the meaning of their calls, there is nothing to prevent you from drawing your own conclusions. Your rights do not extend into having an opponent tell you how he thinks at a time he has cards to look at. > You argue quite well that this is a skill, and a good one to have, but > why should we prohibit it's use except after preparation? If you've got the skill use it, if you don't it is irrelevant. See above, there is no prohibition to using it, just asking hypothetical questions during the hand. > "And if a player wants to know how he > would solve a hypothetical problem in his opponent's system he can work > it out [a] before a board or [b] during a hand from his knowledge of the > system/ reading the CC." > Again, why? Why does this make it necessary to prohibit it other times? Let me see. There is before the board and there is during the board. What other times are there? Well, there is after the board; but this is irrelevant if there is no future board, and if there is a future board then that time is also before that board. So, if a player wants to know how he, himself, would solve a problem using an opponent's system, there is no prohibition at any time. But I suspect you really are interested in allowing HQ outside of hands but not during a hand. Perhaps? See below. > OK, Roger, I see you have expressed your personal opinion, and I will > class it with David's. You have not given a convincing reason for > that opinion though. But the right thing to do is to forbid him asking during a hand how his opponent would solve it. And the basis for having it this way is the premise that partners communicate solely by [legal] calls and plays, where likewise, the opponents are entitled to such messages communicated solely by calls and plays- if they care to know. I can not think of a sensible reason as to why a player should be entitled via the requirement that opponents proactively make available their thought processes when they are not allowed to talk across the table to their own partner. David Burn has pointed out many sensible advantages when in fact things are as I suggest. However, I am not suggesting the items DB has mentioned as reasons are necessarily the reason why it ought to be that way. In fact, using David Burn's reasons may even be misguided. regards roger pewick > Thanks for the opinion and the continuing interest in our ramblings. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > > > > >>Herman DE WAEL From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 31 18:36:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000f01c280e5$ca20ab80$501e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott > > > What frightens me is that the WBFLC is > > apparently saying that I lose my right to > > obtain disclosure if opps don't have that > > information on their CC. > > > +=+ I think it is a case of losing something > that you never possessed. +=+ Possibly. Were you to ask 1000 bridge players/TDs "Do you have a right to know the systems/methods opps are playing?" and "Do you have a right to ask for this information during the auction if their CC is not available/doesn't show it?" I do not imagine you would get many fewer "yes" responses to the second question than the first. I find repugnant the whole concept that one can effectively keep this information from opponents by having minimal CC completion. Bridge is not supposed to be a game of secret systems. It is bad enough that people seem to want to interpret the current laws in this way - it is truly appalling that those in authority want to perpetuate such behaviour in future. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 31 18:57:57 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:57:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: Message-ID: <005301c2810f$76bd3880$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Rather a good way of not being doubled in some marginal bid has just occurred to me. "If I bid two spades, can you double me for penalty in your system?" "Yes." "Thank you. Two spades." David Burn London, England From Schoderb@aol.com Thu Oct 31 13:22:32 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:22:32 EST Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL... Message-ID: <186.105b0551.2af28898@aol.com> --part1_186.105b0551.2af28898_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/31/2002 4:42:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@skynet.be writes: > And I do hope you realize that I am not among the mad people - in this > part of the discussion. > Finally sucked me in on this. Which English meaning of "mad" did you have in mind? Since Ton, Grattan, and David are not sufficient "authority" for you as to what the Law permits, why not just stop using up the time of all those subscribers who must certainly have better things to do than read repetitive drivel? Yeah, to me what Ton and Grattan say is 100% correct on the interpretation of today's law, but adding my weight to theirs would be like "carrying coals to Newcastle" -- other English words you might not be totally familiar with. (Explanation on request) =K= --part1_186.105b0551.2af28898_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/31/2002 4:42:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@skynet.be writes:

And I do hope you realize that I am not among the mad people - in this
part of the discussion.


