From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 1 09:55:15 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 10:55:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>But they don't have to avoid the damage caused by the first MI. That >>has already been done. >> > > Not at all necessary. > NOS may have a choice situation in a later round of the auction > when the MI becomes essential. Several other questions may > have been asked in between. Or the damage may be that the > first offender's partner becomes aware that offender in fact has > mistaken the agreements. He shall not use that information for any > purpose advantageous to his side! But as shown in Alain's example > that is also exactly what might happen - and causing damage to NOS. > I agree Sven, that the first MI can have their influence felt only after the second question. But the fact remains, that the Laws explicitely say that you shall not correct the first MI. So any argument that says that by incorrectly explaining the second call, you damage opponents because of not correcting the first MI, is invalid. If you want to argue that the second call should be correctly explained, that is a valid argument. But the first call is MI, and the laws say that it should stay MI. And yes, I know that this can damage opponents. So what? We have L12 for that. Please don't use arguments any more that depend on damage from the first MI. It cannot be so that a law says that MI must not be corrected, unless opponents ask about it. What is your opinion of the question "really?"? You do agree that a playes should not respond to such a question, do you? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 1 10:03:52 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 11:03:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE9DE88.1050501@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Please see that NOS are not damaged by MI about 5Di. They remain >>damaged about 4NT just as much as if they hadn't asked the second >>question, and that was how the laws intended it. >> > > NOS can in this case be damaged in three essentially different ways: > > 1: by not being aware of a favourable double because they know that > OS is in a disaster contract > That is information to which they are NOT entitled. They are entitled to knowing the correct system, but not to the fact that either of the players is unaware of this. If they receive such information, they are allowed to use it, but they cannot complain if they have not received this information. One down, two to go. > 2: by missing the opportunity to throw in a call (for whatever reason they > might have) in the auction at some place, not necessarily immediately > following the misexplained call > But that is damage caused by the first MI. that damage will be corrected. L75D2 explicitely states that this MI shall not be corrected. I fail to see why a subsequent question should alter this. > and possibly most important: > > 3: by not obtaining a favourable result which they otherwise would have > received as a direct consequence of OS during the auction being subject > to misunderstandings from which they have no escape except by violating > law 75C and "hiding" behind law 75D2. > L75D2 explicitely allows them to "hide". If the second question is not asked, then this situation exists. We know this, and we accept it. The second question should not alter this. What you fail to see is that there are two elements to the question about 5Di: a first part that can be summed up as "really?" and a second part about 5Di itself. The first part question should not be posed, but opponents don't know that there is anything amiss, so they cannot be blamed for this. But that still leaves the question invalid, and North should not answer it. He should answer the second part of question, about the meaning of 5Di. That answer is "1 ace". Which is, when all is said and done, true. South does have one ace and wanted to show this. > 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 Sun Dec 1 10:12:12 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 11:12:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129160200.01d5ea40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000d01c297cc$c57a14b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE9E07C.5080205@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>This is based on my experience of playing intricate systems. >> > > Are you mind-reading opponents to make sure they are not damaged by > your MI? > Any damage caused by the MI will be dealt with. We all agree about that. Alain was merely saying that the damage is somethimes very small, because usually we are in situations where only one side is bidding, and the MI is corrected before the lead. If not, L12 to the rescue! > How can you be sure your "experience" is not from opponents not even > being aware they have been fooled, or when they were fooled that they > realised it didn't matter because they were not damaged? > Totally irrelevant. This is always the case, and we know how to deal with it. > Mind you - I do not, and never advocated that you should offer them > a correction on your own initiative. That would be (and I believe we all > agree) a direct violation of Law 75D2 while not complying with any > other law in the book. > OK, I'm glad you see it that way. > But I cannot accept that any relevant information shall be withheld from > them when they ask. > But they don't ask! They don't ask about the previous bids, only about the next one! So by explaining the next one in a way that reveals the previous misexplanation, the player giving the explanation _IS_ "correcting on his own initiative". The question "what is 5Di" (my example), could also be put "what does the response 5Di to a 4NT Blackwood mean?". The reply to that is "one ace". By answering "diamond preference", the player is actually replaying "4NT was not Blackwood", on his own initiative. That is breaking L75D2, just as you outlined above. > As a matter of fact, if anything like that were revealed with me as TD I > would probably give OS a substantial PP, whatever excuse they brought > forward citing Law 75D2. (But it appears to me that consensus in > Norway is so solid, I do not run any risk of finding myself in a situation > like > that). > You are now to the point of giving PP's to players who refuse to give UI to their partners. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 1 10:14:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 11:14:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129160200.01d5ea40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000d01c297cc$c57a14b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE9E0F2.2040207@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> > > Yes. YOU used the UI that your partner had mistaken the situation > to avoid going astray. > No, sorry Sven, that argument won't wash. Alain is not allowed to base his calls on the UI, anything else is allowed and even obligatory. Not telling partner "you a**e" is indeed an action based on UI, but it is not regulated by the UI laws. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 1 10:15:38 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 11:15:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021129085416.00a08890@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021129111107.00aa1ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DE9E14A.8090900@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> No, not the consensus, the majority. > > > We may have a mere majority rather than a consensus on BLML, but out > there in the real world I think this passes for a consensus. It > certainly does in North America, where the ACBL has publicly and > unambiguously accepted the WBFLC interpretation. > tut tut tut. There is no WBFLC interpretation on this one. If there is, then I'm sueing Grattan for my waste of time during the past 5 years. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 1 11:13:39 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 12:13:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>But they don't have to avoid the damage caused by the first MI. That > >>has already been done. > >> > > > > Not at all necessary. > > NOS may have a choice situation in a later round of the auction > > when the MI becomes essential. Several other questions may > > have been asked in between. Or the damage may be that the > > first offender's partner becomes aware that offender in fact has > > mistaken the agreements. He shall not use that information for any > > purpose advantageous to his side! But as shown in Alain's example > > that is also exactly what might happen - and causing damage to NOS. > > > > > I agree Sven, that the first MI can have their influence felt only > after the second question. But the fact remains, that the Laws > explicitely say that you shall not correct the first MI. Fact? NO - It is your opinion. You discard Law 75C unconditionally when there is any chance that by obeying this law you could inform partner that he has given a wrong explanation. I feel sorry for your stubborness in refusing to discuss the possibility that L75C should in some (if not all) conflicting cases take precedence over Law 75D2. > So any > argument that says that by incorrectly explaining the second call, you > damage opponents because of not correcting the first MI, is invalid. > If you want to argue that the second call should be correctly > explained, that is a valid argument. But the first call is MI, and the > laws say that it should stay MI. > And yes, I know that this can damage opponents. So what? We have L12 > for that. And you hide behind Law12 as an excuse for not trying to give your opponents an as much as possible fair game? > Please don't use arguments any more that depend on damage from the > first MI. It cannot be so that a law says that MI must not be > corrected, unless opponents ask about it. Why not? The laws are clear that a player must not give his partner UI, but the laws are equally clear that opponents shall (when they ask) be given every piece of relevant information. Unless I have overlooked something essential it appears to me that we have received on this thread clear messages even from WBFLC representatives that the duty to give information takes precedence over the duty to avoid giving partner UI whenever there can be a conflict. > What is your opinion of the question "really?"? Law 20F1 says that "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question". My opinion is that this text opens the door for that question to be answered, noticing of course that this answer gives UI to the player who first gave the wrong information. I would recommend that the player receiving such a question should summon the director, inform him on the situation (without giving away any indication on whether the first explanation is correct or not!) and ask if he (the player) shall answer the second question. > You do agree that a playes should not respond to such a question, do you? No, I definitely do NOT agree. But as said I would leave that for the TD to decide. - - - - I have seen no comments from you on the "fact" that the player who gives opponents false information in order to "comply with L75D2" and thereby "rescues" the board to be played as normal as possible actually illegally uses UI ( partner has misunderstood our agreements) to avoid ending up in a disastrous contract and thereby deprives opponents from a favourable result on the board. If that isn't damaging opponents I don't know what damaging opponents is. (Alain had an example demonstrating this, although I understand that was probably not his purpose with the example). And you might be interested to learn that way back in my memory I believe I remember a case where we adjusted a "normal" game contract to a disastrous slam after apparent misunderstandings during the auction. The reason for our adjustment was that the player realizing there was a mistake on agreements (UI to him!) had no way of avoiding ending in slam other than by taking special actions during the auction based on the knowledge that partner was in miss (a violation of L16A). What he did was actually to adapt his system on the fly to what he understood partner believed was their agreements. I see no purpose in continuing a ping-pong discussion like kids: Is! - Isn't! - Is! - Isn't! Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 1 11:34:28 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 12:34:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>I agree Sven, that the first MI can have their influence felt only >>after the second question. But the fact remains, that the Laws >>explicitely say that you shall not correct the first MI. >> > > Fact? NO - It is your opinion. You discard Law 75C unconditionally > when there is any chance that by obeying this law you could inform > partner that he has given a wrong explanation. I feel sorry for your > stubborness in refusing to discuss the possibility that L75C should in > some (if not all) conflicting cases take precedence over Law 75D2. > Stubornness? I can say the same about all of you. You refuse to see (some of you) that 75D2 is broken at all! And you refuse to see that in some cases 75D2 could take preference over 75C. I have never said that 75C is not broken. I am merely trying to contradict your argumentation that breaking 75C is bad, because of the damage it causes. The damage that is caused comes from the first MI, not from the second. Explaining 5Di as "1 ace" is an infraction of 75C, indeed. But this causes minimal damage, especially since it is in fact true. Most damage comes from the mistaken explanation about 4NT. And 75D2 explicitely says that this MI is not to be corrected. I know, I've said it all before. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 1 10:53:10 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:53:10 -0000 Subject: Unholy Truth (was Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions) References: Message-ID: <000701c2993a$22199510$2437e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:15 PM Subject: [blml] that which is sacred > > From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net > > Subject: Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions > > > > > > This, of course, is as it should be. They are > > playing by the rules and doing their best to > > win. > > > > What we are doing here is attempting to help > > write rules for bridge which when followed will > > guide the players to do what we think it is right > > for them to do. > +=+ Perhaps this does not quite hit the nail squarely on its head. A game is the sum of what its rules allow; what we are doing is to write rules that will make the game what the legislators want it to be. The players are free, then, to move as allowed within the area of play. At the root is a question whether the legislator is responsive to the desires of his/her constituency. +=+ > --------------- \x/ --------------- > > We don't require players to call attention to > their revokes; is that not equally ungentlemanly? > +=+ On the basis that justice requires a man shall bear witness to his own offence ? The answer lies in what we want the game to be. +=+ > > I know, it mightn't be a terrible game but it > wouldn't be bridge. > +=+ vide supra +=+ > > other inviolates are perhaps not quite inviolate. > +=+ Indeed not. There is nothing to make any possibility in a game unthinkable except that the game should attract players. blml is a community comprising a mix of several constituencies, amongst whom: disaffected players, tournament directors, legislators, conformist players (who - of course - have little cause but morbid curiosity to gather with their knitting a' la Place de la Revolution). Each of these coteries has its own agenda. Since consultation on changes is conducted through establishment channels, it is unlikely any of them will be wholly approving of what may eventually emerge in the laws. One must hope to judge, aided by unmatched opinions, what kind of game will attract the speechless multitudes. I believe. ~ G ~ +=+ From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 15:31:43 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:31:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> Message-ID: dWS is quite meaningless. The rule makers have done an unnatural thing. They have brought dominant status to making one's methods available to the opponents when the dominant facet of the game is doing your thing with calls and plays. Yes, the dWS is an attempt to address this juxtaposition but the long and short of it is that the players are called upon to create massive quantities of UI and encouraged to manufacture incredible amounts of MI. The proof of such claim is that in fact massive quantities of UI and incredible amounts of MI are created with no end in sight. dWS merely adds to the cacophony, and exacerbates and perpetuates the problem to the players. regards roger pewick From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 1 16:08:21 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:08:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Roger Pewick" > dWS is quite meaningless. The rule makers have done an unnatural thing. > They have brought dominant status to making one's methods available to > the opponents when the dominant facet of the game is doing your thing > with calls and plays. Yes, the dWS is an attempt to address this > juxtaposition but the long and short of it is that the players are > called upon to create massive quantities of UI and encouraged to > manufacture incredible amounts of MI. The proof of such claim is that > in fact massive quantities of UI and incredible amounts of MI are > created with no end in sight. dWS merely adds to the cacophony, and > exacerbates and perpetuates the problem to the players. As long as Bridge and its predecessors have existed one of the main "pillars" have been what today is expressed in Law 40B: Concealed partnership understandings are prohibited. What the lawmakers have attempted over the years is to make it quite clear what this means: Your opponents are entitled to know as much of your expressed and implied agreements as you do yourself. But we have the other pillar which in some abnormal cases obscurs this principle: You are not permitted to give your partner any information relevant to the game except by using the legal language of the game (i.e. calls etc.) dWS seems to claim that whenever this conflict arises then avoiding UI to partner is far more important than correctly informing opponents. Many of us (including me) disagree. I am not going to repeat any of the arguments here, I will only state that once we have the "priority" between L75C and L75D2 settled the "cacophony" should be silenced by itself. regards Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 16:51:42 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:51:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > From: "Roger Pewick" > > dWS is quite meaningless. The rule makers have done an unnatural thing. > > They have brought dominant status to making one's methods available to > > the opponents when the dominant facet of the game is doing your thing > > with calls and plays. Yes, the dWS is an attempt to address this > > juxtaposition but the long and short of it is that the players are > > called upon to create massive quantities of UI and encouraged to > > manufacture incredible amounts of MI. The proof of such claim is that > > in fact massive quantities of UI and incredible amounts of MI are > > created with no end in sight. dWS merely adds to the cacophony, and > > exacerbates and perpetuates the problem to the players. > As long as Bridge and its predecessors have existed one of the main > "pillars" have been what today is expressed in Law 40B: > > Concealed partnership understandings are prohibited. > > What the lawmakers have attempted over the years is to make it > quite clear what this means: Your opponents are entitled to know as > much of your expressed and implied agreements as you do yourself. > > But we have the other pillar which in some abnormal cases obscurs > this principle: > > You are not permitted to give your partner any information relevant to > the game except by using the legal language of the game (i.e. calls etc.) > > dWS seems to claim that whenever this conflict arises then avoiding > UI to partner is far more important than correctly informing opponents. > > Many of us (including me) disagree. I am not going to repeat any of the > arguments here, I will only state that once we have the "priority" between > L75C and L75D2 settled the "cacophony" should be silenced by itself. > > regards Sven hmm. A game about disclosure is not very interesting. A game about how players take tricks with a hand tied behind their backs, err, I mean tongue tied to the roof of their mouths, has possibilities. No. I doubt that merely choosing the "priority" between L75C and L75D2 will alter the amount of UI and MI much. cheers roger pewick From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 1 18:03:15 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:03:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] All very trying References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002701c29965$13cc54e0$189868d5@default> The WBFLC can easily decide for or against a common interpretation (like DwS). The WBFLC can immediately publish an official amendment to TFLB, removing any apparent contradiction. BLML discussions illustrate that TFLB includes practically unenforceable laws; as well as other contradictions, ambiguities and omissions. Over the next few weeks, the WBFLC can publish a series of amendments for the more blatant cases. No new law; just cut out some dead wood; and small alterations to clarify WBFLC intent. This may anger BLMLers who enjoy discussing such anomalies; but it eases the task of TDs in many common rulings. It also pleases those like me who want to discuss fundamental legal reform. As a basis for discussion, we would like a better statement of existing law. Before 2005, we would like to see some real changes to the law; in addition to the cosmetic changes, above. Why has such an obvious proposal not been implemented before? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Dec 1 19:01:47 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:01:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > I really don't see why you're not all converts to the dWS, really I don't. I think it's a matter of custom and tradition, the power of which should not be underestimated. It's clear that some of the more adamant posters on the subject don't yet understand the argument, probably because it so grossly contradicts their training. I wonder whether any of the "traditionalists" would advocate a modification of L75D2 along the following lines: "If partner gives a wrong explanation, you must immediately summon the TD and give the correct explanation?" If eliminating MI is really all-important, surely this is the logical procedure. > From: "Sven Pran" > So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C > in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding > the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. This is, of course, one of Herman's principal arguments. Likewise, the UI to you created by partner's wrong explanation exists and cannot be undone. If either of these causes damage, that damage has to be redressed later, both underthe standard approach and under the dWS. No difference so far. The difference is what happens later. From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 1 19:44:18 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:44:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <009401c29972$09cdd100$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" ....... > > From: "Sven Pran" > > So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C > > in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding > > the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. > > This is, of course, one of Herman's principal arguments. Likewise, the > UI to you created by partner's wrong explanation exists and cannot be > undone. If either of these causes damage, that damage has to be > redressed later, both underthe standard approach and under the dWS. No > difference so far. The difference is what happens later. My point is of course that while UI can never be undone MI can sometimes be corrected in time to avoid damage for opponents. But a player in posession of UI still has the possibility to avoid any damage to opponents by not using the UI. An opponent who has received MI does not have any such possibility. Besides: The player who has realized that his partner has mistaken an agreement is already in possession of UI, namely that information. Frankly I believe that if we should be able to live with both Laws 75C and 75D2 by just making it clear that the former takes precedence whenever there could be any conflict between the two. But if that is impossible I feel pretty certain that less harm would be the result if we did away with L75D2 stressing a rule that an offender who in any way receives information that he has mistaken an agreement must not make any use of this information during the board in progress. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 1 21:56:57 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 07:56:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives Message-ID: <4A256C82.0077088B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2C(1) Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass Double Pass Pass ? (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. (2) Undiscussed. You, South, hold: 7 KQJ65 QT865 53 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 1 21:21:12 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:21:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives References: <4A256C82.0077088B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <009e01c2997f$934a1f80$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: > > Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C 2C(1) > Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass > Double Pass Pass ? > > (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. > (2) Undiscussed. > > You, South, hold: > > 7 > KQJ65 > QT865 > 53 > > What are your logical alternatives? Pass, pass, - and pass. (You may select either one!) regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 1 23:09:46 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:09:46 +1000 Subject: Unholy Truth (was Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions) Message-ID: <4A256C82.007DB589.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [big snip] Doug Couchman wrote: >>>We don't require players to call attention to >>>their revokes; is that not equally ungentlemanly? Grattan Endicott replied: >>+=+ On the basis that justice requires a man >>shall bear witness to his own offence ? The >>answer lies in what we want the game to be. +=+ [big snip] In some circumstances we require players to immediately call attention to their own receipt of UI. Law 16B states: [snip] >the Director should be notified forthwith, >preferably by the recipient of the information. [snip] In some circumstances we require players to immediately call attention to their own provision of MI. Law 75D1 states: >If a player subsequently realises that his own >explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must >immediately call the Director (who will apply Law >21 or Law 40C). Should the principle embodied in Law 16B and Law 75D1 be enshrined more generally in 2005 for all irregularities (including revokes)? That is, do we want the game to be one where a player voluntarily notifies their own irregularity, as soon as they have noticed that they have committed an irregularity? Best wishes Richard From rwilley@mit.edu Sun Dec 1 22:42:27 2002 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:42:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives In-Reply-To: <009e01c2997f$934a1f80$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C82.0077088B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <009e01c2997f$934a1f80$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <1038782547.3dea9053abf99@webmail.mit.edu> 3S should be forcing Though I don't like the bid, I think that the only real choice is to bid 4S. > From: > > > > Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1C 2C(1) > > Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass > > Double Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. > > (2) Undiscussed. > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > 7 > > KQJ65 > > QT865 > > 53 > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Pass, pass, - and pass. > (You may select either one!) > > regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 1 22:59:04 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:59:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives References: <4A256C82.0077088B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <009e01c2997f$934a1f80$70d8fea9@WINXP> <1038782547.3dea9053abf99@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <00ae01c2998d$3f145210$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives > > 3S should be forcing > Though I don't like the bid, I think that the only real choice is to bid 4S. It is obviously too late to bid 4S now regardless of agreements. 