Finally sucked me in on this.  Which English meaning of "mad" did you have in mind?

Since Ton, Grattan, and David are not sufficient "authority" for you as to what the Law permits, why not just stop using up the time of all those subscribers who must certainly have better things to do than read repetitive drivel?  Yeah, to me what Ton and Grattan say is 100% correct on the interpretation of today's law, but adding my weight to theirs would be like "carrying coals to Newcastle" -- other English words you might not be totally familiar with. (Explanation on request)

=K= --part1_186.105b0551.2af28898_boundary-- From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 31 19:40:46 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:40:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <005301c2810f$76bd3880$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> References: <005301c2810f$76bd3880$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <005301c2810f$76bd3880$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Rather a good way of not being doubled in some marginal bid has just >occurred to me. > >"If I bid two spades, can you double me for penalty in your system?" >"Yes." >"Thank you. Two spades." > "Do you redouble in doubt, or to make?" "In doubt" "Thanks, double" >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Oct 31 20:42:11 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:42:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Oct 31, 2002 07:40:46 PM Message-ID: <200210312042.PAA13261@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > > In article <005301c2810f$76bd3880$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn > writes > >Rather a good way of not being doubled in some marginal bid has just > >occurred to me. > > > >"If I bid two spades, can you double me for penalty in your system?" > >"Yes." > >"Thank you. Two spades." > > > "Do you redouble in doubt, or to make?" > "In doubt" > "Thanks, double" > Remember the hand that cost Cohen/Berkowitz a world pairs championship. They quite literally could not defend a low level business redouble. Were some opponents damaged by not knowing this? I personally think it quite likely. Serious question for David Burn. Where does information like this go on a convention card? Another serious question. I'm pretty sure you were involved with teams that played against them. Were you aware of this agreement? I don't think anybody was -- the Poles just blundered into this system hole. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 31 21:10:32 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:10:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <200210312042.PAA13261@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Message-ID: <00a501c28121$f3009240$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Ron wrote: > Remember the hand that cost Cohen/Berkowitz a world pairs championship. > They quite literally could not defend a low level business redouble. Vaguely. The sequence was something like: West North East South Cohen Berkowitz 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3C Pass 3D Pass Pass Dble Rdble 3H* Dble All pass *Cohen could not pass for penalty, because Berkowitz would systemically be obliged to remove. I suppose that strictly speaking, Cohen should have alerted Berkowitz's double and said: "That is for takeout; obviously I can pass for penalty if you pass, but if you redouble, I cannot pass to show willingness to defend." > Were some opponents damaged by not knowing this? I personally think it > quite likely. So do I. > Serious question for David Burn. Where does information like this go on > a convention card? It depends on what sort of convention card. I would put it under special uses of double on the WBF card; I would also refer to it in a section detailing unusual aspects of the system to be drawn to the attention of the opponents. I don't know where it would go on an ACBL card. > Another serious question. I'm pretty sure you were involved with teams > that played against them. Were you aware of this agreement? I don't think > anybody was -- the Poles just blundered into this system hole. I wasn't, but although we did play against the USA in the bronze medal match in Maastricht, I did not personally face Berkowitz and Cohen. I would agree with Ron's suggestion that, after details of their somewhat unusual method came to light in Lille, pairs who had played against them and gone down in something doubled when they could have avoided this by redoubling would rightly feel aggrieved. I would consider that Berkowitz and Cohen had a duty to bring their agreement to the attention of the opponents when the occasion arose, since it is not something that could readily be anticipated (or at all). But this is not to say that I would consider the question "If I redouble, can you pass for penalty?" to be legal. David Burn London, England From rjfs48u@comcast.net Thu Oct 31 21:22:36 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:22:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bali References: <001601c27bbf$f5d2fb50$6401a8c0@hare> <002c01c27d99$f0112940$1736e150@endicott> <005101c27dd5$ff98b860$73e86944@hr.cox.net> <006301c27f0b$0282f5a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <01b901c28123$a2a906e0$6601a8c0@james> Which is why we do not intend to fight Saddam and his ilk with umbrellas. It would be nice if the rest of the world was willing to act with us to surgically cut out the cancer of terrorism before it can be unleashed on our families. How ironic that we, who have been noted for our reluctance to become involved in foreign wars, must take the point in THIS war against terrorism. Has the rest of the world not yet realized that we all figuratively live in Haifa? We do not intend to wait for our water supplies to be poisoned or our people gassed or one of our cities nuked. Our President's father made the mistake when he was in charge of being too humane...post 9-11-01 we shall not make that mistake again. I feel a little like Ozzie Jacoby when the news of Pearl Harbour reached him...somehow all the to do of bridge is relegated to being just an excellent card game. Still, it is groups such as this where we can disagree vehemently, argue incessantly, yet remain friends that must form the pattern for our world if we are not to breed more crazies such as the terrorists and rogue governments we now have undertaken to uproot. I pray all of you will be safe from the violence. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jim Fox" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bali > > From: "Jim Fox" > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ "Today violence is the rhetoric of the period." - > > > the judgement of Ortegay. We live in a world where > > > individuals, groups, races, see violence as the only > > > resource for the purgation of their frustrations. It is > > > worldwide - Moscow, Kashmir, Israel and Palestine, > > > Zimbabwe, Ireland, Washington, Euzkadi, Burundi, > > > Cote d'Ivoire,Uttar Pradesh, Yemen, Shaba, Rwanda, > > > Myanmar, > > > > ...London, Quebec, ... > > > > > and more - the list is endless and the > > > motivation stretches from the bitterness of lowly > > > citizens of Samashki to the exasperation and the > > > anger of the President of the United States > > > > ..and the Prime Ministers of the U.K, Canada, and more. > > > Ah, but not to Chamberlain, that paragon of statesmanlike restraint. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 31 21:58:02 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:58:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 20F1. In-Reply-To: References: <002001c280e1$a0f67ae0$91242850@pacific> <3DC1366F.9090108@skynet.be> <3DC1524E.8@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021031163725.00a9c210@pop.starpower.net> At 12:56 PM 10/31/02, Roger wrote: >Yes. For instance, the hypothetical question here is a form of a ploy >used in poker to read what is in the mind of an opponent so as to make >inferences, hopefully winning inferences that would not be available >otherwise. It has been my impression that this form of poker has no >place at the bridge table, but providing such a rule legitimizes it. >Imo, calls and plays should speak for themselves. That opponents have >the system available permits them to draw their own inferences. That seem circular. Obviously, if the "opponents have the system available" in full and complete detail, there is no need for them ask questions, hypothetical or otherwise, during the auction or at any other time. But it is ludicrous to assume that a convention card describes the opponents' complete system in full detail; Q&A is a critical part of the disclosure mechanism. IOW, we only "have the system available" *because* we are allowed to ask questions about it. The current debate is about the mechanics of making the system available, not about what happens after that has been done. It is *never* proper to ask a question, regardless of timing, to which you already know the answer, and nobody (at least in this thread; I don't want to reopen the "Kaplan question" discussion here) has suggested otherwise. Roger writes of ploys and poker. He has made similar comments in the past. His arguments on a variety of issues have tended to place him at least firmly in, if not well to the extreme far edge of, the school of thought that believes that the best interests of the vast majority of players who are honest and ethical should be subordinated to the overriding goal of catching a relatively few cheats. That's a legitimate point of view, but one with which I disagree. To paraphrase Herman's argument, the right to full information is the dog here, and the concern with it being exercised illegitimately is the tail. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 31 22:13:04 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:13:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <005301c2810f$76bd3880$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021031170242.00aca210@pop.starpower.net> At 01:57 PM 10/31/02, David wrote: >Rather a good way of not being doubled in some marginal bid has just >occurred to me. > >"If I bid two spades, can you double me for penalty in your system?" >"Yes." >"Thank you. Two spades." Here's another: Pick up the opponents' CC, turn it over, put your finger on the "Doubles" section while reading it over, then bid 2S. If someone did that, how would you rule? If someone did as David hypothesizes, would you rule any differently? Why? If you would rule more harshly in David's hypothetical case than in mine, then score three points for those who have been arguing that the WBF interpretation at issue gives an advantage at the table to those pairs whose CC contains the least amount of information they can get away with. If you would rule the same way in both cases, then David's hypothetical has no bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 31 22:22:50 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:22:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in References: Message-ID: <007b01c2812c$fb05f150$0283403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > Grattan Endicott > > > > > What frightens me is that the WBFLC is > > > apparently saying that I lose my right to > > > obtain disclosure if opps don't have that > > > information on their CC. > > > > > +=+ I think it is a case of losing something > > that you never possessed. +=+ > > Possibly. Were you to ask 1000 bridge > players/TDs "Do you have a right to know the > systems/methods opps are playing?" and > "Do you have a right to ask for this information > during the auction if their CC is not available/ > doesn't show it?" > +=+ But of course, whatever their belief, if the rules of the game do not give them the right they do not have the right to lose. +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Oct 31 23:50:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 20F1. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Roger wrote: > Just what rights are being refused? Their system was announced at the > beginning of the round, they handed you their CC with the meaning of > their calls, there is nothing to prevent you from drawing your own > conclusions Were this this case there would not really be a problem (or at least it would be a much less frequent one). Half the time they haven't handed me a CC, much of the rest the CC doesn't contain any detail on the situation that has developed at the table. I want to be able to ask questions about their system when the information I require is not available on the CC. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 31 02:00:58 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:00:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: <4A256C63.0009A849.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread, "questions about future calls", David Burn wrote: [snip] >[1] The right to full disclosure is in > principle conferred by Law 75. >[2] But full disclosure is in practice > impossible. >[3] Therefore, there are practical limits to > the extent to which disclosure is required, > both in advance of and during play. >[4] Those limits are defined by: the > regulations of the SO (in terms of > disclosure before play); and the > restrictions in Law 20 (in terms of > disclosure during play). [snip] Agreed. Even the "principled" L75 contains timing constraints on the correction of false or incomplete disclosure. However, one can be either stingy or proactive in providing disclosure to the opponents. At the conclusion of my long relay auctions, before the opening lead, I always ask the opponents, "Would you like an explanation of the auction?" This often works to my detriment, especially when the luck of the relay auction means that the fully described hand is declarer, so that the defence need not use count signals. My question is not required by ABF regulation. So, is my over-generous question, while attempting to comply with L75A, actually a violation of L72A5 and L72B3? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 31 01:12:39 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:12:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new question re Law 20F Message-ID: <4A256C63.00053B8C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Julie Atkinson wrote: >Law 20 F has been quoted many times >recently. It states you can ask >questions about bids made or not made >during the auction and before the final >pass. > >It seems rather bizarre that when on >opening lead, you wish to understand the >auction and at this point may have a >valid reason for asking about bids not >made, that you are no longer allowed to. >Law 20F 2 allows to ask about the meaning >of the auction, and restricts declarer to >asking the meaning of calls made. > >Given that asking about bids not made has >the potential for UI, it is strange that >we force people to ask questions in the >midst of the auction, rather than allowing >them to ask at a time when it is most >appropriate and therefore UI far less of a >possibility??? Welcome to blml Julie. Do you have any cats? As has been explained earlier in this topic, the parenthesis in L20F1 is a very recent addition to bridge Law. This clarifying insertion was at least partially at the behest of Edgar Kaplan. Kaplan's purpose was to prevent unresponsive players concealing negative inferences. Previously, those players had concealed their negative inferences by using the argument that a question about negative inferences was illegal. Partly as a result of the influence of Edgar Kaplan, new editions of the Laws in past decades have been ad hoc accretions. This ad hocery could mean that Edgar Kaplan and the WBF LC simply overlooked the consequential change which L20F2 needed in order for L20F2 to be consistent in approach to the clarified L20F1. It is possible and desirable that the WBF LC will organise a complete reformatting, from the ground up, of the Laws in 2005. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 31 02:29:13 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:29:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: <4A256C63.000C3E06.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [snip] >An interesting case is the sequence I referred to >earlier : pass pass pass 1C 2H. > >Some players use fairly loose weak twos, and have >thus decided that the only reason for this bid is >that overcaller has 64 majors. This must be >disclosed. Agree. >Others have more rigid standards, or they >sometimes do not open a weak two when they hold >one. Then the inferences are few. Nothing >essential has been omitted if you don't alert. Disagree. I alert when I have *few* agreed partnership inferences. I do not alert when I have *zero* agreed partnership inferences. >Of course, you must be ready to answer completely >to a question about your standards for opening a >weak 2 (or Multi). (The answer could also be "we >have none. We don't play them") That is why, in my partnership, I alert 2H in the sequence above - to let the opponents know that we have no systemic way to show 5-9 hcp and six hearts as an opening bid. >One way to state it is : in the second case, the >inference is that you thought, for some reason, >that your weak 2 was flawed. Since this is not >system, but bridge logic, it isn't alertable. Disagree. There is no universal "bridge logic". You may be using Euclidean logic, while your opponents' thoughts roam through non-Euclidean spaces. Therefore, I explain the axioms of my partnership's logic to the opponents. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 31 03:38:42 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:38:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] tres scientifique Message-ID: <4A256C63.00129A2A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>Dreadful! I like to think things have improved >>since then. In particular committees nowadays >>seem to pay more attention to the laws. For the >>record here's an excerpt from TBW's reply: >>>"We think, on the facts as presented here, the >>>ruling was wrong." >>and >>>"Why did North pass the 5S bid around to >>>partner, if not for South's decision?" In reply to Edgar Kaplan's last question, Steve Willner wrote: >I don't think North's bidding is inconsistent. >He was presumably planning to raise a voluntary >slam bid by South to seven and pull a double. >That looks a bit optimistic but not crazy. In my opinion, deciding to play pass-and-pull to show strength in high-level competitive auctions, is an agreement to spend lots of time before ACs. American bidding theorist Matt Granovetter concurs, and proposes the radical concept that Pass always shows a minimum. >>and >>>"We bet that most Norths would pass the sort of >>>double that most Souths would produce when >>>holding seven trumps." >>I miss Edgar! >> >>Here's a question for the BLML. How would you >>critique a director or committee who let the >>result stand, or let a part of it stand, if >>they claimed they had applied 12C3? >> >>-- >>Adam Wildavsky David Stevenson notes that auctions involving illegal calls - demonstrably suggested by UI - must be removed *before* L12C3 calculations. Any AC not so doing is perpetrating a so-called "Reveley" ruling. If Pass is agreed to be an LA in this specific case, then L12C3 will merely apply to percentage likelihood of particular numbers of undertricks in 5Sx. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 31 04:40:38 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:40:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Taking exception to L72A4 Message-ID: <4A256C63.00184689.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Wrong Pair at a Table", David Kent asked: >>1. What would have happened had I >>opened 7NT? Grattan quoted: >+=+ "There was a discussion concerning >the situation under Law 15C when the >correct pair is seated and one of them >makes a call for which no bridge reason >can be perceived. > >It was agreed that such action is not >acceptable and a Director who forms an >opinion that there is no demonstrable >bridge reason for a call by an incoming >pair is authorized to treat this as a >violation of Law 74A2. " > WBFLC Minute: 28 Oct 2001. Since this is an official WBF LC Minute, I cannot legally take exception to its ridiculously stretched interpretation of L74A2. However, the WBF LC interpretation takes exception to its previous promulgation of L72A4. Best wishes Richard