3SX is a better contract if 4S makes. But if 3S should be forcing then 4S had been the correct bid by South in the previous round of the auction. However, I fail to see any reason why 3S should be forcing in the first place. South has told his story within very narrow limits. If North wants to force to game he had better: a: bid game directly himself, or b: bid opponents' suit as a game force. I read the 3S bid as telling: Forget your red suits, we shall be better off in spades, but I don't believe in game. Sven > > > > > From: > > > > > > Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > > 1C 2C(1) > > > Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass > > > Double Pass Pass ? > > > > > > (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. > > > (2) Undiscussed. > > > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > > > 7 > > > KQJ65 > > > QT865 > > > 53 > > > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > > > Pass, pass, - and pass. > > (You may select either one!) > > > > regards Sven > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 00:13:57 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:13:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives Message-ID: <4A256C82.008393A4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> rwilley@mit.edu opined: >3S should be forcing While many partnerships have a meta-rule that: "Undiscussed calls are forcing." I do not believe that there is a universal meta-meta-rule that, if a meta-rule has not been discussed, one is forbidden to adopt the alternative meta-rule: "Undiscussed calls are natural and non-forcing." Noted bridge theorist Jeff Rubens has presented cogent logic in favour of the alternative meta- rule, arguing that adoption of the alternative prevents auctions spiralling into infinity. >Though I don't like the bid, I think that the >only real choice is to bid 4S. However, this entire theoretical discussion, while interesting, is irrelevant to the actual problem presented. Whether 3S was forcing was an issue for the previous round of the auction. The actual question is what is logical after LHO has Doubled 3S, and CHO and RHO have Passed 3Sx? Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 2 01:04:15 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:04:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives References: <4A256C82.0077088B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <008d01c2999e$ef211380$189868d5@default> [Richard Hills] Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2C(1) Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass Double Pass Pass ? (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. (2) Undiscussed. You, South, hold: 7 KQJ65 QT865 53 What are your logical alternatives? [Nigel Guthrie] [A] What can an undiscussed 3S mean? [1] Nat NF e.g. QJT98xxx x x xxx [2] Nat F e.g. AKJTxxx x Kxx AQx [3] Splinter/Cue with double fit e.g. - Axxx AKxx xxxxx [4] Agrees higher red suit e.g. QJxx Axxxx x Axx [5] Partner has forgotten the system. perhaps 3S is intended as a limit raise, thinking you showed majors. e.g. AKx Jx xxx xxxxx A priori, in my circles, [5] is by far the most likely explanation. IMO, however, you should never alert 3S, whether or not you benefited from a DwS education. [B] If 3S meant [3] or [4] does partner's pass over the X have a sensible meaning like denying first round spade control e.g. x Axxx AKxx xxx [C] One opponent has doubled and the other passed. Does this increase the chance that partner has forgotten our convention. IMO yes. Hence I rule that pass and red suit bids are LAs. I would take-out insurance and risk playing a level higher in spades if partner has [1] or [2]. If partner has indeed forgotten -- and your red suit bid saves you from immediate disaster -- you may still be ruled against. It is hard for you to be impervious to subtle nuances in the way that partner bid 3S or passed the double, especially if you are a regular partnership; hence I don't think you can complain too much if the TD still rules against you. [D] What if opponents *ask* your partner what 2C meant. If partner answers "the reds", your troubles are reduced (in practice you pass). If partner answers "the majors", your predicament is worse: I hope you would grit your teeth and pass, consoling yourself with the recollection of the many previous undeserved tops you had got by never learning Ghestem properly. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 2 01:37:45 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:37:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives Message-ID: <009701c299a3$6caa1500$189868d5@default> {Sorry all -- earlier email with corrections and additions....] [Richard Hills] Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2C(1) Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass Double Pass Pass ? (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. (2) Undiscussed. You, South, hold: 7 KQJ65 QT865 53 What are your logical alternatives? [Nigel Guthrie] [A] What can an undiscussed 3S mean? [1] Nat NF e.g. QJT98xxx x x xxx [2] Nat F e.g. AKJTxxx x Kxx AQx [3] Splinter/Cue with double fit e.g. - Axxx AKxx xxxxx [4] Agrees higher red suit e.g. QJxx Axxxx x Axx [5] Partner has forgotten the system. perhaps 3S is intended as a limit raise, thinking you showed majors. e.g. AKx Jx xxx xxxxx A priori, in my circles, [5] is by far the most likely explanation. IMO, however, you should never alert 3S, whether or not you benefited from a DwS education. [B] If 3S meant [3] or [4] does partner's pass over the X have a sensible meaning like denying first round spade control e.g. x Axxx AKxx xxx [C] One opponent has doubled and the other passed. Does this increase the chance that partner has forgotten our convention? IMO yes. Hence I rule that pass and red suit bids are LAs. You could take-out insurance and risk playing a level higher in spades if partner has [1] or [2]. If partner has indeed forgotten -- and your red suit bid saves you from immediate disaster -- you may still be ruled against. It is hard for you to be impervious to subtle nuances in the way that partner bid 3S or passed the double, especially if you are a regular partnership; hence I don't think you can complain too much if the TD still rules against you. [D] What if opponents *ask* your partner what 2C meant. If partner answers "the reds", your troubles are reduced -- in practice, you pass but see [E]. If partner answers "the majors", your predicament is worse: I hope you would grit your teeth and pass, consoling yourself with the recollection of the many previous undeserved tops you had got by never learning Ghestem properly. [E] Notwithstanding what I said under [C] when you learn that partner knows what you have it is hard to bid a red suit even if you would have done so, as insurance, if opponents had not asked. Such opportunities to cheat indetectably arise in most alerting situations and everybody succumbs to these temptations. In my long experience of Bridge I have *never* known anybody to be actively ethical in circumstances like this. Is [E] the Bridge equivalent of the "professional foul" discussed in another thread. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 03:19:36 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:19:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives Message-ID: <4A256C83.0010BD10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard Hills wrote: >>Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1C 2C(1) >>Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass >>Double Pass Pass ? >> >>(1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. >>(2) Undiscussed. >> >>You, South, hold: 7 KQJ65 QT865 53 >>What are your logical alternatives? Nigel Guthrie replied: >[A] What can an undiscussed 3S mean? >[1] Nat NF e.g. QJT98xxx x x xxx >[2] Nat F e.g. AKJTxxx x Kxx AQx >[3] Splinter/Cue with double fit > e.g. - Axxx AKxx xxxxx >[4] Agrees higher red suit > e.g. QJxx Axxxx x Axx >[5] Partner has forgotten the system. > perhaps 3S is intended as a limit > raise, thinking you showed majors. > e.g. AKx Jx xxx xxxxx > >A priori, in my circles, [5] is by far the >most likely explanation. [snip] >[C] One opponent has doubled and the other > passed. Does this increase the chance > that partner has forgotten our convention? > IMO yes. > >Hence I rule that pass and red suit bids are >LAs. You could take-out insurance and risk >playing a level higher in spades if partner >has [1] or [2]. If partner has indeed >forgotten -- and your red suit bid saves you >from immediate disaster -- you may still be >ruled against. It is hard for you to be >impervious to subtle nuances in the way that >partner bid 3S or passed the double, >especially if you are a regular partnership; >hence I don't think you can complain too much >if the TD still rules against you. > >[D] What if opponents *ask* your partner what >2C meant. [snip] >If partner answers "the majors", your >predicament is worse: I hope you would grit >your teeth and pass, consoling yourself with >the recollection of the many previous >undeserved tops you had got by never learning >Ghestem properly. [snip] >In my long experience of Bridge I have *never* >known anybody to be actively ethical in >circumstances like this. [snip] Great deduction, Nigel. The complete hand was: North (Me) T965 83 AK KT942 West East AQJ42 K83 742 AT9 732 J94 86 AQJ7 South 7 KQJ65 QT865 53 And the actual auction was: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2C Pass(1) 3S Pass Pass Pass(2) Double Pass Pass 4D Pass(3) Pass Pass Result: 9 tricks in 4D, -100(4). (1) Before West called, West asked me about the meaning of pard's 2C call. I gave the correct system explanation, "5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the majors". (2) Before West called, West asked pard about my 3S call. Pard gave MI that I had "spade support, and inviting game." After West's "final" Pass, I summoned the TD under Law 75D2, and gave our correct system explanation, that I had "spade support, and pre-emptive". The TD permitted West to change their "final" Pass under Law 21B1, and warned my pard that my explanation was UI to him. (3) Before West called, West asked me about the meaning of pard's 4D call. I gave the correct system explanation, "Non-systemic. Your guess is as good as mine. It is obvious that my earlier explanation of pard's 2C call does not correspond to pard's hand." (We had no *implicit* partnership understanding. In our long-standing partnership I could not recall pard making this, or a similar, bidding error before.) (4) At the conclusion of play, I again summoned the TD, suggesting that the TD should look at the hand record and consider whether the score should be adjusted to our result in 3Sx. Eventually the TD returned, and ruled that - while acknowledging my attempt to be actively ethical - the AI available to pard was that the auction was sufficiently bizarre for him to legitimately deduce that a wheel had fallen off, so the ruling was that the table result would stand. West sportingly unhesitatingly announced that he fully supported the TD's ruling. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 2 07:24:32 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:24:32 +1300 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives In-Reply-To: <4A256C83.0010BD10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000201c299d3$e07fb450$b92e37d2@Desktop> Richard Hills wrote: > >... > West sportingly unhesitatingly announced that he > fully supported the TD's ruling. > You play in a very good game Richard :-) Wayne From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 1 22:16:48 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:16:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] All very trying References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <002701c29965$13cc54e0$189868d5@default> Message-ID: <000401c299d7$bc5c9e40$1519e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: [blml] All very trying > > Over the next few weeks, the WBFLC can publish > a series of amendments for the more blatant > cases. No new law; just cut out some dead wood; > and small alterations to clarify WBFLC intent. > ------------ \x/ ----------------- > > As a basis for discussion, we would like a better > statement of existing law. Before 2005, we > would like to see some real changes to the law; > in addition to the cosmetic changes, above. > > Why has such an obvious proposal not been > implemented before? > +=+ 1. The WBFLC has maintained a position since before publication of the 1987 Code, that no changes in the text of the Laws will be made between decennial Reviews. (-: We did move an asterisk in 1997 and, holy Moses, in 2000 the placement of three whole words was changed in a footnote :-) 2. The WBFLC does issue, from time to time, interpretations of the text of the Laws, but only after discussion and decision in meetings. 3. Meetings of the WBFLC take place only at World Championships. ..... nothing in this tells us 'why', of course, but we may deduce an insufficiency of motivation, a perception that the activity is not demanded. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 2 08:10:04 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:10:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> Sven you are forgetting one very important thing in your reasoning: Sven Pran wrote: >> > > As long as Bridge and its predecessors have existed one of the main > "pillars" have been what today is expressed in Law 40B: > > Concealed partnership understandings are prohibited. > That is one of the pillars > What the lawmakers have attempted over the years is to make it > quite clear what this means: Your opponents are entitled to know as > much of your expressed and implied agreements as you do yourself. > > But we have the other pillar which in some abnormal cases obscurs > this principle: > > You are not permitted to give your partner any information relevant to > the game except by using the legal language of the game (i.e. calls etc.) > that is the other pillar. So far, so good. > dWS seems to claim that whenever this conflict arises then avoiding > UI to partner is far more important than correctly informing opponents. > > Many of us (including me) disagree. I am not going to repeat any of the > arguments here, I will only state that once we have the "priority" between > L75C and L75D2 settled the "cacophony" should be silenced by itself. > You are forgetting one thing, Sven: The Lawmakers have settled this conflict as well. Law 75D2 says, quite explicitely, that UI is to be avoided, and MI be allowed to exist. That is the choice that has already been made. When a player knows that his partner has misunderstood, he is not allowed to give UI to correct this. You know what happened to me yesterday. RHO:1Sp LHO:2NT 5 seconds later : you're supposed to alert this, partner! In a charity event I don't want to insist on a correction to 2NT+2 from the 6Sp+1 they eventually reached, but I did create a row when my opponents simply could not understand what I meant. Simple L75D2, but the choice has been made by the Lawmakers. None of you seem to realize that I am merely saying that this choice should remain till the end of the auction. Ah well, I've had worse disillusions in 2002. > 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 hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 2 08:22:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:22:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <009401c29972$09cdd100$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DEB1842.3040006@skynet.be> I did not comment on Steve's post. All I could say was that he surely has understood the problem. As for Sven: Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Steve Willner" > ....... > >>>From: "Sven Pran" >>>So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C >>>in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding >>>the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. >>> >>This is, of course, one of Herman's principal arguments. Likewise, the >>UI to you created by partner's wrong explanation exists and cannot be >>undone. If either of these causes damage, that damage has to be >>redressed later, both underthe standard approach and under the dWS. No >>difference so far. The difference is what happens later. >> > > My point is of course that while UI can never be undone MI can > sometimes be corrected in time to avoid damage for opponents. > Well, then change L75D2 and demand that MI be corrected immediately. > But a player in posession of UI still has the possibility to avoid any > damage to opponents by not using the UI. An opponent who has > received MI does not have any such possibility. > True, but the implications of UI are often such that only the worst score will satisfy the rules. By not giving UI to partner you allow him to wake up naturally. > Besides: The player who has realized that his partner has mistaken > an agreement is already in possession of UI, namely that information. > Indeed, and that is already a second reason why we're headed for a bad score. Surely I should not be required to add a third? Remember Sven, where this discussion starts. We are considering the actions of a player faced with the dilemma of having to answer to "5Di?" after his partner has misexplained 4NT. You advocate that he tell the systemic meaning. You agree that he gives UI. I agree that he is allowed to do so. OTOH, I advocate that he tell the intended meaning. I agree that this is MI and that this MI must be dealt with afterwards. But you (and some others) don't agree that he is allowed to do so. I maintain that it is in his best interests to act in this manner. I also maintain that he is unable not to break one law or another. And I see no Law, no regulation, no WBFLC interpretation, that says that L75C precedes L75D2. And I am stopping all this. > Frankly I believe that if we should be able to live with both Laws 75C > and 75D2 by just making it clear that the former takes precedence > whenever there could be any conflict between the two. > So you agree that this decision has not been made yet? > But if that is impossible I feel pretty certain that less harm would be > the result if we did away with L75D2 stressing a rule that an offender > who in any way receives information that he has mistaken an agreement > must not make any use of this information during the board in progress. > Well Sven, I disagree. In all my years, I have come accross just the one occasion where the second question was actually posed at the table. So deciding on this issue is not really important, as long as it is clear that both schools are acting illegally but acceptably. Your suggestion to do away with L75D2 would alter the game very profoundly. > 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 08:40:05 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:40:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" Please! ............. > You are forgetting one thing, Sven: > The Lawmakers have settled this conflict as well. > Law 75D2 says, quite explicitely, that UI is to be avoided, and MI be > allowed to exist. No, that is not what Law75D2 says. This law does not explicitly prohibit you from answering a question correct according to the requirements specified in Law 75C. > That is the choice that has already been made. There are no indications in officially published commentaries that the WBFLC actually made such a choice. But there are indications that they made the opposite choice (that Law 75C takes precedence). > When a player knows that his partner has misunderstood, he is not > allowed to give UI to correct this. And the knowledge that partner misunderstood is UI to him for as long as L75D2 is applicable! (Officially published by WBFLC in 1992) > > You know what happened to me yesterday. > > RHO:1Sp > LHO:2NT > 5 seconds later : you're supposed to alert this, partner! Nobody has so far argued that this is illegal > In a charity event I don't want to insist on a correction to 2NT+2 > from the 6Sp+1 they eventually reached, but I did create a row when my > opponents simply could not understand what I meant. And do you really believe that you had any reason whatsoever for demanding that your RHO should pass 2NT? You surprise me. Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Dec 2 09:01:26 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:01:26 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] All very trying In-Reply-To: <000401c299d7$bc5c9e40$1519e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ 1. The WBFLC has maintained a position > since before publication of the 1987 Code, that > no changes in the text of the Laws will be made > between decennial Reviews. (-: We did move an > asterisk in 1997 and, holy Moses, in 2000 the > placement of three whole words was changed in > a footnote :-) With all due respect to the WBFLC... reflect for a moment on how quickly and efficiently word of those changes in 1997 and 2000 (and of the interpretations from a couple of the other meetings) was - or wasn't - propagated to non-BLML-reading TDs. Probably a majority of the world's directors, especially at the lower levels, STILL do not know about any of these changes. As much as I'd like to see certain things in the Laws changed... I feel it's important that there be NO changes to them, except on the rare occasions when a completely new edition is released and widely announced in every bridge publication under the sun. Maybe that could be every 5 years instead of every 10 years - but I'd not want it any more frequent than that. A quick look at the ACBL convention card and alert policy of the last 10 years will give you some idea how much people hate the confusion of too-frequent small changes. GRB From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 2 09:37:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:37:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Springboard In-Reply-To: <00fd01c29839$79232760$699468d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202102021.00a58dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:26 30/11/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Decisions of TDs and ACs usually surprise me >but I can't complain as they are sometimes >in my favour. How would you rule on this >incident from the last set of boards of a match >in the EBU Spring Fours, some years ago. > >My partner picked up the next board and placed >it on the table in the wrong orientation. >Although he sat West, he had kept the boards >beside him and looked after them throughout the >match. Nobody had objected to this. > >We started to take our hands from the board. >North cried "Stop, the EW hands are NS." >The others all dropped their cards like hot >potatoes but I admitted "I glimpsed the top card >of my hand." [some small spot card]. > > "And I had done a hellish thing, > And it would work 'em woe: > For all averred, I had killed the bird > That made the breeze to blow." > >I asked the TD if, with opponents' agreement, we >could play the board in the correct orientation >-- with him watching to ensure that my illicit >knowledge was unused. He said No. > >Q1. Should the TD agree to my solution? AG : It is one way to save the board. However, it is not one of those scheduled by L16B. With opponents agreeing, however, I would have allowed it, extending L81C8. I've benn told by my teacher : "save the board at all costs". >I asked the TD if, with opponent's agreement, we >could play the board with him acting as a >substitute for me. He said No. >Q2. Should the TD accede to this suggestion? AG : to appoint a subtitute *is* scheduled by L16B. For this to be done, both pairs and the substitute must agree. Here, the substitute you named didn't agree. The TD should, since your opponents agreed, have looked for some other substitute. >The TD said we could not play the board but he would consult his >colleagues about a ruling. >At the end of the match, we scored up to win >by an imp or two -- pending the ruling on the >disputed board. > >Q3. Should the TD rush through a ruling to > ensure that it reaches us before the result > of the match is known? AG : I don't see why. >The TD fined my partner for misboarding. >This reversed the match result. So we lost. > >Q4. Do you agree with the TD's ruling? AG : since NS are responsible for the boards, and since West did mess up with this, both pairs were at fault; I would have fined both pairs 1 VP (or whatever would be the local rule for misboarding). In a knockout match, of course, this would have no incidence. >I pathetically suggested that the match be >called a tie; and the board be redealt for a >sudden death playoff (another board if it was >still a tie). The TD answered No. > >Q5. Is my proposal the Judgement of Solomon? AG : there is nothing in the rules to allow this. >We tried to submit an appeal. The chief TD >advised that our appeal could not succeed and >might not even be heard. I think the reason >was "The agreed facts and the law are clearly >against you -- it is not a matter of judgement >or of interpretation." > >Q6. Should you be refused leave to appeal if the > facts and the law are clearly against you? AG : nope. What would happen if the TD is wrong ? The enforcment of deposits is enough of a deterrent. Perhaps your former strange idea (see Q5) made you appear as less than serious ? Anyway, the TD went too far. Especially considering that the case was far from obvious. Double-especially considering that the AC had other ideas. >Q7. Is this such a case? > >We packed and left for home. A posse of players >who had finished their matches corralled us in the >Car park and persuaded us to return. They argued >that North is responsible for the boards and >cannot delegate that responsibility. The Chief >TD was doubtful about this but my partner argued >that he did not mind forfeiting his deposit and >we were eventually allowed leave to appeal. > >The AC was made up of players from teams still >in contention. Arguably, such players may have >views on whom they prefer as future opponents. > >Q8. Should the AC be recruited from teams that > have already been eliminated from the main > event? AG : AC members, as any other bridge players, perhaps even more so, are supposed to be honest. To use eliminated players would have been better, to be sure, but the skills of the members (as players and TDs) is more important. The TD should have done whatever was possible to hide the identity of the players involved, so that no suspicion of "choosing one's opponents" could happen. If the case had already spread so that everyone knew about it, too bad. Rather an imperfect, but reasonably competent, AC than no AC at all. >The AC interpreted the rules to say that North is >indeed responsible for the boards and should have >insisted on taking over that function from West. >They cancelled the fine on West and instead fined >North a few imps, for dereliction of duty, so that >we won comfortably. > > "Nor dim nor red, like God's own head, > The glorious Sun uprist: > Then all averred, I had killed the bird > That brought the fog and mist." > >Q9. Is the AC's argument correct? Q10. How do you rule? AG : as I said before, I would have fined both players, so you would stil have won the match. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 09:50:34 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:50:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Springboard References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202102021.00a58dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01ea01c299e8$428d15c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Just to correct one mistake From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ......... > >I asked the TD if, with opponents' agreement, we > >could play the board in the correct orientation > >-- with him watching to ensure that my illicit > >knowledge was unused. He said No. > > > >Q1. Should the TD agree to my solution? > > AG : It is one way to save the board. However, it is not one of those > scheduled by L16B. > With opponents agreeing, however, I would have allowed it, extending L81C8. > I've benn told by my teacher : "save the board at all costs". If you read the preamble in Law 16B you will find: "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may:" So the suggestion is certainly included among those available. And none of the alternatives available in Law 16B require the consent of the players at the table nor accept by the substitute (when applicable). regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 2 10:06:52 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:06:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: <001f01c297d0$774d6db0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000001c297c3$4a88ee60$d4ee883e@pc> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202110054.01d99b60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:55 29/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "LarryBennett" >......... > > Whilst on the subject of other games, I believe, > > as a foreigner, that in proper football (ie US) > > the rules say that each player must use all > > their skill to avoid commiting a foul. It means > > that any infraction is therefore "deliberate". > >Alas, soccer is different. >The rules say it is a foul when you tackle the >player rather than the ball, but the only consequence >(outside the penalty field) is a free kick. AG : wrong. The consequences include immediate expulsion when the tackle was made from behind, dangerously, or the defender was "last man". That is what has been told to the Umpires in the last two World Cups, but Umpires are reluctant to apply this to the letter. I'm wondering why. >And a defence player who is reluctant to enter a >tackle on an oncoming player for fear of violating >these rules is very easily considered a coward. AG : the cowards are the Umpires. Were the interpretation above applied systematically, I guess that the opinion about those players would change. In Rugby, when you make a voluntary foul near the line, the Umpire has the option of immediately according the try. It seems to work : voluntary fouls are less common than in Soccer. "Rugby is a sport for brutes, played by gentlemen. Soccer is the exact opposite" (anon) Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 2 10:11:46 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:11:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: <00b501c29877$22aba680$799490d4@rabbit> References: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202110940.01dc1330@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:47 30/11/2002 +0100, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >"John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" wrote: > > The auction with N/S vulnerable: > > N E S W > > 1H P > > 2C P! 2H P > > 3C P 3NT all pass > > > > West's hand: > > s AJ > > h Txxx > > d Qxx > > c xxxx > > > > Your choice of opening lead? > >Leading the SA is obvious. > >1.) Leading either a H or a C is just plain > absurd. >2.) With four small cards in both hearts and > clubs, opponents must have tricks > to burn. If you lead the SA, and partner discourages, > you can still switch to a diamond, hoping that partner > has something good in diamonds, plus possibly > one stop in one of their suits. If you lead a diamond, > and partner has spades, there will be no second chance, > your side will get at most three tricks. >3.) Your S holding is better than your D holding. >4.) Qxx is a very bad holding to find a lead which > does not mislead partner. AG : agreed. If partner has no stopper in their suits, we need either KQxxx spades or AKxx diamonds in partne's hand, and the SA lead caters to both. If he has one, the probability that the trick possibly given in the suit in exactly the ninth is not large. But I would disallow the lead at pairs, where SA would too often give the 10th or 11th trick. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 2 10:17:52 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:17:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives In-Reply-To: <009e01c2997f$934a1f80$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C82.0077088B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202111343.01d9a1d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:21 1/12/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: > > > > Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1C 2C(1) > > Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass > > Double Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. > > (2) Undiscussed. > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > 7 > > KQJ65 > > QT865 > > 53 > > > > What are your logical alternatives? AG : when I pass 3S, I decide that partner has only long spades. This isn't how that convention is played, but I'm allowed to do it. When he is doubled, does that change anything ? I say no. What else can you do but pass, simply because there was a double ? Didn't you expect it ? NB : I strongly disapprove, and only because I'm trying to be polite, of playing destructive conventions without having prepared all plausible followings. Whatever was the result, whatever the problem on this deal -UI ?- , the pair should be fined at least half a board and/or disallowed to play this convention until they define the developements. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 2 10:45:52 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:45:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Springboard In-Reply-To: <01ea01c299e8$428d15c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202102021.00a58dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202114427.01dba900@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:50 2/12/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >Just to correct one mistake >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >......... > > >I asked the TD if, with opponents' agreement, we > > >could play the board in the correct orientation > > >-- with him watching to ensure that my illicit > > >knowledge was unused. He said No. > > > > > >Q1. Should the TD agree to my solution? > > > > AG : It is one way to save the board. However, it is not one of those > > scheduled by L16B. > > With opponents agreeing, however, I would have allowed it, extending >L81C8. > > I've benn told by my teacher : "save the board at all costs". > >If you read the preamble in Law 16B you will find: >"If the Director considers that the information could >interfere with normal play, he may:" > >So the suggestion is certainly included among those >available. AG : sorry. Answered too quickly. >And none of the alternatives available in Law 16B >require the consent of the players at the table nor >accept by the substitute (when applicable). AG : I think you cannot force anybody to be the substitute. You really need one's consent to send one at the table. From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 10:40:49 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:40:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Springboard References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202102021.00a58dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021202114427.01dba900@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01fc01c299ef$489b83a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >And none of the alternatives available in Law 16B > >require the consent of the players at the table nor > >accept by the substitute (when applicable). > > AG : I think you cannot force anybody to be the substitute. You really need > one's consent to send one at the table. Agreed, but this is not a question of the laws. (And it is certainly no question on acceptance by the players at the table). regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Dec 2 10:48:49 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:48:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead Message-ID: <130328.1038826129443.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > >Leading the SA is obvious. No, it isn't. At least, not until partner passes slowly it isn't. > >1.) Leading either a H or a C is just plain > > absurd. Leading a heart does not make much sense. But there is no particular reason why leading a club is absurd - it may well be right not to concede a ninth trick with the opening lead, because... > >2.) With four small cards in both hearts and > > clubs, opponents must have tricks > > to burn. If, as various people have suggested, the opponents can run both hearts and clubs, and also have an unstopped suit, they would be in four hearts. They aren't. So their hands don't look like that - or at least, that is the authorised information we have available. It is quite amazing what wonderful defenders we all are when we have some illegal clues from partner's actions, and how easy we find it to convince ourselves that we would have found the winning defence at the table. Compare and contrast this with the actual success rate of our opening leads when partner has acted throughout in tempo. Thomas, and some other BLML contributors, have fallen into exactly the same trap as the actual appeals committee, and should be boiled in exactly the same oil. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 2 11:03:05 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:03:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> Sven, I did not want to continue this discussion, but you wrote only four things, and all four are clearly wrong. Not mistaken, but wrong. Very wrong. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > Please! > ............. > >>You are forgetting one thing, Sven: >>The Lawmakers have settled this conflict as well. >>Law 75D2 says, quite explicitely, that UI is to be avoided, and MI be >>allowed to exist. >> > > No, that is not what Law75D2 says. Yes, that is what L75D2 says. > This law does not explicitly > prohibit you from answering a question correct according to the > requirements specified in Law 75C. > Indeed it doesn't, but that does not negate what I was saying. > >>That is the choice that has already been made. >> > > There are no indications in officially published commentaries that the > WBFLC actually made such a choice. But there are indications that > they made the opposite choice (that Law 75C takes precedence). > L75D2 is the choice: The WBF could have written that MI must be corrected immediately, but it isn't. So the WBF has made the choice. MI is to be preferred over UI. > >>When a player knows that his partner has misunderstood, he is not >>allowed to give UI to correct this. >> > > And the knowledge that partner misunderstood is UI to him for as > long as L75D2 is applicable! (Officially published by WBFLC in 1992) > Yes, but that is not under discussion, is it? > >>You know what happened to me yesterday. >> >>RHO:1Sp >>LHO:2NT >>5 seconds later : you're supposed to alert this, partner! >> > > Nobody has so far argued that this is illegal > Yes it is. L75D2. Are you out of your mind ? > >>In a charity event I don't want to insist on a correction to 2NT+2 >>from the 6Sp+1 they eventually reached, but I did create a row when my >>opponents simply could not understand what I meant. >> > > And do you really believe that you had any reason whatsoever for > demanding that your RHO should pass 2NT? You surprise me. > If you open 1Sp on a minimum, and partner replies 2NT, what do you do considering that you are living in a country where French style is prominent and 2NT shows 10-11 without spade support? Maybe he remembered, maybe he didn't. We shall never know. But he didn't alert. > 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 2 11:39:42 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:39:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: <130328.1038826129443.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202123838.01d97a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:48 2/12/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >It is quite amazing what wonderful defenders we all are when we have some >illegal clues from partner's actions, and how easy we find it to convince >ourselves that we would have found the winning defence at the table. >Compare and contrast this with the actual success rate of our opening >leads when partner has acted throughout in tempo. Thomas, and some other >BLML contributors, have fallen into exactly the same trap as the actual >appeals committee, and should be boiled in exactly the same oil. AG : perhaps I should have added that my own poll resulted in a 12-3 preference for the SA lead. From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 11:31:33 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:31:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <020601c299f6$5e1ae2a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ....... > >>You know what happened to me yesterday. > >> > >>RHO:1Sp > >>LHO:2NT > >>5 seconds later : you're supposed to alert this, partner! > >> > > > > Nobody has so far argued that this is illegal > > > > > Yes it is. L75D2. Are you out of your mind ? Sorry, I mis-typed the last word Of course it should have been: Nobody has so far argued that this is legal From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 11:50:27 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:50:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ......... > > And the knowledge that partner misunderstood is UI to him for as > > long as L75D2 is applicable! (Officially published by WBFLC in 1992) > > > > > Yes, but that is not under discussion, is it? Well, I find it very relevant, because it implies that all your calls and other actions shall be selected without influence of you being aware that partner has misunderstood. (Law 16A) So if we shall follow the laws to the letter you are not allowed among several options to select any option that could be suggested from the knowledge that your partner has made a mistake in his explanations. Which again means: Your "action" by answering an opponent's question on any call must not in any way be influenced by your knowledge that partner has previously made an incorrect explanation. Nor may you select any call that could be suggested from such knowledge. Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 13:55:01 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 07:55:01 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <130328.1038826129443.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > Alain wrote: > > > >Leading the SA is obvious. > > No, it isn't. At least, not until partner passes slowly it isn't. > > > >1.) Leading either a H or a C is just plain > > > absurd. > > Leading a heart does not make much sense. But there is no particular reason why leading a club is absurd - it may well be right not to concede a ninth trick with the opening lead, because... > > > >2.) With four small cards in both hearts and > > > clubs, opponents must have tricks > > > to burn. > > If, as various people have suggested, the opponents can run both hearts and clubs, and also have an unstopped suit, they would be in four hearts. They aren't. So their hands don't look like that - or at least, that is the authorised information we have available. > > It is quite amazing what wonderful defenders we all are when we have some illegal clues from partner's actions, and how easy we find it to convince ourselves that we would have found the winning defence at the table. Compare and contrast this with the actual success rate of our opening leads when partner has acted throughout in tempo. Thomas, and some other BLML contributors, have fallen into exactly the same trap as the actual appeals committee, and should be boiled in exactly the same oil. > > David Burn > London, England It also has been suggested that opener would notice RHO's antics and think: 'hmm, LHO has UI that RHO was thinking of bidding against two strong opponents. If I bid 3N then about 10% of the time partner will have the spades stopped, about 30% of the time the opening lead will allow the contract to make, and at least 55% of the rest of the time there will be a LA to the lead that sets 3N so there will be an infraction and the score will be adjusted favorably. Bidding 3N is practically a no brainer, particularly if it doesn't make since in that case it will be a top 90% of the time after the adjustment.' I wonder if the double shot has been invented yet. Now David's causitc attitude has been directed at the LHO and I am not so sure it ought to be directed at RHO for violation of L73B1. It seems more appropriate that before the defenders are damned that they present themselves to a C&E hearing so that all matters can be first reasoned out. Need I point out that L16 has a fatal flaw- it requires a player with UI to correctly figure out what the UI means. Now, how accurate can a player be in such an endeavor? For how otherwise can it be expected that he can figure out what action was demonstrably suggested over another? And just how is a player to know when something will turn out to be relevant? regards roger pewick From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 14:11:54 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:11:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <130328.1038826129443.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <003001c29a0c$c4c93180$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Roger Pewick" > > Alain wrote: > > > > > >Leading the SA is obvious. > > > > No, it isn't. At least, not until partner passes slowly it isn't. Count me in among those who unhesingtately would lead the SA if I had no UI from partner. Why? Simply because neither declarer nor dummy has shown any interest in spades, and as I remember the high card points partner is most likely at least as strong in HCP as I am. .......... > out. Need I point out that L16 has a fatal flaw- it requires a player > with UI to correctly figure out what the UI means. Now, how accurate > can a player be in such an endeavor? For how otherwise can it be > expected that he can figure out what action was demonstrably suggested > over another? And just how is a player to know when something will turn > out to be relevant? At least nine out of ten cases he cannot. The "could demonstrably be" is a matter of judgement after the facts, and as I know has been written this way so that neither TD nor AC need to prove any illegal intent, it is sufficient to show that such intent could be present - even unconsciously. regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 2 15:13:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:13:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> No Sven, this is simply wrong. On this issue, quite apart from all others, I am quite adamant, and very certain. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ......... > >>>And the knowledge that partner misunderstood is UI to him for as >>>long as L75D2 is applicable! (Officially published by WBFLC in 1992) >>> >>> >> >>Yes, but that is not under discussion, is it? >> > > Well, I find it very relevant, because it implies that all your calls and > other actions shall be selected without influence of you being aware > that partner has misunderstood. (Law 16A) > It may be relevant - but there is no discussion about the fact that first bidder must not use the UI contained in partner's misexplanation. As for your inclusion "and other actions", that is simply wrong. > So if we shall follow the laws to the letter you are not allowed > among several options to select any option that could be suggested > from the knowledge that your partner has made a mistake in his > explanations. > No, read the law again, it does not say "actions", it says "calls and plays". There should be no discussion about the fact that I am allowed to use partner's explanation in giving my own. Suppose I am not certain what my call means. If a player accepts partner's explanation as being the systemically correct one, then both the dWS and the ClS will now explain the next call in the same manner: the systemic one equals the intended one. But the player is only aware of this correct explanation by UI. So while we both agree that he shall not use this UI in the selection of his next call, I can assure you that he IS allowed (nay, obliged) to use the UI in being able to explain the next call. Really Sven, this is a piece of the discussion that I am 110% certain of (as opposed to the 99% that I am certain about the other parts). > Which again means: Your "action" by answering an opponent's > question on any call must not in any way be influenced by your > knowledge that partner has previously made an incorrect > explanation. > No. see above. > Nor may you select any call that could be suggested from such > knowledge. > True - but not under any discussion. > 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 2 16:05:11 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:05:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <200212021605.LAA18311@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : since NS are responsible for the boards, and since West did mess up > with this, both pairs were at fault; I would have fined both pairs 1 VP (or > whatever would be the local rule for misboarding). In a knockout match, of > course, this would have no incidence. But see below. In a KO match, it would be normal to apply PP's in IMPs. > >I pathetically suggested that the match be > >called a tie; and the board be redealt for a > >sudden death playoff (another board if it was > >still a tie). The TD answered No. > > > >Q5. Is my proposal the Judgement of Solomon? > > AG : there is nothing in the rules to allow this. Actually in the ACBL, this might be correct! Over here, a PP does not accrue to the other team's score, so it might be the case that after the PP's, both teams have lost a KO match. If that happens, whatever tie-break procedure the CoC prescribe goes into effect. Usually that means play a few more boards, but of course other tie-break procedures are possible. (I thought that L86C would prohibit playing just one board, but on rereading the text, it appears a single board would be legal if the SO says so. In practice, three to eight boards would be typical, depending on the length of the original match.) From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 2 16:34:02 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:34:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman says Message-ID: <3DEB8B7A.2020500@skynet.be> I am astonished at the number of negative responses people are giving me about the dWS. I believe this is because you are reacting at different things at the same time. Let me try and put my points of view into several short statements and then maybe you can tell me which ones you don't agree with. 1) Herman says : acting according to the dWS is illegal. This one might surprise you, but then maybe it's the one that no-one will disagree with; 2) Herman says : acting according to the ClS is illegal. Is there really any-one out there who still believes that the player is not breaking L75D2? 3) Herman says : if no legal alternative remains, and there is no clear statement in the laws or regulations that say a player should choose one alternative rather than another, then both alternatives should be acceptable. Can there be any doubt as to the validity of this statement? 4) Herman says : there is no Law that says which alternative to choose. Don't try and tell me about the spirit of the laws. I feel a totally different spirit than y'all. 5) Herman says : there is no regulation that says which alternative to choose. Some have suggested the ACBL has such a regulation. Go back and read it if you think it exists. 6) Herman says : there is no WBFLC interpretation that says which alternative to choose. I repeat, if there is, I am sueing Grattan for my waste of time. 7) Herman says : there are no other ways to distinguish which of the alternatives to choose from. I'm just being complete here - I cannot think of anything but maybe you can. 8) Herman says : in the absence of 4-7, a player is free to choose and both alternatives are acceptable, even if illegal. In both alternatives, the player accepts the adjustments that are made about the laws that he does break. I am deliberately using the word acceptable here. I believe that means that one should not issue PP's to either player for breaking one law while following another. 9) Herman says : In most cases, a player following the dWS will end up with a better result (after score adjustment) than a player following the ClS. This is my personal opinion and not really important. 10) Herman says : There is no regulation obliging a player to choose the worst alternative, as long as he remains within the laws (as far as possible) and accepts the adjustments made against him. Well, I don't believe there is, anyway. 11) Herman says : Given all the above, I advise players to use the dWS to solve the dilemma they are put in. 12) Herman says : I have no quarrels with players who choose to follow the ClS instead. Now please pick one (or several) and try and convince me where I am wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 16:34:17 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:34:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > No, read the law again, it does not say "actions", it says "calls and > plays". There should be no discussion about the fact that I am allowed > to use partner's explanation in giving my own. L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneoous information ..... that may suggest a call or a play ..... the player must not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested ..... It says you may not choose an action, it does not say you may not choose a call or a play. Do you suddenly claim that the writers of the law has been sloppy with their terms and do not mean what they have written here? > Suppose I am not certain what my call means. If a player accepts > partner's explanation as being the systemically correct one, then both > the dWS and the ClS will now explain the next call in the same manner: > the systemic one equals the intended one. But the player is only aware > of this correct explanation by UI. So while we both agree that he > shall not use this UI in the selection of his next call, I can assure > you that he IS allowed (nay, obliged) to use the UI in being able to > explain the next call. Your partner's explanation to opponents is UI for you whether it is correct or not. It is "extraneous information" simply from the definition of this term in Law 16. ............ > > Nor may you select any call that could be suggested from such > > knowledge. > > > > > True - but not under any discussion. Except that regardless of what partner has explained to opponents you must continue as if you have not heard anything of that. Sven From gester@lineone.net Mon Dec 2 16:46:56 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:46:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004e01c29a22$bdf96940$0d2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > No Sven, this is simply wrong. > On this issue, quite apart from all others, I am quite adamant, and very certain. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > ......... > > > >>>And the knowledge that partner > >>>misunderstood is UI to him for as > >>>long as L75D2 is applicable! (Officially > >>>published by WBFLC in 1992) > >>> +=+ Could you check that reference please; the 1992 (Salsomaggiore) minutes do not mention the subject, or am I missing something? . ~ G ~ +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Dec 2 17:31:05 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:31:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: <3983389.1038850265002.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: > L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information ..... that may suggest a call or a play ..... the player must not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested ..... > It says you may not choose an action, it does not say you may not choose a call or a play. Well, so it does. But I think that one might reasonably say this: if one wanted to know what "actions" were, one would refer to the context, which indicates that an "action" is a "call or play" that could have been suggested. I agree, though, that the words could be improved; Kaplan was (and Grattan is) a wonderful English stylist, and it would have been hateful to him to repeat himself (hence, as has been remarked, the use of "turn" and "rotation" to mean the same thing, along with other synonyms and paraphrases in the Laws). But, as has also been correctly remarked, a book of rules is no place to strut one's prose style. If we mean "may not select a call or play" then we should say "may not select a call or play", and not leave it open to people to argue that answering an opponent's question is an "action" covered by Law 16. It isn't, but the words don't actually say that it isn't. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 2 15:16:36 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:16:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] All very trying References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <002701c29965$13cc54e0$189868d5@default> <000401c299d7$bc5c9e40$1519e150@endicott> Message-ID: <013b01c29a30$20e85540$189868d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] Thank you Grattan for your reply even if it wasn't the answer I wanted; it seems to rule out significant improvements in Bridge Law -- certainly within my life-time and -- probably within the game's life-time. Before we finally abandon hope, please would you supply answers to a more questions [Grattan Endicott] 1. The WBFLC has maintained a position since before publication of the 1987 Code, that no changes in the text of the Laws will be made between decennial Reviews. (-: We did move an asterisk in 1997 and, holy Moses, in 2000 the placement of three whole words was changed in a footnote :-) [Nigel] (a) Presumably that decision was made before electronic publishing and email became available to facilitates timely correction and to disseminate the news quickly and cheaply to all affected parties? [Grattan] 2. The WBFLC does issue, from time to time, interpretations of the text of the Laws, but only after discussion and decision in meetings. [Nigel] (a) Are these interpretations confined to clarification of previous intent? or do they sometimes reflect a change in intent. (b) Are these amendments to the text itself? or are they just interpretations to be read, in conjunction with the uncorrected original text? (c) Do these interpretations have the same force of law as TLFB? or are they just advisory. (d) Are such changes published? disseminated? publicised? and to whom? is their implementation monitored? (e) Why is nobody made responsible to monitor discussion groups like BLML to regularly skim off a handful of the most contentious differences of interpretation. For example, Dws, Explanaion of future calls, General knowledge and experience, Faulty concessions, and on, and on ad nauseam. Arguably these controversies stem from a few badly phrased laws. Over decades, they generate millions of words of argument and thousands of mutually contradictory TD decisions. (f) Most of these issues would benefit from *any* definite immediate decision even if it were reached by tossing a coin. And the resulting change would often be no more than to cut out a phrase that contradicts another phrase; or to insert a more appropriate word. Given the disastrous practical repurcussions in bad TD rulings and player disrespect for the law, whythe reluctance to undertake urgent fixes. [Grattan] 3. Meetings of the WBFLC take place only at World Championships nothing in this tells us 'why', of course, but we may deduce an insufficiency of motivation, a perception that the activity is not demanded. [Nigel] Every day a group of us would go into a pub and ask for a sandwich; the landlord ritually refused, explaining, without apparent irony that "there is no demand" (g) How many of the LC took an active part in framing existing law? (one might expect them to resist change) (h) How does the LC canvass opinion? (how often have you seen a vulnerable member of the public criticise a judge, policeman, firefighter, doctor, or nurse, to their face) (i) Does the LC consider unsolicited suggestions such as those that BLMLers propose from time to time. (j} Does the LC consider radical changes? e.g. A standard international system. (k) Does the LC ask each SO to try out a different variation of proposed new legislation to get feedback on its practicality and popularity before a final decision? (l) Does the LC circulate early drafts amongst ilterested parties like BLML, in an attempt to trap anomalies before publication? (m) Is it at all likely that the LC will ever speed up the development cycle from decades to weeks? From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Mon Dec 2 18:22:46 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:22:46 GMT Subject: [blml] Herman says - but do we listen Message-ID: <200212021822.SAA29641@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> Is it possible that some people are not inclinded to adopt dWS because of something like this ... N: 4NT S: Alert E: Yes S: Blackwood E: Pass S: 5C N: Alert W: Yes N: No aces W: Pass ... the auction ends ... N: Partner has misexplained: our system is that 4NT shows both minors W: Why did you say 5C showed no aces? N: Because I did not want partner to have UI that may have constrained his actions and got us to a bad contract, and I was prepared to misinform you of our system. I think this is what the laws require, although it is not common practice. W: So you misinformed us of your system so you could avoid a bad score -- remind me not to play against you again. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From shrike@surfbest.net Mon Dec 2 19:53:52 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:53:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction In-Reply-To: <20021202110005.10701.31970.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > From: Alain Gottcheiner [snip] > AG : when I pass 3S, I decide that partner has only long spades. This isn't > how that convention is played, but I'm allowed to do it. When he is > doubled, does that change anything ? I say no. What else can you do but > pass, simply because there was a double ? Didn't you expect it ? The opps' penalty double increases the likelihood that there has been a screwup, but I agree that passing is still a logical alternative _for a player who passed at his previous turn_, i.e., I think it would be seriously considered by a significant number of such players. > NB : I strongly disapprove, and only because I'm trying to be polite, of > playing destructive conventions without having prepared all plausible > followings. Whatever was the result, whatever the problem on this deal -UI > ?- , the pair should be fined at least half a board and/or disallowed to > play this convention until they define the developments. What makes this convention destructive? Would a Michaels bid in the same situation be destructive? If so, is it acceptable to play it (sometimes without extensive elaboration, realistically) because it's more familiar to opponents, or because it's more familiar to you? Or would you be consistent, and fine a pair that hadn't discussed a similar followup when playing Michaels? I would support application of an automatic fine for a partnership that hadn't prepared for likely auctions when playing ANY convention, but restricting that rule to "destructive" conventions leaves it too likely that the rulemakers' prejudices will come into play. Doug Couchman Arlington, TX shrike@surfbest.net From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 2 20:46:01 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:46:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction In-Reply-To: References: <20021202110005.10701.31970.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:53:52 -0600, Doug Couchman wrote: >I would support application of an automatic fine for a partnership that >hadn't prepared for likely auctions when playing ANY convention, Are we to assume that your club consists exclusively of experienced regular partnerships, Doug? And if the answer is "No", would it not then seem to you that the new partnerships are at enough of a disadvantage already? I agree with you about not leaving things to the prejudices of the individual SO, but IMHO the global penalty is even worse than 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 22:13:11 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:13:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <4A256C83.007884A3.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >Actually in the ACBL, this might be correct! Over >here, a PP does not accrue to the other team's >score, so it might be the case that after the PP's, >both teams have lost a KO match. If that happens, >whatever tie-break procedure the CoC prescribe goes >into effect. [snip] Disagree. While that may be the ACBL regulation, as a matter of principle I would argue that neither losing team should progress. That is, the opposing team in the next knockout round should win by default. This principle is similar to the matchpoint pairs situation where both sides are OS, and both sides get average-minus. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 21:49:17 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:49:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004e01c29a22$bdf96940$0d2a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <000f01c29a4c$aa304f80$70d8fea9@WINXP> > > >>>And the knowledge that partner > > >>>misunderstood is UI to him for as > > >>>long as L75D2 is applicable! (Officially > > >>>published by WBFLC in 1992) > > >>> > +=+ Could you check that reference please; > the 1992 (Salsomaggiore) minutes do not > mention the subject, or am I missing something? > . ~ G ~ +=+ I consider "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" an official publication, and to me it appears as having the authority not only from EBL, but also from WBF (because of the entries in the prefaces). I cannot understand comments 75.11, and (in part) 75.6 otherwise than to confirm my statement. Partner's answers to questions, whether correct or not, are definitely not authorized information as defined in Law 16 and clarified in comments 16.1 and 16.2 (referred to from comment 75.11). There has to my knowledge been no change since the 1987 laws making these comments obsolete. Fair enough? regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 2 21:56:04 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:56:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <200212022156.QAA18916@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > as > a matter of principle I would argue that neither > losing team should progress. That is, the opposing > team in the next knockout round should win by default. I understand the principle, but I don't think that would be a very popular regulation. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 23:00:39 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:00:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction Message-ID: <4A256C83.007CDD27.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Doug Couchman wrote: [snip] >>>>I would support application of an automatic >>>>fine for a partnership that hadn't prepared >>>>for likely auctions when playing ANY >>>>convention, [snip] Brian Meadows replied: >>>Are we to assume that your club consists >>>exclusively of experienced regular >>>partnerships, Doug? And if the answer is "No", >>>would it not then seem to you that the new >>>partnerships are at enough of a disadvantage >>>already? [snip] On previous threads, blmlers have questioned whether the ACBL regulation requiring players to have agreements in "to be expected auctions" is Lawful. It seems to me that the only Law which could be used as a basis for the ACBL regulation is Law 74B1, which states: >>As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain >>from paying insufficient attention to the game. The literal words are very broad. It could be argued that "paying insufficent attention to the game" also includes: * psyching against non-Life Masters, * revoking, * misbidding, and permits an SO to regulate for PPs if any of those actions occur. It is interesting that in the 1975 edition of the Laws, the corresponding Propriety was given a narrower scope by indicative examples. The 1975 Propriety stated: >As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain >from paying insufficient attention to the game >(as when a player obviously takes no interest in >his hand, or frequently requests a review of the >auction). It seems to me that the 1975 Propriety was merely targeted at preventing a player with meaningless cards from giving unnecessary UI to that effect. I do not know why the WBF LC deleted the indicative examples from the current Law 74B1, and failed to provide replacement indicative examples. Perhaps this omission will be rectified in the 2005 Laws. Noted? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 2 23:16:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:16:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <4A256C83.007E4FD5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard Hills wrote: >>as a matter of principle I would argue that neither >>losing team should progress. That is, the opposing >>team in the next knockout round should win by default. Steve Willner replied: >I understand the principle, but I don't think that >would be a very popular regulation. If the two losing teams were both fined large PPs for infracting the courtesy requirements of Law 74, disqualifying both teams from the next round of a knockout would be a *highly* popular regulation with other players. Best wishes Richard From lskelso@ihug.com.au Mon Dec 2 23:39:41 2002 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:39:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Springboard In-Reply-To: <01ea01c299e8$428d15c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202102021.00a58dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021203093941.0121a7a0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 10:50 2/12/02 +0100, Sven wrote: > >And none of the alternatives available in Law 16B >require the consent of the players at the table nor >accept by the substitute (when applicable). > >regards Sven Law 16B2 begins with the words: "with the concurrence of all four players..." Hence the consent of the players is required to use a substitute. Laurie (In Australia) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 2 22:47:10 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:47:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <200212022247.RAA19438@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > If the two losing teams were both fined large PPs for > infracting the courtesy requirements of Law 74, > disqualifying both teams from the next round of a > knockout would be a *highly* popular regulation with > other players. If there's a conduct offense, disqualification is certainly a possible penalty if the cause is sufficient (L91B). The original case involved a minor breach of procedure that (may have) rendered a board unplayable. Disqualifying both teams is way out of proportion to that sort of offense. From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 2 22:49:34 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:49:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Springboard References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021202102021.00a58dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20021203093941.0121a7a0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <003501c29a55$157fa620$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Laurie Kelso" > At 10:50 2/12/02 +0100, Sven wrote: > > > >And none of the alternatives available in Law 16B > >require the consent of the players at the table nor > >accept by the substitute (when applicable). > > > >regards Sven > > Law 16B2 begins with the words: "with the concurrence of all four players..." > > Hence the consent of the players is required to use a substitute. Yes, sorry I overlooked that single one (and apparently you were the first to notice!) Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 2 22:51:46 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:51:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <3983389.1038850265002.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000601c29a57$5c085f40$d41be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > I agree, though, that the words could be improved; Kaplan was (and Grattan is) a wonderful English stylist, > +=+ If this parenthetic reference is justified, then I will adapt my language to the occasion. If I can put irrefutable meaning into words that will be understood by a child of four, then nearly all the Tournament Directors and the great majority of players will grasp their message. Style is all about the audience one addresses. :-) My method is first to write as accurately as I can what I mean to write, and then to edit and simplify; but only as far as the retention of the meaning allows If I have doubts, about the simplicity or about the accuracy of the text, I refer to certain good friends for counsel. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 2 23:02:01 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:02:01 -0000 Subject: Particularly long and trying (was Re: [blml] All very trying) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <002701c29965$13cc54e0$189868d5@default> <000401c299d7$bc5c9e40$1519e150@endicott> <013b01c29a30$20e85540$189868d5@default> Message-ID: <000701c29a57$5d72c4b0$d41be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] All very trying > [Grattan Endicott] > 1. The WBFLC has maintained a position > since before publication of the 1987 Code, that > no changes in the text of the Laws will be made > between decennial Reviews. (-: We did move an > asterisk in 1997 and, holy Moses, in 2000 the > placement of three whole words was changed in > a footnote :-) > [Nigel] > (a) Presumably that decision was made before > electronic publishing and email became > available to facilitates timely correction and > to disseminate the news quickly and cheaply to > all affected parties? < +=+ It was quite recently reaffirmed. When a thought was voiced that a law might be changed, the suggestion received short shrift - not until the Review, they said. Minute 2 of 20 Jan 2000. Also minute 2 of Jan 11th 2000. +=+ < > [Grattan] > 2. The WBFLC does issue, from time to > time, interpretations of the text of the Laws, but > only after discussion and decision in meetings. > [Nigel] > > (a) Are these interpretations confined to > clarification of previous intent? or do they > sometimes reflect a change in intent. > > (b) Are these amendments to the text itself? > or are they just interpretations to be read, in > conjunction with the uncorrected original text? > +=+ The text is not changed. Rarely they reflect a change of intent, but it has been known to happen. (See Minute 2 of 30 Aug 98) +=+ < > (c) Do these interpretations have the same force > of law as TLFB? or are they just advisory. > +=+ According to the Constitution of the WBF the interpretations made by the WBFLC are binding upon all member NBOs. There is difficulty in obtaining the consent of some to be bound. +=+ < > (d) Are such changes published? disseminated? > publicised? and to whom? is their implementation > monitored? > +=+ The WBFLC has no powers of enforcement. All member NBOs (and Zones) receive the minutes of the WBFLC. Action or lethargy is in the hands of the NBOs and Zones. In recent times the internet has also carried the minutes. +=+ < > (e) Why is nobody made responsible to monitor > discussion groups like BLML to regularly skim > off a handful of the most contentious differences > of interpretation. For example, Dws, Explanation > of future calls, General knowledge and > experience, Faulty concessions, and on, and on > ad nauseam. Arguably these controversies stem > from a few badly phrased laws. Over decades, they > generate millions of words of argument and > thousands of mutually contradictory TD decisions. > +=+ Oh, come come.... You should have noted past decisions of the WBFLC dealing with blml issues of the year. Read through the minutes of 1 Sep 1998, for examples. Consider what is recorded at 6 & 7 of the Minutes of 24 August 98. Look at any recent year. +=+ < > [Nigel] > why the reluctance to undertake urgent fixes. > +=+ Read Gordon Bower's posting of 2 Dec +=+ > --------------- \x/ ----------------- > > (g) How many of the LC took an active part in > framing existing law? (one might expect them to > resist change) > +=+ John Wignall and I were members of the WBFLC in the lead up to the 1987 Laws; Kojak frequently sat in at meetings. Very shortly I assumed the Vice-Chairmanship of the WBFLC under Edgar, and Kojak joined the committee. By 1994 Ton Kooijman had become a member and Ralph Cohen appeared as a guest (he was added soon after that again). John is Chair of the current subcommittee and is not averse to change; he is acting as 'moderator' amongst those pressing for changes, chiefly Kojak, Ton and myself; with added support emerging from Antonio Riccardi; of course each of us has different priorities (except in respect of 25B) and it remains to be seen whether we shift earth, but the mood for change is dominant in the subcommittee. My anxieties are not for my colleagues there - despite our disparities we have been working well together - they are more to do with the harmony of thinking in the Zones. +=+ > > (h) How does the LC canvass opinion? (how often > have you seen a vulnerable member of the public > criticise a judge, policeman, firefighter, > doctor, or nurse, to their face) > +=+ We put our thoughts to Zones who are asked to integrate opinion from their constituent NBOs into their responses. +=+ > > (i) Does the LC consider unsolicited suggestions > such as those that BLMLers propose from time > to time. > > (j} Does the LC consider radical changes? e.g. > A standard international system. > > (k) Does the LC ask each SO to try out a > different variation of proposed new legislation > to get feedback on its practicality and > popularity before a final decision? > +=+ No. We leave them - 140 plus NBOs - to say what they want to say to their Zonal Organizations. They receive our drafts. How they form their opinions is up to them. +=+ < > (l) Does the LC circulate early drafts amongst > interested parties like BLML, in an attempt to > trap anomalies before publication? > +=+ Not 'like blml'. A few trusted advisers have their opportunities to offer technical opinion and counsel on the texts and the effects. There are plenty of knowledgeable players, directors, and 'laws people' on the NBO and Zonal committees to ensure that we are made aware of what we should know. One or two technicians who have seen drafts as members of their NBO committees have contacted me privately, not on policy but on textual matters. +=+ > > (m) Is it at all likely that the LC will ever > speed up the development cycle from > decades to weeks? > +=+ Not so long as the WBF Constitution sets a ten-year cycle. Our aim is to reduce it to eight years on this occasion. We may succeed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 2 23:26:10 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:26:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004e01c29a22$bdf96940$0d2a2850@pacific> <000f01c29a4c$aa304f80$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <002401c29a5a$4cae2310$d41be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > > >>>And the knowledge that partner > > > >>>misunderstood is UI to him for as > > > >>>long as L75D2 is applicable! (Officially > > > >>>published by WBFLC in 1992) > > > >>> > > +=+ Could you check that reference please; > > the 1992 (Salsomaggiore) minutes do not > > mention the subject, or am I missing something? > > . ~ G ~ +=+ > > I consider "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge 1987" an official publication, and > to me it appears as having the authority not only > from EBL, but also from WBF (because of the > entries in the prefaces). > +=+ It is an EBL publication. The WBF was not invited to comment on it. Somewhere in the text I think you will find certain WBF decisions recorded, and they are explicitly stated to be such. I am deprived of the pleasure of reading up any reference because I have loaned my remaining copy to be scanned into a computer. I do hold the view that when the law requires an action the player who complies is relieved of personal responsibility for the consequences of doing so. ~ G ~ +=+ From shrike@surfbest.net Mon Dec 2 23:39:36 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:39:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction In-Reply-To: <20021202230706.23132.34455.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > From: Brian Meadows > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:53:52 -0600, Doug Couchman wrote: > > > >> I would support application of an automatic fine for a partnership that >> hadn't prepared for likely auctions when playing ANY convention, > > Are we to assume that your club consists exclusively of > experienced regular partnerships, Doug? And if the answer is > "No", would it not then seem to you that the new partnerships are > at enough of a disadvantage already? OK, I give. The rule could have appropriate modifiers tacked on to make it applicable only when it was reasonable to expect. . . blah blah blah. Forget it. You're right: pairs that don't know their methods hurt themselves enough; we really don't need to add to their troubles. My primary point, with which I think you agreed, was that prejudice regarding destructive conventions is inappropriate. I had the sneaking suspicion that AG wanted to apply a punitive rule to conventions that he personally disliked, while exempting those that he liked. I admit I may have been wrong in that interpretation, but use of pejorative terms like "destructive" is generally unhelpful and in this case may have misled me. Doug From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 3 00:45:44 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 00:45:44 -0000 Subject: Particularly long and trying (was Re: [blml] All very trying) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <002701c29965$13cc54e0$189868d5@default> <000401c299d7$bc5c9e40$1519e150@endicott> <013b01c29a30$20e85540$189868d5@default> <000701c29a57$5d72c4b0$d41be150@endicott> Message-ID: <01cb01c29a68$1d2c1620$189868d5@default> Hi Grattan, Thank you for your thorough answers to my tedious questions. I hope others found your reply as interesting and informative as I did. I am reassured by the WBFLCs desire for reform and I now understand the constitution and protocols a little better. I look forward to retiring to my corner to study your "interpretations" as soon as I find them. I wish the WBF had more power over the local jurisdictions, who seem to be overly protective of their legal prerogatives; and are an impediment to publishing, publicising, promulgation, and progress. Thanks again. Regards, Nigel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Cc: "Nigel Guthrie" Sent: 02 December 2002 23:02 Subject: Particularly long and trying (was Re: [blml] All very trying) Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] All very trying > [Grattan Endicott] > 1. The WBFLC has maintained a position > since before publication of the 1987 Code, that > no changes in the text of the Laws will be made > between decennial Reviews. (-: We did move an > asterisk in 1997 and, holy Moses, in 2000 the > placement of three whole words was changed in > a footnote :-) > [Nigel] > (a) Presumably that decision was made before > electronic publishing and email became > available to facilitates timely correction and > to disseminate the news quickly and cheaply to > all affected parties? < +=+ It was quite recently reaffirmed. When a thought was voiced that a law might be changed, the suggestion received short shrift - not until the Review, they said. Minute 2 of 20 Jan 2000. Also minute 2 of Jan 11th 2000. +=+ < > [Grattan] > 2. The WBFLC does issue, from time to > time, interpretations of the text of the Laws, but > only after discussion and decision in meetings. > [Nigel] > > (a) Are these interpretations confined to > clarification of previous intent? or do they > sometimes reflect a change in intent. > > (b) Are these amendments to the text itself? > or are they just interpretations to be read, in > conjunction with the uncorrected original text? > +=+ The text is not changed. Rarely they reflect a change of intent, but it has been known to happen. (See Minute 2 of 30 Aug 98) +=+ < > (c) Do these interpretations have the same force > of law as TLFB? or are they just advisory. > +=+ According to the Constitution of the WBF the interpretations made by the WBFLC are binding upon all member NBOs. There is difficulty in obtaining the consent of some to be bound. +=+ < > (d) Are such changes published? disseminated? > publicised? and to whom? is their implementation > monitored? > +=+ The WBFLC has no powers of enforcement. All member NBOs (and Zones) receive the minutes of the WBFLC. Action or lethargy is in the hands of the NBOs and Zones. In recent times the internet has also carried the minutes. +=+ < > (e) Why is nobody made responsible to monitor > discussion groups like BLML to regularly skim > off a handful of the most contentious differences > of interpretation. For example, Dws, Explanation > of future calls, General knowledge and > experience, Faulty concessions, and on, and on > ad nauseam. Arguably these controversies stem > from a few badly phrased laws. Over decades, they > generate millions of words of argument and > thousands of mutually contradictory TD decisions. > +=+ Oh, come come.... You should have noted past decisions of the WBFLC dealing with blml issues of the year. Read through the minutes of 1 Sep 1998, for examples. Consider what is recorded at 6 & 7 of the Minutes of 24 August 98. Look at any recent year. +=+ < > [Nigel] > why the reluctance to undertake urgent fixes. > +=+ Read Gordon Bower's posting of 2 Dec +=+ > --------------- \x/ ----------------- > > (g) How many of the LC took an active part in > framing existing law? (one might expect them to > resist change) > +=+ John Wignall and I were members of the WBFLC in the lead up to the 1987 Laws; Kojak frequently sat in at meetings. Very shortly I assumed the Vice-Chairmanship of the WBFLC under Edgar, and Kojak joined the committee. By 1994 Ton Kooijman had become a member and Ralph Cohen appeared as a guest (he was added soon after that again). John is Chair of the current subcommittee and is not averse to change; he is acting as 'moderator' amongst those pressing for changes, chiefly Kojak, Ton and myself; with added support emerging from Antonio Riccardi; of course each of us has different priorities (except in respect of 25B) and it remains to be seen whether we shift earth, but the mood for change is dominant in the subcommittee. My anxieties are not for my colleagues there - despite our disparities we have been working well together - they are more to do with the harmony of thinking in the Zones. +=+ > > (h) How does the LC canvass opinion? (how often > have you seen a vulnerable member of the public > criticise a judge, policeman, firefighter, > doctor, or nurse, to their face) > +=+ We put our thoughts to Zones who are asked to integrate opinion from their constituent NBOs into their responses. +=+ > > (i) Does the LC consider unsolicited suggestions > such as those that BLMLers propose from time > to time. > > (j} Does the LC consider radical changes? e.g. > A standard international system. > > (k) Does the LC ask each SO to try out a > different variation of proposed new legislation > to get feedback on its practicality and > popularity before a final decision? > +=+ No. We leave them - 140 plus NBOs - to say what they want to say to their Zonal Organizations. They receive our drafts. How they form their opinions is up to them. +=+ < > (l) Does the LC circulate early drafts amongst > interested parties like BLML, in an attempt to > trap anomalies before publication? > +=+ Not 'like blml'. A few trusted advisers have their opportunities to offer technical opinion and counsel on the texts and the effects. There are plenty of knowledgeable players, directors, and 'laws people' on the NBO and Zonal committees to ensure that we are made aware of what we should know. One or two technicians who have seen drafts as members of their NBO committees have contacted me privately, not on policy but on textual matters. +=+ > > (m) Is it at all likely that the LC will ever > speed up the development cycle from > decades to weeks? > +=+ Not so long as the WBF Constitution sets a ten-year cycle. Our aim is to reduce it to eight years on this occasion. We may succeed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Tue Dec 3 05:07:54 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 00:07:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <200212030507.gB357sk31821@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Sorry, but this is long. After reading through the thread, I figured it would be easier for me to just respond to the original note than any of the responses. My initial reaction would have been in this order: 1. If the board has not been played at the other table, allow all four players to keep their hands and rotate the board to the correct orientation but the players keep the same hands. 1. If already played at the companion table, find a substitute player if one could be found that did not significantly strengthen or weaken the team to play the one hand. 2. If no such player could be found, allow the player to remain, rotate the board correctly, and monitor auction. If the offending player resulted as declarer, make dummy come around and play the hand, sitting out the offending player. If the offending player were on defense, monitor the play. As long as the noted card and suit was not significant, allow the result to stand. If the noted card or suit was significant (e.g. trumps) see if a reasonable assigned score can be determined from the actions leading up to the point when it was significant. 3. If all else fails, toss the board and award a procedural penalty to the doubly offending side (first the self-selected board captain put the board wrong, then the offending side glanced at the cards before checking that it was the correct hand). Even in pre-1997 rules, where North was responsible for the boards, if both sides of a team game had agreed to allow the East-West to be board captains, then East-West assumed the responsibility for the board disposition. North would be responsible by default unless both sides agreed otherwise. See below for specific responses to questions. -Ted Ying. > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 06:26:28 -0000 > > I asked the TD if, with opponents' agreement, we > could play the board in the correct orientation > -- with him watching to ensure that my illicit > knowledge was unused. He said No. > > Q1. Should the TD agree to my solution? > TY> It is an option, but a TD has the responsibility to determine the best of several options. Even if you are a TD, you should not be creating options or electing to direct while sitting as a player. It is inappropriate for you to be offering options like this. The director has the laws and certain options already established that (s)he should follow. > I asked the TD if, with opponent's agreement, we > could play the board with him acting as a > substitute for me. He said No. > > Q2. Should the TD accede to this suggestion? > TY> No. At that level of play, it is inappropriate for a TD to substitute for a player. It would compromise the (at least seemingly) appearence of impartiality. Another substitute player could be searched for, but the directing staff should not substitute in. > The TD said we could not play the board but he would consult his > colleagues about a ruling. > At the end of the match, we scored up to win > by an imp or two -- pending the ruling on the > disputed board. > > Q3. Should the TD rush through a ruling to > ensure that it reaches us before the result > of the match is known? > TY> I don't think so. It has happened before that a significant ruling has not been made before the result of the match is known. For one thing, if the result would be irrelevant (like if one team was ahead by more than 24 imps) then the director does not have to make a potentially-controversial ruling. The director should take the time needed to make the best ruling (s)he can. > The TD fined my partner for misboarding. > This reversed the match result. So we lost. > > Q4. Do you agree with the TD's ruling? > TY> It is an option and certainly there is cause for it. I would only have selected this option if no other options were successful (see above), but I don't find it unreasonable. > I pathetically suggested that the match be > called a tie; and the board be redealt for a > sudden death playoff (another board if it was > still a tie). The TD answered No. > > Q5. Is my proposal the Judgement of Solomon? > TY> No, this is not appropriate, IMHO. There is enough information to try to attain a result, but if one cannot be obtained, then penalizing the offending side and going with the result that generated is more appropriate than creating a situation where a non-offending side could be penalized under one board. > We tried to submit an appeal. The chief TD > advised that our appeal could not succeed and > might not even be heard. I think the reason > was "The agreed facts and the law are clearly > against you -- it is not a matter of judgement > or of interpretation." > > Q6. Should you be refused leave to appeal if the > facts and the law are clearly against you? > TY> No. You should be advised that an appeal is not recommended, that the laws are against you, and that you risk a further procedural penalty for a frivolous appeal (one which may include sanctions against participation in future sponsored events since you would be KO'ed from the event if you lost your appeal), but if your team and specifically the team captain still chose to appeal, the director should award such an appeal providing all such recommended comments to the AC when held. > Q7. Is this such a case? > > We packed and left for home. A posse of players > who had finished their matches corralled us in the > Car park and persuaded us to return. They argued > that North is responsible for the boards and > cannot delegate that responsibility. The Chief > TD was doubtful about this but my partner argued > that he did not mind forfeiting his deposit and > we were eventually allowed leave to appeal. > > The AC was made up of players from teams still > in contention. Arguably, such players may have > views on whom they prefer as future opponents. > > Q8. Should the AC be recruited from teams that > have already been eliminated from the main > event? > TY> Where possible, the TD's should try to avoid players that are not affected by the result of their ruling. That includes players who did not play the event (kibitzed or visiting), and players that were eliminated. However, skill level if more important and the afore-mentioned players may not have been skilled enough to adjudicate a ruling of the players involved. If no other players of sufficient skill are available, the TD's may have been forced to select players that were affected, Then, as already suggested, the appeal should be presented as anonymously as possible. Failing that, you have to rely on the integrity of the AC. If you don't, you shouldn't play in those events. > The AC interpreted the rules to say that North is > indeed responsible for the boards and should have > insisted on taking over that function from West. > They cancelled the fine on West and instead fined > North a few imps, for dereliction of duty, so that > we won comfortably. > > "Nor dim nor red, like God's own head, > The glorious Sun uprist: > Then all averred, I had killed the bird > That brought the fog and mist." > > Q9. Is the AC's argument correct? > TY> I wouldn't rule that way as a TD or an AC, as I don't think the responsibility still exists when both sides have agreed to another player being board captain. However, the old rules could be interpreted that way. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 3 06:09:19 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:09:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead Message-ID: <4A256C84.0020453E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >AG : perhaps I should have added that my own >poll resulted in a 12-3 preference for the SA >lead. Even if you add AG's poll of 15 players to the poll of 10 players conducted by the table TD, 12 out of 25 players polled - 48% - voted for a non-Ace of spades lead. Many SOs rule that an action chosen by 25% is a logical alternative, so many SO's ACs would have to rule that a non-Ace of spades lead is a logical alternative. And, of course, there has been no significant logical reason put forward contradicting the assertion that the UI demonstrably suggested the Ace of spades lead. QED. Prepare the boiling oil. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 3 06:14:44 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives Message-ID: <4A256C84.0020C46C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>AG : I use a different meta-meta-rule, [big snip] Irrelevant, unless there is universal agreement on a meta-meta-meta-rule that states: >Amongst the various different meta-meta- >rules, AG's meta-meta-rule is the *only* >logical alternative. :-) Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 3 08:43:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:43:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>No, read the law again, it does not say "actions", it says "calls and >>plays". There should be no discussion about the fact that I am allowed >>to use partner's explanation in giving my own. >> > > L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneoous > information ..... that may suggest a call or a play ..... the player > must not choose from among logical alternative actions one that > could demonstrably have been suggested ..... > Four times in L16 and L16A are the words "call and play" used, and the fifth time it is action. Do you believe this is not anything else than writing style? > It says you may not choose an action, it does not say you may > not choose a call or a play. > > Do you suddenly claim that the writers of the law has been sloppy > with their terms and do not mean what they have written here? > Yes, I do. This is one of the points I have been saying for many years and I have not received an official reprimand to this. But then maybe Grattan has now switched sides and he will say that Kaplan intended your interpretation all along. If that is the case, then I'm quitting. > >>Suppose I am not certain what my call means. If a player accepts >>partner's explanation as being the systemically correct one, then both >>the dWS and the ClS will now explain the next call in the same manner: >>the systemic one equals the intended one. But the player is only aware >>of this correct explanation by UI. So while we both agree that he >>shall not use this UI in the selection of his next call, I can assure >>you that he IS allowed (nay, obliged) to use the UI in being able to >>explain the next call. >> > > Your partner's explanation to opponents is UI for you whether it is > correct or not. It is "extraneous information" simply from the > definition of this term in Law 16. > > ............ > > >>>Nor may you select any call that could be suggested from such >>>knowledge. >>> >>> >> >>True - but not under any discussion. >> > > Except that regardless of what partner has explained to opponents > you must continue as if you have not heard anything of that. > What are you writing this -except- to? To my "true", or to my "not under discussion". I am not discussing this - we agree. No except needed. > 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 A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 3 08:44:37 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:44:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman says Message-ID: > I am astonished at the number of negative responses people are giving > me about the dWS. I believe this is because you are reacting at > different things at the same time. You are wrong in your belief, as far as I am involved. > 1) Herman says : acting according to the dWS is illegal. I don't know what dWS is, but you are probably right > 2) Herman says : acting according to the ClS is illegal. I don't know what CIS is, but you are probably wrong. > > Is there really any-one out there who still believes that the player > is not breaking L75D2? I am not interested in any opinion of the players as far as the present meaning/interpretation of the laws are involved. And when partner made a misexplanation and I have to explain a next call from his side I am supposed to explain the partnership agreement for that call. Therewith I am not breaking L 75D2, according to the opinion of the WBFLC at this moment and/or in the future. Could you try to use this information as input for your Belgium brains? May I present a paradox you apparently didn't think of? Following the idea (is that what dWS means?) to explain what partner probably is doing is clearly infringing L 75D2 saying that a player is not allowed to point in any manner to the misexplanation. Do you understand that he is showing the misexplanation by following it? What about this: North 1H, overcall 3C and west has a singleton clubs 5 diamonds and 5 spades. The agreement is that 3C shows diamonds and spades. What should south do now? In your approach he should not alert the 3C bid, since the alert reveals the misbid made by partner, therewith creating UI. > > 3) Herman says : if no legal alternative remains, and there is no > clear statement in the laws or regulations that say a player should > choose one alternative rather than another, then both alternatives > should be acceptable. > > Can there be any doubt as to the validity of this statement? Not just doubt, pure conviction. But I start repeating already. > > 4) Herman says : there is no Law that says which alternative > to choose. > > Don't try and tell me about the spirit of the laws. I feel a totally > different spirit than y'all. > > 5) Herman says : there is no regulation that says which > alternative to > choose. > > Some have suggested the ACBL has such a regulation. Go back and read > it if you think it exists. > > 6) Herman says : there is no WBFLC interpretation that says which > alternative to choose. > > I repeat, if there is, I am sueing Grattan for my waste of time. You may understand the position of the WBFLC at this moment being in accordance with the approach as I have explicity described now for a couple of weeks and supported many years before. It is impossible to come up with so called problems and then demanding an explicit interpretation from the WBFLC or otherwise doing what you want, blaming the WBFLC for your mistakes. We are no dancing pups and decide about our priorities ourselves. > 11) Herman says : Given all the above, I advise players to > use the dWS > to solve the dilemma they are put in. Given the message above as it is now that would be rather stupid. > Now please pick one (or several) and try and convince me > where I am wrong. That I gave up a long time ago, you throw away what you can't use. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 3 08:47:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:47:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman says - but do we listen References: <200212021822.SAA29641@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <3DEC6F9E.3020708@skynet.be> Robin Barker wrote: > Is it possible that some people are not inclinded to adopt dWS > because of something like this ... > > N: 4NT > S: Alert > E: Yes > S: Blackwood > E: Pass > S: 5C > N: Alert > W: Yes > N: No aces > W: Pass > > ... the auction ends ... > > N: Partner has misexplained: our system is that 4NT shows > both minors > > W: Why did you say 5C showed no aces? > > N: Because that is what he actually has! Because I did not want partner to have UI that may have > constrained his actions and got us to a bad contract, and > I was prepared to misinform you of our system. I think > this is what the laws require, although it is not common > practice. > > W: So you misinformed us of your system so you could avoid a > bad score -- remind me not to play against you again. > > Robin > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 3 08:48:51 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:48:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman says - but do we listen References: <200212021822.SAA29641@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <3DEC6FF3.4060109@skynet.be> Robin Barker wrote: > Is it possible that some people are not inclinded to adopt dWS > because of something like this ... > > N: 4NT > S: Alert > E: Yes > S: Blackwood > E: Pass > S: 5C > N: Alert > W: Yes > N: No aces N: club preference W: Director! North is telling his partner that he has misinterpreted the system. I think these two are cheats! (if you can invent stories, so can I) > W: Pass > > ... the auction ends ... > > N: Partner has misexplained: our system is that 4NT shows > both minors > > W: Why did you say 5C showed no aces? > > N: Because I did not want partner to have UI that may have > constrained his actions and got us to a bad contract, and > I was prepared to misinform you of our system. I think > this is what the laws require, although it is not common > practice. > > W: So you misinformed us of your system so you could avoid a > bad score -- remind me not to play against you again. > > Robin > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 3 09:04:38 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:04:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman says (2) References: Message-ID: <3DEC73A6.7080804@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >>2) Herman says : acting according to the ClS is illegal. >> > > > I don't know what CIS is, but you are probably wrong. > > > > >>Is there really any-one out there who still believes that the player >>is not breaking L75D2? >> > > > I am not interested in any opinion of the players as far as the present > meaning/interpretation of the laws are involved. > And when partner made a misexplanation and I have to explain a next call > from his side I am supposed to explain the partnership agreement for that > call. Therewith I am not breaking L 75D2, according to the opinion of the > WBFLC at this moment and/or in the future. Could you try to use this > information as input for your Belgium brains? > Oh well. OK "in any manner" does mean "in any manner except ..." Goodbye. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 10:06:15 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:06:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead >Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:09:19 +1000 > > > > >AG : perhaps I should have added that my own > >poll resulted in a 12-3 preference for the SA > >lead. > >Even if you add AG's poll of 15 players to the >poll of 10 players conducted by the table TD, >12 out of 25 players polled - 48% - voted for >a non-Ace of spades lead. > >Many SOs rule that an action chosen by 25% >is a logical alternative, so many SO's ACs >would have to rule that a non-Ace of spades >lead is a logical alternative. > >And, of course, there has been no significant >logical reason put forward contradicting the >assertion that the UI demonstrably suggested >the Ace of spades lead. > >QED. Prepare the boiling oil. > >Best wishes > >Richard Quite so. In less exalted 'non-expert' circles (ie just about everyone on the planet with the exception of the original AC who felt they had to demonstrate how clever they were, and a few posters here and their equally clever chums) the lead of the Ace of Spades would be viewed as an extreme action. Unless, of course, partner sits there for half an hour, in which case we'll get that Ace of Spades on the deck in a flash...A possible invalidation of Alain's 'straw poll' is that the instinct of most, when asked to select an opening lead as a problem, is to find something non-obvious and 'brilliant', isn't it? I'll bring the matches. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 3 10:08:27 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:08:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman says (2) References: <3DEC73A6.7080804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004701c29ab3$ec886360$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ....... > Goodbye. Can we rely upon that? Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 3 10:18:57 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:18:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004801c29ab5$64475630$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > > L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneoous > > information ..... that may suggest a call or a play ..... the player > > must not choose from among logical alternative actions one that > > could demonstrably have been suggested ..... > > > > > Four times in L16 and L16A are the words "call and play" used, and the > fifth time it is action. Do you believe this is not anything else than > writing style? The more consistent a phrase is used the more important it is when a different phrase is used instead. > > > It says you may not choose an action, it does not say you may > > not choose a call or a play. > > > > Do you suddenly claim that the writers of the law has been sloppy > > with their terms and do not mean what they have written here? > > > > > Yes, I do. So whether the writers have been sloppy (L16) or accurate (L75) with their terms depends on what suits you best??? Note, I do not care much for this picking on each word in the laws myself, but if we are going to be technical we have to accept technical arguments all the way. And if we are technical then all information from partner's explanations to opponents is unauthorised for us (whether correct or wrong). We are to act as if we never heard what partner explained. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 3 10:29:03 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:29:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: Message-ID: <004e01c29ab6$cd2318f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Norman Scorbie" ..... > >And, of course, there has been no significant > >logical reason put forward contradicting the > >assertion that the UI demonstrably suggested > >the Ace of spades lead. > > > >QED. Prepare the boiling oil. > > > >Best wishes > > > >Richard > > Quite so. In less exalted 'non-expert' circles (ie just about everyone on > the planet with the exception of the original AC who felt they had to > demonstrate how clever they were, and a few posters here and their equally > clever chums) the lead of the Ace of Spades would be viewed as an extreme > action. Unless, of course, partner sits there for half an hour, in which > case we'll get that Ace of Spades on the deck in a flash...A possible > invalidation of Alain's 'straw poll' is that the instinct of most, when > asked to select an opening lead as a problem, is to find something > non-obvious and 'brilliant', isn't it? This is insulting: I am one of those for whom the Ace of Spades is the obvious lead. I distinctly remember explaining why, and I distinctly remember adding that because the UI from partner "could suggest a Spade lead" I would in that case quite likely avoid it. (When opponents land in 3NT, showing something like 25HCP together, none of them has shown any interest in the major suits, my HCP is less than 8, I have no long suit to establish in my own hand with a fair side entry and I have a doubleton or even singleton in an unbid major suit, then I lead from that suit without any hesitation) Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 3 10:38:50 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:38:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> <004801c29ab5$64475630$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DEC89BA.5030401@skynet.be> Yes Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>>L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneoous >>>information ..... that may suggest a call or a play ..... the player >>>must not choose from among logical alternative actions one that >>>could demonstrably have been suggested ..... >>> >>> >> >>Four times in L16 and L16A are the words "call and play" used, and the >>fifth time it is action. Do you believe this is not anything else than >>writing style? >> > > The more consistent a phrase is used the more important it is > when a different phrase is used instead. > > >>>It says you may not choose an action, it does not say you may >>>not choose a call or a play. >>> >>>Do you suddenly claim that the writers of the law has been sloppy >>>with their terms and do not mean what they have written here? >>> >>> >> >>Yes, I do. >> > > So whether the writers have been sloppy (L16) or accurate (L75) > with their terms depends on what suits you best??? > I agree that you have some sort of point there. But see David's reply to this, and Grattan and Ton's silence. > Note, I do not care much for this picking on each word in the laws > myself, but if we are going to be technical we have to accept technical > arguments all the way. And if we are technical then all information from > partner's explanations to opponents is unauthorised for us (whether > correct or wrong). We are to act as if we never heard what partner > explained. > Well, there are a number of other things that we have to do, and that depend on us hearing partner's explanation. Like : - remain silent as per L75D2 - explain the misexplanation and call the TD - there may be others All these are "actions". They are based on the UI. I don't believe that with a literal reading of L16 like the one you suggest we can arrive at anything. After all, on what basis do we rule in L12 if we are to disallow the "action", not just the call or play? What is the logical alternative to an "action" that is not a call or play. I really don't believe your point of view would stand up to close scrutiny. > 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 A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 3 10:58:44 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:58:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: > >>Four times in L16 and L16A are the words "call and play" > used, and the > >>fifth time it is action. Do you believe this is not > anything else than > >>writing style? > >> > > > > The more consistent a phrase is used the more important it is > > when a different phrase is used instead. > > > > > >>>It says you may not choose an action, it does not say you may > >>>not choose a call or a play. > >>> > >>>Do you suddenly claim that the writers of the law has been sloppy > >>>with their terms and do not mean what they have written here? > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Yes, I do. why not? > >> > > > > So whether the writers have been sloppy (L16) or accurate (L75) > > with their terms depends on what suits you best??? > > > > > I agree that you have some sort of point there. > But see David's reply to this, and Grattan and Ton's silence. Could it be that I am very tired? Don't use my silence to suggest that I agree with you. To be honest I don't have the slighest idea with what to agree or disagree in this message. Is it possible that you still are working on 75D, despite your 'goodbye'? Tricky boy. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 11:31:33 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:31:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction In-Reply-To: <4A256C83.007CDD27.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203122707.0245c730@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:00 3/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Doug Couchman wrote: > >[snip] > > >>>>I would support application of an automatic > >>>>fine for a partnership that hadn't prepared > >>>>for likely auctions when playing ANY > >>>>convention, > >[snip] > >Brian Meadows replied: > > >>>Are we to assume that your club consists > >>>exclusively of experienced regular > >>>partnerships, Doug? And if the answer is "No", > >>>would it not then seem to you that the new > >>>partnerships are at enough of a disadvantage > >>>already? > >[snip] > >On previous threads, blmlers have questioned >whether the ACBL regulation requiring players >to have agreements in "to be expected auctions" >is Lawful. It seems to me that the only Law >which could be used as a basis for the ACBL >regulation is Law 74B1, which states: > > >>As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain > >>from paying insufficient attention to the game. > >The literal words are very broad. It could be >argued that "paying insufficent attention to the >game" also includes: AG : I think that Organizing Powers may decide that "a convention's description includes its continuations" (even if there is only one), and that L75A might apply. Throwing at opponents bids with unknown meanings in situations where you'd know better than them (and you'll usually guess better than them) is obviously an unfair advantage, and as such might invoke L74A. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 3 11:24:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:24:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <3DEC9468.6020104@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >>>>> >>>>Yes, I do. >>>> > > why not? > And you say I am tricky? >> >>I agree that you have some sort of point there. >>But see David's reply to this, and Grattan and Ton's silence. >> > > > Could it be that I am very tired? Don't use my silence to suggest that I > agree with you. To be honest I don't have the slighest idea with what to > agree or disagree in this message. Is it possible that you still are working > on 75D, despite your 'goodbye'? Tricky boy. > No, I am working on L16 here. Sven tried to make the following argument: "you are not allowed to explain 5Di as 1 ace since you would be using UI to arrive at the conclusion that partner had 1 ace". Without going into the heart of the matter (here), I tried to explain that L16 contains the words "calls and plays" which shall not be based on UI. I was merely commenting that Sven's argument was false, not necessarily his conclusion (I happen to believe that as well, but that is not the point of this sub-thread). Sven had a very clever reply, saying that L16 uses the word "actions" once. I replied that "calls and plays" was used 4 times. I pointed out to Sven that this argument (though not his insistence on the word actions) has come up before, had been countered by me along the same lines, and that neither Ton nor Grattan had commented in 5 years time. But indeed, I should not be using your silences as proof of anything. From now on we shall propose a basic law on blml: anything that Herman says, and that is not seconded by Grattan AND Ton, is automatically false. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 11:36:48 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:36:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction In-Reply-To: References: <20021202230706.23132.34455.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203123157.0244f6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:39 2/12/2002 -0600, Doug Couchman wrote: > > From: Brian Meadows > > > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:53:52 -0600, Doug Couchman wrote: > > > > > > > >> I would support application of an automatic fine for a partnership that > >> hadn't prepared for likely auctions when playing ANY convention, > > > > Are we to assume that your club consists exclusively of > > experienced regular partnerships, Doug? And if the answer is > > "No", would it not then seem to you that the new partnerships are > > at enough of a disadvantage already? > > >OK, I give. The rule could have appropriate modifiers tacked on to make it >applicable only when it was reasonable to expect. . . blah blah blah. >Forget it. You're right: pairs that don't know their methods hurt >themselves enough; we really don't need to add to their troubles. > >My primary point, with which I think you agreed, was that prejudice >regarding destructive conventions is inappropriate. I had the sneaking >suspicion that AG wanted to apply a punitive rule to conventions that he >personally disliked, while exempting those that he liked. AG : Don't judge people you don't know. You're wrong. I'm a convention freak, and I like to play against intricated methods. But my experience is that when somebody, in the middle of aaan intricated sequence, explains "your guess is as good as mine", it will usually be worse, because they know the subtleties of their methods (and their meta-agreements) better than I do. For this reason, I think that, in most cases, undiscussed artificial sequences give an unfair advantage if you can't explain them. (well, at the mathematical logic level, you're right : I want to ban conventions I dislike ; but there aren't any. Either I like to play them, or I like to play against them, depending of whether they're good or not) Best regards, Alain. >I admit I may >have been wrong in that interpretation, but use of pejorative terms like >"destructive" is generally unhelpful and in this case may have misled me. > >Doug > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 11:39:26 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:39:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: <4A256C84.0020453E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203123740.0244c6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:09 3/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >AG : perhaps I should have added that my own > >poll resulted in a 12-3 preference for the SA > >lead. > >Even if you add AG's poll of 15 players to the >poll of 10 players conducted by the table TD, >12 out of 25 players polled - 48% - voted for >a non-Ace of spades lead. > >Many SOs rule that an action chosen by 25% >is a logical alternative, so many SO's ACs >would have to rule that a non-Ace of spades >lead is a logical alternative. > >And, of course, there has been no significant >logical reason put forward contradicting the >assertion that the UI demonstrably suggested >the Ace of spades lead. AG : irrelevant. Actor incumbit probatio. *you* have to prove your assertion. Perhaps it would be a good time to ask a deal generator which lead (among SA, Dx, Cx) will work when the others won't ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 11:40:52 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:40:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives In-Reply-To: <4A256C84.0020C46C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203123949.0244d6c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:14 3/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>AG : I use a different meta-meta-rule, > >[big snip] > >Irrelevant, unless there is universal >agreement on a meta-meta-meta-rule that >states: > > >Amongst the various different meta-meta- > >rules, AG's meta-meta-rule is the *only* > >logical alternative. AG : the only meta-meta-meta-rule I can think of, and I will defend it, is "any pair should have its own meta-meta-rules and be able to explain them when needed". From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 3 11:34:47 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:34:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: Kooijman, A.: >[...] >I don't know what dWS is, ... >I don't know what CIS is, ... >[...] >Could you try to use this >information as input for your Belgium brains? >[...] With this outrageous comment, your difficulty comprehending the arguments of others, and your insufficient command of English, you have totally disqualified yourself. Jürgen From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 11:49:32 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:49:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction In-Reply-To: References: <20021202110005.10701.31970.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203124512.02445840@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:53 2/12/2002 -0600, Doug Couchman wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > >[snip] > > > > AG : when I pass 3S, I decide that partner has only long spades. This isn't > > how that convention is played, but I'm allowed to do it. When he is > > doubled, does that change anything ? I say no. What else can you do but > > pass, simply because there was a double ? Didn't you expect it ? > >The opps' penalty double increases the likelihood that there has been a >screwup, but I agree that passing is still a logical alternative _for a >player who passed at his previous turn_, i.e., I think it would be seriously >considered by a significant number of such players. > > > > NB : I strongly disapprove, and only because I'm trying to be polite, of > > playing destructive conventions without having prepared all plausible > > followings. Whatever was the result, whatever the problem on this deal -UI > > ?- , the pair should be fined at least half a board and/or disallowed to > > play this convention until they define the developments. > >What makes this convention destructive? Would a Michaels bid in the same >situation be destructive? If so, is it acceptable to play it (sometimes >without extensive elaboration, realistically) because it's more familiar to >opponents, or because it's more familiar to you? Or would you be >consistent, and fine a pair that hadn't discussed a similar followup when >playing Michaels? > >I would support application of an automatic fine for a partnership that >hadn't prepared for likely auctions when playing ANY convention, but >restricting that rule to "destructive" conventions leaves it too likely that >the rulemakers' prejudices will come into play. AG : I meant that some conventions are more likely than others to give opponents problems even when duly explained (and that's fair) ; and the same ones are more likely to give them problems with non-exlpanations (and that's unfair). I'm ready to change my view to this one : "there will be an automatic fine for a partnership that hasn't prepared for likely auctions when playing any convention, when there is any likelihood that said impreparation could damage the opposition ; the penalty will usually be disallowance to play said convention for the remainder of the event and a procedural PP" From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 3 11:38:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:38:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: <3136440.1038915536614.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > Could it be that I am very tired? Don't use my silence to suggest that I agree with you. Well, perhaps we are all a little tired, but Herman has a couple of points - which is a couple more than I thought he had when I first heard about the dWS. In particular: if the word "action" is going to be used in the Laws, a line should appear in the Definitions to the effect that an action is a call or play (and not anything else); and if a player must explain his methods correctly despite the fact that to do so would indicate that partner has given a mistaken explanation, then Law 75 should be amended to make this clear. Moreover, I think that the footnote to Law 75 should be expanded. It is really too much to expect players to be aware of the kind of doublethink required of them by the laws when a mistaken explanation occurs (or is believed to have occurred). If these things happen, then the dWS will have served a useful purpose, and in any case, even though some of these discussions tend to get a bit bogged down, you never know when some important point will crop up. Tired we may be, but let us not be oblivious. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 11:53:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:53:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203125146.02445d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:34 3/12/2002 +0100, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >Kooijman, A.: > > >[...] > > >I don't know what dWS is, ... > > >I don't know what CIS is, ... > > >[...] > > >Could you try to use this > >information as input for your Belgium brains? > > >[...] > >With this outrageous comment, your difficulty >comprehending the arguments of others, and your >insufficient command of English, you have >totally disqualified yourself. AG : Belgian or not, I'd rather not be disqualified (from what ?) for the=20 mere reason that my knowledge of English is somewhat imperfect.=20 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 3 11:44:03 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:44:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: <4138021.1038915843311.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Jurgen wrote: > With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > comprehending the arguments of others, and your > insufficient command of English, you have > totally disqualified yourself. Well, there you go. The chairman of the WBF laws commission disqualified from the Bridge Laws mailing list. Almost makes you wish David Stevenson would come back. David Burn London, England From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 3 11:57:44 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:57:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] jurgen Message-ID: > With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > comprehending the arguments of others, and your > insufficient command of English, you have > totally disqualified yourself. >=20 > J=FCrgen >=20 I think I did understand what you are trying to say. Good for you. = Which not necessarily implies that I agree with it.=20 ton From gester@lineone.net Tue Dec 3 12:00:11 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:00:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <007901c29ac3$ad9f6580$0b242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:58 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Let me try again > Herman: > > I agree that you have some sort of point there. > > But see David's reply to this, and Grattan > > and Ton's silence. > --------------- \x/ ------------- > Ton: > Could it be that I am very tired? Don't use my > silence to suggest that I agree with you. To be > honest I don't have the slighest idea with what > to agree or disagree in this message. Is it > possible that you still are working on 75D, > despite your 'goodbye'? Tricky boy. > +=+ And, as for me, take silence to indicate that I have seen nothing worthy of response. Except now to say that, for me, 'action' should include not only a call or play, but anything done that affects the deal and its outcome. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Tue Dec 3 12:14:07 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:14:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <4138021.1038915843311.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <008901c29ac7$6120bca0$0b242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > Jurgen wrote: > > > With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > > comprehending the arguments of others, and your > > insufficient command of English, you have > > totally disqualified yourself. > > Well, there you go. The chairman of the WBF laws > commission disqualified from the Bridge Laws mailing > list. Almost makes you wish David Stevenson would > come back. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Careful, David, let's not go too far. And for the rest, let us agree that English is a very difficult medium for colleagues who speak tongues with much simpler structures and constructions. Like many on this list, ton does well enough with it but experiences occasions when the light grows dim. That does not disqualify him from anything, or if it does numbers would not survive. And this thread would never have started. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 3 12:40:18 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:40:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: >Jurgen wrote: >> With this outrageous comment, your difficulty >> comprehending the arguments of others, and your >> insufficient command of English, you have >> totally disqualified yourself. >Well, there you go. The chairman of the WBF laws commission >disqualified from the Bridge Laws mailing list. Almost makes >you wish David Stevenson would come back. >David Burn >London, England Not from BLML - from rational discussion. Sorry, but 'Belgians are stupid' is beyond the pale. Jürgen From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 3 12:43:12 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:43:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: At 12:34 3/12/2002 +0100, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >Kooijman, A.: > > >[...] > > >I don't know what dWS is, ... > > >I don't know what CIS is, ... > > >[...] > > >Could you try to use this > >information as input for your Belgium brains? > > >[...] > >With this outrageous comment, your difficulty >comprehending the arguments of others, and your >insufficient command of English, you have >totally disqualified yourself. AG : Belgian or not, I'd rather not be disqualified (from what ?) for the=20 mere reason that my knowledge of English is somewhat imperfect.=20 ------------------------------------- Hi Alain, Your English, it seems to me, is quite sufficient. If it were not it might well disqualify you from the discussion of complex topics in an international committee. Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies the man from rational intercourse. Jürgen From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 3 12:52:29 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:52:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: > >Jurgen wrote: >=20 > >> With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > >> comprehending the arguments of others, and your > >> insufficient command of English, you have > >> totally disqualified yourself. >=20 > >Well, there you go. The chairman of the WBF laws commission > >disqualified from the Bridge Laws mailing list. Almost makes > >you wish David Stevenson would come back. >=20 > >David Burn > >London, England >=20 > Not from BLML - from rational discussion. > Sorry, but 'Belgians are stupid' is beyond the pale. >=20 > J=FCrgen When you need this 'translation' of what I said as a clarification for = what you said, I consider your defence to be rather poor.=20 ton=20 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 3 13:03:35 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:03:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: <5260090.1038920615781.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Jurgen wrote: > Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - > on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies > the man from rational intercourse. Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, worked together for various organisations, and - although they do not necessarily share one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree of spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate and "disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know what they are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk about it. Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 13:19:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:19:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203141754.0244de70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:40 3/12/2002 +0100, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: > >Jurgen wrote: > > >> With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > >> comprehending the arguments of others, and your > >> insufficient command of English, you have > >> totally disqualified yourself. > > >Well, there you go. The chairman of the WBF laws commission > >disqualified from the Bridge Laws mailing list. Almost makes > >you wish David Stevenson would come back. > > >David Burn > >London, England > >Not from BLML - from rational discussion. >Sorry, but 'Belgians are stupid' is beyond the pale. AG : not really. I *did* turn pale %-( From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 3 13:15:11 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:15:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: > > > > >Well, there you go. The chairman of the WBF laws commission > > >disqualified from the Bridge Laws mailing list. Almost makes > > >you wish David Stevenson would come back. > > > > >David Burn > > >London, England jurgen: >Not from BLML - from rational discussion. let us admit, he has some humor (or didn't I understand this either?) ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 3 13:28:13 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:28:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. In-Reply-To: <5260090.1038920615781.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203142230.024488d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:03 3/12/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Jurgen wrote: > > > Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - > > on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies > > the man from rational intercourse. > >Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, worked >together for various organisations, and - although they do not necessarily >share one another's views AG : I suggest you apply for a nomination in the category "understatement". > - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree of spirited > rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. AG : then let them discuss in private, lest some injurious comment appear on blml and offend somebody. >And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a >situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate and >"disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know >what they are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else >to talk about it. AG : David, you don't understand what happens. That 'lunatic' is merely stating that comments based on a person's origins can't find their place on blml. If *your* code of ethics disagrees with this, please state it clearly. If you want to know, yes, I felt offended. But since I recently fired somebody who did not deserve it (Nigel), I didn't want to repond. Anyway, Anton's comments did not deserve any response. Only despise. >Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. > >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 3 16:14:18 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:14:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] BLML ettiquette Message-ID: <200212031614.LAA10887@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> It is time for another reminder that email messages can easily be misinterpreted. They lack the visual cues of face to face communication, and many readers will be unfamiliar with the personal relations that would render seemingly offensive comments innocuous. I often say, to people who know me well, things that would be outrageous if written in a public email. The difference is that the people who know me well know that I intend my statements as ironic or facetious, and my intent is confirmed by tone of voice and body language. Unfortunately, this form of communication is impossible in a public email, and we should all keep this in mind. Messages are very apt -- indeed almost certain -- to be take literally. Although I think we all know this in theory, it is very easy for accidents to happen, so please try to be careful. While there are several other examples of late, I want to single out the personal attacks on Herman as being not at all warranted. Despite the conflict with custom and tradition, Herman's "dWS" has a great deal of logic on its side. I am disappointed that the contrary position has been argued by assertion rather than logic. I am reminded that at the bridge table, when someone gets angry, it is usually because that person himself has just committed a blunder. I am especially disappointed that many of Herman's opponents do not seem to grasp his arguments at all as evidenced by their continued posing of irrelevant examples. In any case -- not only as regards Herman and the dWS -- arguments should address the Laws and interpretations, not individual posters themselves. Finally, I am convinced that every poster on BLML wants what is best for bridge. Although we often cannot agree on the specifics of what that might be, attacks on other people's motivations are in my opinion neither warranted nor productive. Sorry if this message comes across as an example of what I am criticizing. It is much easier to recognize someone else's offensive message than one's own. If all this message does is serve as a bad example, so be it, but please let's all try our best to be careful. BLML is a productive tool, and I would hate to see it poisoned. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 3 16:25:21 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:25:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: <200212031625.LAA10897@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: > for me, 'action' should include > not only a call or play, but anything done that > affects the deal and its outcome. Let's try this one: I open 2D, intending a natural weak two-bid. Partner alerts, and when asked, explains "multi." Oh !*$#!, we do play multi in this partnership; I have forgotten! LHO passes, and partner bids 2H, which by agreement is "pass or correct." I believe that the standard view is that I should alert and explain according to our true agreement. (Of course I shall have to bid according to my original misunderstanding.) Grattan (and perhaps Sven as well): does your interpretation of "action" mean you believe I should alert and explain according to my original misunderstanding because I have only become aware of it via partner's explanation, which is UI to me? From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 16:28:27 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:28:27 -0600 Subject: [blml] BLML ettiquette References: <200212031614.LAA10887@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:14 AM Subject: [blml] BLML ettiquette > Despite > the conflict with custom and tradition, Herman's "dWS" has a great deal > of logic on its side. Thank you Steve. If Herman has been arguing that the law provides players an unsatisfactory chore I do agree. regards roger pewick From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Tue Dec 3 17:34:51 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:34:51 GMT Subject: [blml] Herman says Message-ID: <200212031734.RAA24580@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:48:51 +0100 > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > Is it possible that some people are not inclinded to adopt dWS > > because of something like this ... > > > > N: 4NT > > S: Alert > > E: Yes > > S: Blackwood > > E: Pass > > S: 5C > > N: Alert > > W: Yes > > N: No aces > > > N: club preference > > W: Director! > North is telling his partner that he has misinterpreted the system. > I think these two are cheats! > > (if you can invent stories, so can I) ... this is how I expect this one to continue ... N: But TD, I'm supposed to explain our system. TD: (To North) Yes, you are. (To South) Please avoid taking any advantage from North's explanation. (To East) Please call me back if you think you have been damaged. (To West) Its best not to call opponents "cheats"; especially when they are following common practice and following the guidance of the sponsoring organsiation as to how to behave in this position. Yes, there's a problem. Yes, there may be a conflict in the laws. Yes, players are not well educated as to how to behave in these positions. But players' expectations under the current laws/guidance are such that (IMHO) they will not find dWS acceptable. There will be a need for considerable education of players, for them to accept dWS if the laws/guidance is changed/clarified to make dWS the correct approach. For me, the new guidance would need to be quite explicit: "You must explain partner's calls with the meaning you think he intends. When you suspect you and partner are having a misunderstanding, you must still explain partner's calls with the meaning you think he intends; even when your suspision is based on unauthorised information (e.g. partner's explanation of your previous calls). But if you suspect you and partner are having a misunderstanding, and this suspision is based on unauthorised information, you must nevertheless avoid taking any advantage from the unauthorised information (e.g. partner's explanation of your previous calls) in your choice of calls or plays, and bid according to what you think are you partnership agreements." Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 3 19:29:52 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:29:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212031625.LAA10897@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003901c29b03$3c714aa0$a62de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > I believe that the standard view is that I should > alert and explain according to our true agreement. > (Of course I shall have to bid according to my > original misunderstanding.) > > Grattan (and perhaps Sven as well): does your > interpretation of "action" mean you believe I > should alert and explain according to my > original misunderstanding because I have only > become aware of it via partner's explanation, > which is UI to me? > +=+ No. The upper four lines here are what you should do. My opinion that 'action' should encompass things done other than calls and plays means that I believe this is what the word should be used to mean - and that where used otherwise the word 'action' is imprudently selected. If the law means 'calls and plays' it should say 'calls and plays'; 'action' goes beyond that perimeter unless qualified. However, 'action' in L16C can only relate to a call or play, because it is only calls and plays that can be withdrawn actions in the context. And 'logical alternative actions' earlier in 16 has much the same kind of limitation to its meaning. In both cases 'action' is valid but the simpler 'call or play' would call for less thinking. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 3 19:34:46 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:34:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: Message-ID: <003a01c29b03$3e1c1470$a62de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:15 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > jurgen: > > >Not from BLML - from rational discussion. > > ton: > let us admit, he has some humor (or didn't > I understand this either?) > +=+ I suspect, ton, that he got it right quite unwittingly. +=+ From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 3 20:39:24 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:39:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:15 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > jurgen: > > >Not from BLML - from rational discussion. > > ton: > let us admit, he has some humor (or didn't > I understand this either?) > +=+ I suspect, ton, that he got it right quite unwittingly. +=+ ------------------------------------ Quite amusing, you two, unwittingly, when viewed from the right perspective. Bouvard et Pécuchet keep coming to mind. Regards, Jürgen From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 3 19:59:21 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:59:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c29b14$93727c00$1c5b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > Sven: > > It says you may not choose an action, it does not > > say you may not choose a call or a play. > > > > Do you suddenly claim that the writers of the law > > has been sloppy with their terms and do not mean > > what they have written here? > Herman: > Yes, I do. > This is one of the points I have been saying for > many years and I have not received an official > reprimand to this. But then maybe Grattan has now > switched sides and he will say that Kaplan intended > your interpretation all along. If that is the case, then > I'm quitting. > > +=+ So that I may be clear about it, what other than a call or play, respectively, could be an alternative to a call or play? I ask because I think the meaning of 'actions' is governed by the context. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 3 23:08:35 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 00:08:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> <000c01c29b14$93727c00$1c5b87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002501c29b20$e8c6b2f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "grandeval" > > Sven: > > > It says you may not choose an action, it does not > > > say you may not choose a call or a play. > > > > > > Do you suddenly claim that the writers of the law > > > has been sloppy with their terms and do not mean > > > what they have written here? > > > Herman: > > Yes, I do. > > This is one of the points I have been saying for > > many years and I have not received an official > > reprimand to this. But then maybe Grattan has now > > switched sides and he will say that Kaplan intended > > your interpretation all along. If that is the case, then > > I'm quitting. > > > > > +=+ So that I may be clear about it, what other than a call > or play, respectively, could be an alternative to a call or > play? I ask because I think the meaning of 'actions' is > governed by the context. ~ G ~ +=+ The simplest case that comes to my mind: Is it illogic to say that an alert is an action? Do I interpret L16 wrong when I say that if you receive from your partner some extraneous information that (possibly among other things also) "could demonstrably" suggest a call or play then under law 16 you do not have a free choice whether to alert or not alert if your choice is a result of this information rather than of your agreements? Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 4 00:35:44 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:35:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Herman says - but does Herman listen? Message-ID: <4A256C85.0001BB14.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >>>West: "Why did you say 5C showed no aces?" >>> >>>North: Herman De Wael replied: >>Because that is what he actually has! [snip] It is totally and utterly Lawfully irrelevant to explain what partner actually has - what is required is to explain partnership agreement. Law 75 footnote, Example 2 states: [snip] >Here there is no infraction of Law, since >East-West did receive an accurate description >of the North-South agreement; they have no >claim to an accurate description of the >North-South hands. [snip] Therefore, Herman's stating that: a) misdescribing partnership agreement, and b) simultaneously correctly describing partner's hand, is _not_ MI, (a cornerstone of the De Wael School), has been described by the Law 75 footnote as: c) a terminological inexactitude. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Dec 4 00:16:36 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 00:16:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Herman says - but does Herman listen? References: <4A256C85.0001BB14.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <002e01c29b2a$68993d00$1d3c23d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > Therefore, Herman's stating that: > > a) misdescribing partnership agreement, and > > b) simultaneously correctly describing partner's > hand, > > is _not_ MI No, he isn't. He knows as well as we all do what the issue is. When in the course of human events, you have got to lie [= give misinformation] to the opponents about something, the Law says that you should lie about partner's holding in the interests of telling the truth about your side's methods. Herman would rather that you told the truth about partner's holding while lying about your side's methods: (a) because this will be more helpful to the opponents as a practical matter; (b) because, except in those cases where you are sure that it is you who know the methods and not partner, it may be that your explanation will in fact coincide with both partner's actual holding and your side's actual methods. Now, it is illegal to do what Herman would have you do; so said Kaplan, and so says the Law. What Herman has discovered (and this is an important and worthwhile point that has not cropped up in previous discussions of the dWS) is that it may actually also be illegal to explain your side's methods, for to do so may (contrary to Law 75) draw attention in some manner to partner's earlier mistaken explanation. In other words, if you follow the Law by explaining the methods, you will break the Law by drawing attention to partner's error; if you break the Law by not explaining the methods, then you will break the Law ipso facto. It follows that, if you or your partner don't know the methods, you may end up breaking the Law. Well, so you may, and you must pay the penalty. What Herman asserts is that you should be permitted to exercise some degree of choice as to the precise manner in which you will break the Law. I do not think that he is right about this, but his view is not without logical foundation. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 4 00:22:20 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 00:22:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Springboard References: <200212030507.gB357sk31821@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <004101c29b2b$38af3260$b69468d5@default> Thank you Ted for your detailed answers [below] to all my questions. West had in fact taken charge of previous boards without any permission or objection -- but you could say that the permission was implicit. I take your point about players not making suggestions about rulings but the match was being played in a friendly spirit and I personally always try to avoid AC hearings as they are so often generate acrimony. At the time I thought the decision was far from clear-cut; and it is interesting that most BLMLers have come to similar conclusions. Sent: 03 December 2002 05:07 Subject: Re: [blml] Springboard Sorry, but this is long. After reading through the thread, I figured it would be easier for me to just respond to the original note than any of the responses. My initial reaction would have been in this order: 1. If the board has not been played at the other table, allow all four players to keep their hands and rotate the board to the correct orientation but the players keep the same hands. 1. If already played at the companion table, find a substitute player if one could be found that did not significantly strengthen or weaken the team to play the one hand. 2. If no such player could be found, allow the player to remain, rotate the board correctly, and monitor auction. If the offending player resulted as declarer, make dummy come around and play the hand, sitting out the offending player. If the offending player were on defense, monitor the play. As long as the noted card and suit was not significant, allow the result to stand. If the noted card or suit was significant (e.g. trumps) see if a reasonable assigned score can be determined from the actions leading up to the point when it was significant. 3. If all else fails, toss the board and award a procedural penalty to the doubly offending side (first the self-selected board captain put the board wrong, then the offending side glanced at the cards before checking that it was the correct hand). Even in pre-1997 rules, where North was responsible for the boards, if both sides of a team game had agreed to allow the East-West to be board captains, then East-West assumed the responsibility for the board disposition. North would be responsible by default unless both sides agreed otherwise. See below for specific responses to questions. -Ted Ying. > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 06:26:28 -0000 > > I asked the TD if, with opponents' agreement, we > could play the board in the correct orientation > -- with him watching to ensure that my illicit > knowledge was unused. He said No. > > Q1. Should the TD agree to my solution? > TY> It is an option, but a TD has the responsibility to determine the best of several options. Even if you are a TD, you should not be creating options or electing to direct while sitting as a player. It is inappropriate for you to be offering options like this. The director has the laws and certain options already established that (s)he should follow. > I asked the TD if, with opponent's agreement, we > could play the board with him acting as a > substitute for me. He said No. > > Q2. Should the TD accede to this suggestion? > TY> No. At that level of play, it is inappropriate for a TD to substitute for a player. It would compromise the (at least seemingly) appearence of impartiality. Another substitute player could be searched for, but the directing staff should not substitute in. > The TD said we could not play the board but he would consult his > colleagues about a ruling. > At the end of the match, we scored up to win > by an imp or two -- pending the ruling on the > disputed board. > > Q3. Should the TD rush through a ruling to > ensure that it reaches us before the result > of the match is known? > TY> I don't think so. It has happened before that a significant ruling has not been made before the result of the match is known. For one thing, if the result would be irrelevant (like if one team was ahead by more than 24 imps) then the director does not have to make a potentially-controversial ruling. The director should take the time needed to make the best ruling (s)he can. > The TD fined my partner for misboarding. > This reversed the match result. So we lost. > > Q4. Do you agree with the TD's ruling? > TY> It is an option and certainly there is cause for it. I would only have selected this option if no other options were successful (see above), but I don't find it unreasonable. > I pathetically suggested that the match be > called a tie; and the board be redealt for a > sudden death playoff (another board if it was > still a tie). The TD answered No. > > Q5. Is my proposal the Judgement of Solomon? > TY> No, this is not appropriate, IMHO. There is enough information to try to attain a result, but if one cannot be obtained, then penalizing the offending side and going with the result that generated is more appropriate than creating a situation where a non-offending side could be penalized under one board. > We tried to submit an appeal. The chief TD > advised that our appeal could not succeed and > might not even be heard. I think the reason > was "The agreed facts and the law are clearly > against you -- it is not a matter of judgement > or of interpretation." > > Q6. Should you be refused leave to appeal if the > facts and the law are clearly against you? > TY> No. You should be advised that an appeal is not recommended, that the laws are against you, and that you risk a further procedural penalty for a frivolous appeal (one which may include sanctions against participation in future sponsored events since you would be KO'ed from the event if you lost your appeal), but if your team and specifically the team captain still chose to appeal, the director should award such an appeal providing all such recommended comments to the AC when held. > Q7. Is this such a case? > > We packed and left for home. A posse of players > who had finished their matches corralled us in the > Car park and persuaded us to return. They argued > that North is responsible for the boards and > cannot delegate that responsibility. The Chief > TD was doubtful about this but my partner argued > that he did not mind forfeiting his deposit and > we were eventually allowed leave to appeal. > > The AC was made up of players from teams still > in contention. Arguably, such players may have > views on whom they prefer as future opponents. > > Q8. Should the AC be recruited from teams that > have already been eliminated from the main > event? > TY> Where possible, the TD's should try to avoid players that are not affected by the result of their ruling. That includes players who did not play the event (kibitzed or visiting), and players that were eliminated. However, skill level if more important and the afore-mentioned players may not have been skilled enough to adjudicate a ruling of the players involved. If no other players of sufficient skill are available, the TD's may have been forced to select players that were affected, Then, as already suggested, the appeal should be presented as anonymously as possible. Failing that, you have to rely on the integrity of the AC. If you don't, you shouldn't play in those events. > The AC interpreted the rules to say that North is > indeed responsible for the boards and should have > insisted on taking over that function from West. > They cancelled the fine on West and instead fined > North a few imps, for dereliction of duty, so that > we won comfortably. > > "Nor dim nor red, like God's own head, > The glorious Sun uprist: > Then all averred, I had killed the bird > That brought the fog and mist." > > Q9. Is the AC's argument correct? > TY> I wouldn't rule that way as a TD or an AC, as I don't think the responsibility still exists when both sides have agreed to another player being board captain. However, the old rules could be interpreted that way. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Dec 4 00:27:44 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 00:27:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203142230.024488d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004401c29b2b$f7282ee0$1d3c23d9@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > AG : David, you don't understand what happens. That 'lunatic' is merely > stating that comments based on a person's origins can't find their place on > blml. If *your* code of ethics disagrees with this, please state it clearly. I think that if people who know each other as well as Ton and Herman choose to refer to one another as a "Belgian oaf" or a "Dutch idiot", this ought not to be perceived as any kind of racial slur. I am aware that it could be so perceived in a wide community - but here is a very narrow community indeed. Just because it is narrow, however, I do not see that it need be narrow-minded. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 4 00:49:11 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 00:49:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021203142230.024488d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008d01c29b2e$f88100c0$b69468d5@default> Stupidity is an essential prerequisite for participation in BLML discussions but good manners dictate that we refrain from explicitly reminding each other of this. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 3 23:54:14 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:54:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: Message-ID: <000801c29b2e$c1031200$929e193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:39 PM Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > Quite amusing, you two, unwittingly, > when viewed from the right perspective. > > Bouvard et Pécuchet keep coming to mind. > > Regards, > > Jürgen > +=+ Oh, well ... if you read Flaubert that explains everything .... ! We understand the agonies .... +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Dec 4 01:34:58 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:34:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: Message-ID: <006a01c29b35$5b696140$1d3c23d9@pbncomputer> Ton wrote: > let us admit, he has some humor (or didn't I understand this either?) Es sitzt ein Vogel auf dem Leim, Der flattert sehr und kann nicht heim. Ein schwarzer Kater schleicht herzu, Die Krallen scharf, die Augen gluh. Am Baum hinauf und immer höher Kommt er dem armen Vogel näher. Der Vogel denkt: "Weil das so ist Und weil der Kater doch mich frißt So will ich keine Zeit verlieren, Will noch ein wenig quinquilieren Und lustig pfeifen wie zuvor". Der Vogel, scheint mir, hat Humor. Wilhelm Busch David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 4 01:38:35 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:38:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does partner's MI affect your options? References: <4A256C83.0010BD10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00c101c29b37$140873c0$b69468d5@default> Does partner's misexplanation put extra pressure on you or should you pretend you did not hear it and make the bid you would have made anyway? Please re-read this to see what I puzzles me.... [Snip from Richard Hills undiscussed alternatives] Imps, Dlr E, Vul NS. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2C(1) Pass 3S(2) Pass Pass Double Pass Pass ? (1) 5-9 hcp, 5/5 in the red suits. (2) Undiscussed. You, South, hold: 7 KQJ65 QT865 53 [Nigel Guthrie] Assume, for the sake of argument, that you reckon that there are only 2 possible explanations for partner's 3S bid: [A] A weak pre-empt in spades. [B] He has forgotten the system, thinks you showed the majors, and is giving limit preference. IMO, Opponents' double and pass make it more likely that partner has forgotten the system so that for me pass and red suit bids are all LAs; and you might take-out insurance by bidding a red suit, risking a playing a level higher in spades if partner really has his bid. If partner has indeed forgotten -- and your red suit bid saves you from immediate disaster, you still cannot complain if the TD rules still against you. But what if opponents *ASK* your partner what 2C meant... [1] If partner mistakenly answers "the majors", IMO you must grit your teeth and pass, consoling yourself with the recollection of your many previous undeserved tops obtained by refusing to learn Ghestem properly. If you bid, the TD will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Have I got this right? Does the fact that you KNOW from partner's answer that he made a mistake inhibit you from making a bid you that you might well otherwise consider? [2] Now suppose that partner correctly answers "the red suits" . So you know that partner bid 3S with his eyes wide open. Of course, in practice we all pass as a red suit bid would be deliberate suicide. Nevertheless, would that famous fictional character "the actively ethical player" bid a red suit here, on the grounds that without partner's explanation, he might well have done that? If so, in my long experience of Bridge I have *never* known anybody to be actively ethical in circumstances like this. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 4 01:19:47 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:19:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fire extinguishers Message-ID: <4A256C85.0005C2F6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> A blmler made this outrageous comment: >With this outrageous comment, your difficulty >comprehending the arguments of others, and your >insufficient command of English, you have >totally disqualified yourself. Might I suggest that blmlers should thoughtfully avoid instantly responding to any actual or perceived breaches of netiquette, by the posting of retalitory breaches of netiquette. The purposes of this forum are to discuss the Bridge Laws. Humor and irony may be used, but - when selecting a mode - self-deprecating humor should be preferred to polemical diatribes. When disagreeing with another poster's reasoning, saying merely "disqualify yourself" is not helpful in advancing discussion. Instead, itemised counter-points would be more useful to posters and lurkers. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 4 01:01:29 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:01:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alternatives Message-ID: <4A256C85.00041685.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>AG : the only meta-meta-meta-rule I can think >>of, and I will defend it, is "any pair should >>have its own meta-meta-rules and be able to >>explain them when needed". My meta-meta-meta-meta rule is: >*Should*? If the Laws or sportsmanship do not >require otherwise, there is no such rule in >bridge as "should". Of course, based upon my Christian Anarchist beliefs, I refuse to "defend" my meta-meta-meta- meta rule. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 4 01:05:57 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:05:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> <000c01c29b14$93727c00$1c5b87d9@4nrw70j> <002501c29b20$e8c6b2f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001b01c29b64$caf9d240$883ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > > > > +=+ So that I may be clear about it, what other than a call > > or play, respectively, could be an alternative to a call or > > play? I ask because I think the meaning of 'actions' is > > governed by the context. ~ G ~ +=+ > > The simplest case that comes to my mind: > > Is it illogic to say that an alert is an action? > > Do I interpret L16 wrong when I say that if you receive > from your partner some extraneous information that > (possibly among other things also) "could demonstrably" > suggest a call or play then under law 16 you do not have > a free choice whether to alert or not alert if your choice is > a result of this information rather than of your agreements? > > Sven > +=+ Well, Sven, are you saying that an alert can be an "alternative action" to a call or play? I do not understand this. A 'logical alternative action' has to be something that can take the place of the call or play. And I think this can only be another call for a call, play for a play; if so, 'action' is limited accordingly. Yes, an alert is an action, it is not here capable of being an alternative action. +=+ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Dec 4 08:15:35 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:15:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML ettiquette Message-ID: Steve: > While there are several other examples of late, I want to single out > the personal attacks on Herman as being not at all warranted. Despite > the conflict with custom and tradition, Herman's "dWS" has a > great deal > of logic on its side. I am disappointed that the contrary > position has > been argued by assertion rather than logic. Though I tried to use some logical arguments to support the formal interpretation that explanations should be given according to partnership agreements and not to what partner thinks we play, I never intended to start such a discussion. And Herman merged both possibilities in such a way (present and wished for interpetations) that I thought it my duty to make clear that the laws at this moment do not support his view. That is all there is. If you like me to admit that his position has some value I am willing to do so. Let me give you a related example where I infringe the laws myself. We play Walsh and once in a while my partner forgets to alert my 1heart answer on his 1club opening. We end in 1NT (or whatever). Now it is my duty to tell opponents about my possible diamonds, but my experience is that this information is more confusing than keeping silent if I do not have those diamonds. So I keep silent in that case. Waiting for the day that opponents claim damage, it sould be possible to find an example. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 4 08:26:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:26:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <5260090.1038920615781.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Jurgen wrote: > > >>Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - >>on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies >>the man from rational intercourse. >> > > Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, worked together for various organisations, and - although they do not necessarily share one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree of spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. > > And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate and "disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know what they are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk about it. > > Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. > I second this feeling. I was not insulted by the word Belgian - that is common banter between neighbours. > 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 Wed Dec 4 08:32:07 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:32:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman says - but does Herman listen? References: <4A256C85.0001BB14.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DEDBD87.1020109@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>>West: "Why did you say 5C showed no aces?" >>>> >>>>North: >>>> > > Herman De Wael replied: > > >>>Because that is what he actually has! >>> Well, that is the answer that the player is giving, not I ! > > [snip] > > It is totally and utterly Lawfully irrelevant > to explain what partner actually has - what is > required is to explain partnership agreement. > I fully know what the law says. > Law 75 footnote, Example 2 states: > > [snip] > > >>Here there is no infraction of Law, since >>East-West did receive an accurate description >>of the North-South agreement; they have no >>claim to an accurate description of the >>North-South hands. >> > > [snip] > > Therefore, Herman's stating that: > > a) misdescribing partnership agreement, and > > b) simultaneously correctly describing partner's > hand, > > is _not_ MI, (a cornerstone of the De Wael School), No it is not. The dWS says that is acceptable to give MI (in order to avoid UI), not that the information is not MI, not even that it is legal to do so. > has been described by the Law 75 footnote as: > > c) a terminological inexactitude. > and so is this contribution of yours. > 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 4 08:17:27 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 03:17:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12/2/02, Herman De Wael wrote: {Sven wrote} >> No, that is not what Law75D2 says. > > >Yes, that is what L75D2 says. This is what blml has come to? Sheesh. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 4 08:10:52 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 03:10:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 12/2/02, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" >> You know what happened to me yesterday. >> >> RHO:1Sp >> LHO:2NT >> 5 seconds later : you're supposed to alert this, partner! > >Nobody has so far argued that this is illegal Okay, I'll bite. Why is it not illegal? Specifically, why is it not a violation of Law 73B1? I see this kind of thing often in club games around here. ACBL Alert regs, since March 1, 2002, have required the partner of a player making an opening bid of 1NT to announce the range of that bid. They don't. Frequently, opener will say something, or otherwise point out the error. Of course, these are the same players who give me blank looks when I ask them to explain their auction. :-( From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 4 09:21:56 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:21:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> <000c01c29b14$93727c00$1c5b87d9@4nrw70j> <002501c29b20$e8c6b2f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001b01c29b64$caf9d240$883ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <001f01c29b76$97c7dfe0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ So that I may be clear about it, what other than a call > > > or play, respectively, could be an alternative to a call or > > > play? I ask because I think the meaning of 'actions' is > > > governed by the context. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > The simplest case that comes to my mind: > > > > Is it illogic to say that an alert is an action? > > > > Do I interpret L16 wrong when I say that if you receive > > from your partner some extraneous information that > > (possibly among other things also) "could demonstrably" > > suggest a call or play then under law 16 you do not have > > a free choice whether to alert or not alert if your choice is > > a result of this information rather than of your agreements? > > > > Sven > > > +=+ Well, Sven, are you saying that an alert can be > an "alternative action" to a call or play? I do not > understand this. A 'logical alternative action' has to > be something that can take the place of the call or > play. And I think this can only be another call for a > call, play for a play; if so, 'action' is limited > accordingly. > Yes, an alert is an action, it is not here > capable of being an alternative action. +=+ I open 1NT, partner bids 2C which I alert (no question). I bid 2D after which partner bids 3C. Shall I alert 3C? That of course depends upon our agreements. There are systems where 3C is for play and not alertable, there are systems where 3C is a further request for me to tell my hand and as such alertable. (At this point it is intentional that I do not state anything on what my 2D bid means, nor whether partner alerted that bid or not) Suppose something partner did or did not, said or whatever, tells me that he has forgotten our agreements and used the 3C bid in the wrong way. I now have the unauthorized information that partner has mistaken our agreements (his action "may suggest" that I pass or "may suggest" that I bid over 3C, so it is incontrovertibly UI as defined in Law 16). Do I have logical alternatrive actions where one can be suggested over the other from this UI? Yes, in addition to the alternatives pass or bid I first have the alternatives to alert or not to alert. We do agree that an alert is not a call nor a play. Do we agree that when deciding whether to alert the 3C bid or not I may not let the knowledge that partner has mistaken our agreements influence my choice? Have I made my point? regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 4 09:25:34 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:25:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <002f01c29b77$193ce570$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > On 12/2/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >From: "Herman De Wael" > >> You know what happened to me yesterday. > >> > >> RHO:1Sp > >> LHO:2NT > >> 5 seconds later : you're supposed to alert this, partner! > > > >Nobody has so far argued that this is illegal > > Okay, I'll bite. Why is it not illegal? Specifically, why is it not a > violation of Law 73B1? You have missed a correcting post: "Illegal" was a typo - it should have been "legal": Nobody has so far argued that this is legal. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 4 10:11:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:11:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML ettiquette In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021204105022.02454cf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:15 4/12/2002 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Steve: > > > > While there are several other examples of late, I want to single out > > the personal attacks on Herman as being not at all warranted. Despite > > the conflict with custom and tradition, Herman's "dWS" has a > > great deal > > of logic on its side. I am disappointed that the contrary > > position has > > been argued by assertion rather than logic. > > >Though I tried to use some logical arguments to support the formal >interpretation that explanations should be given according to partnership >agreements and not to what partner thinks we play, I never intended to start >such a discussion. And Herman merged both possibilities in such a way >(present and wished for interpetations) that I thought it my duty to make >clear that the laws at this moment do not support his view. >That is all there is. If you like me to admit that his position has some >value I am willing to do so. > >Let me give you a related example where I infringe the laws myself. >We play Walsh and once in a while my partner forgets to alert my 1heart >answer on his 1club opening. We end in 1NT (or whatever). Now it is my duty >to tell opponents about my possible diamonds, but my experience is that this >information is more confusing than keeping silent if I do not have those >diamonds. So I keep silent in that case. Waiting for the day that opponents >claim damage, it sould be possible to find an example. AG : this looks a little strange to me. IIRC, a former thread initiated by YT showed that 1C - p - 1H (using Walsh) is not alertable in many countries. As concerns the substance of your intervention : I agree wholeheartedly. When you think that applying the laws (for example, laws about alert) will most probably confuse the opponents, and that infringing will have only an epsilon chance of damaging them, by all means, do infringe. But be prepared to pay when the epsilon cranes forward. l already gave the example of pairs playing Multi and explaining "weak 2 in either major ; or a variety of strong hands" ; this is , strictly speaking, uncomplete disclosure, but (i) complete disclosure would create some fog and (ii) they can't be damaged, because they are informed that there are other cases, and may ask if they wish (yes, they may). In general, nearly every explanation is somewhat incomplete, because there are always subtle inferences ; but pinpointing these would hurt more than help, so you've got to choose. In Belgium, many people play 1M-2NT as GF 3+card raise (some as GF 4+ or limit+ 4+card). And they explain it just like that. In principle, one should also explain "denies a 5-card suit headed by 2 top honors, when holding only 3 cards ; or a semi-solid suit, when holding 4 ; or the ability to splinter, ie a small singleton with 11-14 HCP and at least one honor in each side suit" but who wants to play 5 deals an hour ? (and remember that English is a fairly concise language) This is obviously incomplete disclosure ; however ... Well, perhaps these recent harsh words about voluntary infringing laws should be softened. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 4 10:20:08 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:20:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9DC83.6020401@skynet.be> <004a01c2992a$b36852f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE9F3C4.8030102@skynet.be> <007601c29953$df253c90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB155C.2060504@skynet.be> <01d801c299de$69b25700$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB3DE9.6070907@skynet.be> <000d01c299f9$0248ff40$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEB7894.3060209@skynet.be> <004c01c29a20$a8e731b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DEC6E9E.8060303@skynet.be> <000c01c29b14$93727c00$1c5b87d9@4nrw70j> <002501c29b20$e8c6b2f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001b01c29b64$caf9d240$883ae150@endicott> <001f01c29b76$97c7dfe0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DEDD6D8.8090809@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > I open 1NT, partner bids 2C which I alert (no > question). I bid 2D after which partner bids 3C. > > Shall I alert 3C? That of course depends upon our > agreements. There are systems where 3C is for play > and not alertable, there are systems where 3C is > a further request for me to tell my hand and as such > alertable. (At this point it is intentional that I do not > state anything on what my 2D bid means, nor whether > partner alerted that bid or not) > > Suppose something partner did or did not, said or > whatever, tells me that he has forgotten our > agreements and used the 3C bid in the wrong way. > > I now have the unauthorized information that partner > has mistaken our agreements (his action "may suggest" > that I pass or "may suggest" that I bid over 3C, > so it is incontrovertibly UI as defined in Law 16). > > Do I have logical alternatrive actions where one can be > suggested over the other from this UI? Yes, in addition > to the alternatives pass or bid I first have the alternatives > to alert or not to alert. > > We do agree that an alert is not a call nor a play. > > Do we agree that when deciding whether to alert the > 3C bid or not I may not let the knowledge that partner > has mistaken our agreements influence my choice? > > Have I made my point? > No, Sven. You are asking whether or not to alert 3Cl. The you start a circular reasoning. If alerting is an action, then you should not do so based on the UI. Then you say that you shouldn't use the UI. So you should not alert. So alerting is an action that is governed by UI. Or something. I don't know whether or not you should alert. That depends on the meanings; I don't even know whether you should follow the ClS or dWS in deciding what to explain, therefor how to alert. What I do know is that you are allowed to use the UI in order to make the decision what to explain. Since explaining, and alerting, are not "actions" as regulated by L16. > 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 normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 10:49:13 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:49:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"All words, and no performance." > ~ Philip Massinger >"All mouth, and no trousers." > ~ Anon >=================================== >------------------------------------ > > >Bouvard et Pécuchet keep coming to mind. > >Regards, > >Jürgen ++++Are they Belgians, as well? _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 12:56:46 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:56:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead Message-ID: >This is insulting: ++++Really? Why is reportage of what actually goes on in the real world insulting? >I am one of those for whom the Ace of Spades is the obvious lead. ++++Congratulations. I would suggest that this puts you, if you consider all bridge players, you are in an admirable but tiny minority. >I distinctly remember explaining why, and I distinctly remember adding >that because the UI from partner "could suggest a Spade lead" I would >in that case quite likely avoid it. ++++In which latter case you would seem to be agreeing with me as to what constitutes reasonable behaviour. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 4 13:19:16 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:19:16 -0000 Subject: Unholy Truth (was Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions) References: <4A256C82.007DB589.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <003601c29b97$c1df5080$649c68d5@default> [Richard Hills] That is, do we want the game to be one where a player voluntarily notifies their own irregularity, as soon as they have noticed that they have committed an irregularity? [Nigel Guthrie] Richard's suggestion is in keeping with Bridge tradition; but manifestly it is unenforceable; hence, IMO, it should be included in "Proprieties"; I assume that "Proprieties" will revert to its former sensible and useful role as a manual of etiquette rather than law. Even so, bridge-players used to respect and to try to abide by "Proprieties" From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 4 13:53:56 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:53:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: Alain wrote: > AG : David, you don't understand what happens. That 'lunatic' is >merely > stating that comments based on a person's origins can't find their >place on > blml. If *your* code of ethics disagrees with this, please state it >clearly. >David B. wrote: >I think that if people who know each other as well as Ton and Herman >choose to refer to one another as a "Belgian oaf" or a "Dutch idiot", >this ought not to be perceived as any kind of racial slur. I am aware >that it could be so perceived in a wide community - but here is a very >narrow community indeed. Just because it is narrow, however, I do not >see that it need be narrow-minded. Of course - in private banter you may say what you like and whatever the participants tolerate. In a public discussion, if the tone is friendly, and if there is an element of humor, there is considerable leeway. The tone of this discussion was neither friendly nor jocular. Whether Mr deW is personally offended, whether he is a masochist etc, is a separate issue. In this particular discussion HdW pointed out a serious contradiction in the laws. His basic point is clearly valid. He then proceeded to ride his horse to death, and got another, and was treating it cruelly, when Mr K., who had been encouraging this behavior, asked "why do Belgians beat their horses?". If these laws are to be repaired we need much more competent 'authorities'. Best Regards, Jürgen From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 4 15:52:48 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:52:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Herman says - but does Herman listen? Message-ID: <200212041552.KAA00252@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > a) misdescribing partnership agreement, and > > b) simultaneously correctly describing partner's > hand, > > is _not_ MI, (a cornerstone of the De Wael School), The dWS says no such thing. It is fair to point out disadvantages of the dWS, but people should take care to understand what it really says. Misdescribing a partnership agreement is certainly MI, and it will be redressed if it causes damage. What the dWS says is that such damage is relatively unlikely compared to other problems that arise in the "traditional school," and that therefore giving MI is to be preferred over giving information to partner (a violation of L73B1 and L75D2). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 4 16:01:50 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:01:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: <200212041601.LAA00271@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Do we agree that when deciding whether to alert the > 3C bid or not I may not let the knowledge that partner > has mistaken our agreements influence my choice? Grattan, for one, disagrees. I would have thought his opinion would be unanimous. (See his reply earlier in this very thread.) Here are some things I think should receive unanimous agreement, whether you believe in the dWS or not. ("Explanations" should be understood to include alerting or not alerting.) 1. You may not take advantage of information from partner's explanations in choosing a call or play. (L16A and 73C may compel you to change an intended call or play to avoid taking advantage). 2. You may (perhaps must) use information from partner's explanations to choose your own explanations. 3. The _first_ explanation given by your side should reflect the true partnership agreement, even if you happen to know that one of the hands doesn't match this agreement. (Behind screens or online, this could be your own hand.) Does anyone besides Sven disagree? From gester@lineone.net Wed Dec 4 14:40:52 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:40:52 -0000 Subject: Unholy Truth (was Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions) References: <4A256C82.007DB589.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003601c29b97$c1df5080$649c68d5@default> Message-ID: <001801c29baf$5a96a780$90242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Unholy Truth (was Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions) > I assume that "Proprieties" will > revert to its former sensible and useful role as > a manual of etiquette rather than law. > Even so, bridge-players used to respect and to > try to abide by "Proprieties" > +=+ If current ideas prosper the Proprieties will disappear, as such. Essential matters extracted from the former Proprieties will be compacted into the substantive laws, as part of the elimination of duplicated references to subjects. For example, to have 75C off on its own, away from Law 20, is an evident inefficiency. +=+ From ogan@fas.harvard.edu Wed Dec 4 16:31:53 2002 From: ogan@fas.harvard.edu (ogan@fas.harvard.edu) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:31:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Wilhelm Busch In-Reply-To: <20021204095903.14011.45333.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20021204095903.14011.45333.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1039019513.3dee2df96dc6e@webmail.fas.harvard.edu> Hmm. Babelfish says: It sits a bird on the glue, flutters much and cannot not home. A black Ka= ter=20 creeps herzu, the claws sharply, the eyes gluh. At the tree he comes up a= nd=20 ever more h?her the poor bird more n?her. The bird thinks: "because like = that=20 is and because the Kater nevertheless me fri?t so I want no time to lose,= want=20 still another little quinquilieren and merrily to whistle like before". T= he=20 bird, seems to me, has humor. Could someone more linguistically advanced enlighten the rest of us? Alex Quoting blml-request@rtflb.org: > Message: 4 > From: "David Burn" > To: "BLML" > Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:34:58 -0000 >=20 > Ton wrote: >=20 > > let us admit, he has some humor (or didn't I understand this either?) >=20 > Es sitzt ein Vogel auf dem Leim, > Der flattert sehr und kann nicht heim. > Ein schwarzer Kater schleicht herzu, > Die Krallen scharf, die Augen gluh. > Am Baum hinauf und immer h=F6her > Kommt er dem armen Vogel n=E4her. > Der Vogel denkt: "Weil das so ist > Und weil der Kater doch mich fri=DFt > So will ich keine Zeit verlieren, > Will noch ein wenig quinquilieren > Und lustig pfeifen wie zuvor". > Der Vogel, scheint mir, hat Humor. >=20 > Wilhelm Busch >=20 > David Burn > London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 4 16:38:15 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:38:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212041601.LAA00271@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DEE2F77.6070404@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "Sven Pran" >>Do we agree that when deciding whether to alert the >>3C bid or not I may not let the knowledge that partner >>has mistaken our agreements influence my choice? >> > > Grattan, for one, disagrees. I would have thought his opinion > would be unanimous. (See his reply earlier in this very thread.) > > Here are some things I think should receive unanimous agreement, > whether you believe in the dWS or not. ("Explanations" should be > understood to include alerting or not alerting.) > > 1. You may not take advantage of information from partner's > explanations in choosing a call or play. (L16A and 73C may compel you > to change an intended call or play to avoid taking advantage). > > 2. You may (perhaps must) use information from partner's explanations > to choose your own explanations. > > 3. The _first_ explanation given by your side should reflect the true > partnership agreement, even if you happen to know that one of the hands > doesn't match this agreement. (Behind screens or online, this could be > your own hand.) > > Does anyone besides Sven disagree? > I for one, agree completely. Nice start, Steve. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 4 16:46:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > I wonder whether any of the "traditionalists" would advocate a > modification of L75D2 along the following lines: "If partner gives a > wrong explanation, you must immediately summon the TD and give the > correct explanation?" If eliminating MI is really all-important, > surely this is the logical procedure. Well I wouldn't consider myself a traditionalist (despite believing that L75D2 excludes disclosure required by L75C. Yes Herman, I know it doesn't actually say so but I believe any other interpretation renders consistent application impossible). I would favour the above change. It would eliminate the slight hesitancy but nothing I can put my finger on approach that some opponents adopt to clue their partner in to a misunderstanding. It might also encourage better teaching of UI obligations (currently an extremely poorly taught area). Tim From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 17:05:31 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:05:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Wilhelm Busch Message-ID: >From: ogan@fas.harvard.edu >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] Re: Wilhelm Busch >Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:31:53 -0500 > >Hmm. Babelfish says: > >It sits a bird on the glue, flutters much and cannot not home. A black >Kater >creeps herzu, the claws sharply, the eyes gluh. At the tree he comes up and >ever more h?her the poor bird more n?her. The bird thinks: "because like >that >is and because the Kater nevertheless me fri?t so I want no time to lose, >want >still another little quinquilieren and merrily to whistle like before". The >bird, seems to me, has humor. > >Could someone more linguistically advanced enlighten the rest of us? > >Alex ++++Well I'd knock Babelfish on the head, for starters. > > > > Es sitzt ein Vogel auf dem Leim, > > Der flattert sehr und kann nicht heim. > > Ein schwarzer Kater schleicht herzu, > > Die Krallen scharf, die Augen gluh. > > Am Baum hinauf und immer höher > > Kommt er dem armen Vogel näher. > > Der Vogel denkt: "Weil das so ist > > Und weil der Kater doch mich frißt > > So will ich keine Zeit verlieren, > > Will noch ein wenig quinquilieren > > Und lustig pfeifen wie zuvor". > > Der Vogel, scheint mir, hat Humor. > > > > Wilhelm Busch > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 4 17:17:31 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:17:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <004501c29bb9$0813de10$70d8fea9@WINXP> My apology to Tim: Every now and then I forget to change the "to" address, with the result that he now got this comment twice. From: "Tim West-Meads" > Steve wrote: > > > I wonder whether any of the "traditionalists" would advocate a > > modification of L75D2 along the following lines: "If partner gives a > > wrong explanation, you must immediately summon the TD and give the > > correct explanation?" If eliminating MI is really all-important, > > surely this is the logical procedure. > > Well I wouldn't consider myself a traditionalist (despite believing that > L75D2 excludes disclosure required by L75C. Yes Herman, I know it > doesn't actually say so but I believe any other interpretation renders > consistent application impossible). I would favour the above change. It > would eliminate the slight hesitancy but nothing I can put my finger on > approach that some opponents adopt to clue their partner in to a > misunderstanding. It might also encourage better teaching of UI > obligations (currently an extremely poorly taught area). Possibly surprising to some I second Steve's suggestion on the strict condition that the UI ruling on such corrective information is enforced. That, if it is at all possible to implement such rules, will result in opponent's always being secured correct information on the agreements, excepøt that when the caller and his partner cannot agree at all we seem to have a completely unsolvable situation? A change along this line in Law 75D2 will deprive the offender of his chance to discover and rectify the error himself; I believe this is a minor drawback. The major problem is that the TD will much more than today have to assess the worst likely result for the offenders on the game if, although opponents are secured correct information, they are forced to stick to their misunderstandings and complete their auction according to those misunderstandings to the bitter end. (I do NOT agree in any suggestion that the offender shall be "saved" from his mistake by his own partner or by the director!). Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 4 19:00:47 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:00:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fire extinguishers References: <4A256C85.0005C2F6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000b01c29bc7$8c209d20$b649e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fire extinguishers > > > Might I suggest that blmlers should thoughtfully > avoid instantly responding to any actual or > perceived breaches of netiquette, by the posting of > retalitory breaches of netiquette. > +=+ "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."+=+ > > The purposes of this forum are to discuss the > Bridge Laws. Humor and irony may be used, but - > when selecting a mode - self-deprecating humor > should be preferred to polemical diatribes. > +=+ "Gentlemen of the French Guard, fire first!" +=+ From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 4 19:14:18 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:14:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilhelm Busch Message-ID: Could someone more linguistically advanced enlighten the rest of us? Alex > Ton wrote: >=20 > > let us admit, he has some humor (or didn't I understand this either?) >=20 > Es sitzt ein Vogel auf dem Leim, > Der flattert sehr und kann nicht heim. > Ein schwarzer Kater schleicht herzu, > Die Krallen scharf, die Augen gluh. > Am Baum hinauf und immer h=F6her > Kommt er dem armen Vogel n=E4her. > Der Vogel denkt: "Weil das so ist > Und weil der Kater doch mich fri=DFt > So will ich keine Zeit verlieren, > Will noch ein wenig quinquilieren > Und lustig pfeifen wie zuvor". > Der Vogel, scheint mir, hat Humor. >=20 > Wilhelm Busch >=20 > David Burn > London, England ====================== Wilhelm Busch (1832-1906) was a humorist, known and admired by most Germans. Wrote and illustrated doggerel verse. Completely untranslatable, of course. Usually, as in the case above, the form rather than the content is funny: A bird is caught on a lime-twig; a cat approaches. So the bird decides, as there is no escape, that it might as well continue singing cheerfully as before. And the last line says; This bird, it seems to me, has a sense of humor. You'll have to ask David why he thinks this fits the context. He and Ton couldn't quite decide whether to declare me too stupid to understand the BLML discussion, hence too dumb to joke about it. Regards, Jürgen From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 4 21:46:14 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:46:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:46 AM 12/4/02, twm wrote: >Steve wrote: > > > I wonder whether any of the "traditionalists" would advocate a > > modification of L75D2 along the following lines: "If partner gives a > > wrong explanation, you must immediately summon the TD and give the > > correct explanation?" If eliminating MI is really all-important, > > surely this is the logical procedure. > >Well I wouldn't consider myself a traditionalist (despite believing that >L75D2 excludes disclosure required by L75C. Yes Herman, I know it >doesn't actually say so but I believe any other interpretation renders >consistent application impossible). I would favour the above change. It >would eliminate the slight hesitancy but nothing I can put my finger on >approach that some opponents adopt to clue their partner in to a >misunderstanding. It might also encourage better teaching of UI >obligations (currently an extremely poorly taught area). I believe there is a fundamental problem with L75, which exists whether we're talking about the traditional interpretation, Herman's interpretation, or any of the various suggestions that have been made regarding future changes and/or clarifications. Each of these: (a) Gives clear instructions as to what to do when you are sure that you have bid according to your partnership agreement, but partner has subsequently misexplained it -- which covers fewer than 1% of the problem cases. (b) Gives clear instructions as to what to do when you have misbid according to your partnership agreement, but are "woken up" to the actual agreement when partner subsequently explains it correctly -- which also covers fewer than 1% of the problem cases. None of them, however: (c) Gives any useful instructions when you haven't a clue whether (a) or (b) is actually the case -- which is the reality in over 98% of the problem cases. What's more, in the vast majority of cases covered by (c), we find ourselves unable to ascertain even after the fact, with all parties gathered in the AC room, whether (a) or (b) was actually the case, notwithstanding that the current law does provide us with a default presumption. ISTM that if we wish to write (or interpret) L75 in such a way as to minimize real-life problems with such situations, we must attempt to do it in manner that assumes that, when the assumptions about your agreements on which you have actually based your call differs from partner's, it is case (c) that must be dealt with, and provides appropriate instructions. And that if we do that, those instructions will serve quite nicely in cases (a) and (b) as well. IMO, we would be best served in the future by a law that doesn't worry about distinguishing "misbids" from "misexplanations", but instead addresses the general case of "player's bid differs from partner's explanation", and gives one coherent set of instructions as to what the player caught in such a situation at the table is to do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Dec 4 22:37:39 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:37:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: <4A256C7E.001380B5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard wrote: >Periphrasis (the elegant Greek word for >elegant variation) is a highly recommended >technique for oratory. > >However, in writing an instruction manual, the >use of periphrasis is a cardinal sin. > >To avoid confusion, the same boring obvious >word should be repeated redundantly throughout >the instruction manual. > >Best wishes > >Richard I find this is true of instructions for students in chemistry laboratories. In defense of the late Max Hardy (whom I criticzed a bit, recently,) I should add that saying the same thing over and over seems to be useful, some of the time. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 15:32:23 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:32:23 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <4A256C84.0020453E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > And, of course, there has been no significant > logical reason put forward contradicting the > assertion that the UI demonstrably suggested > the Ace of spades lead. I will tell you the thought that first occurred to me when the question was asked about whether 2C was forcing to game. It put the idea into my head that maybe partner was licking his chops holding something like CKJx and wanted an idea whether he might get pounded or ignored if he overcalled some trash. Now, is that what is meant by demonstrably suggested? If I were paying attention to UI here I might be inclined to believe that the road to 'happiness' would start with a club lead in spite of AI that suggests that a club lead is likely to lead to sadness. Earlier in the thread I suggested that while a two card holding made a long suit in partner's hand more probable than a three card holding, the difference was not enough to demonstrably suggest it. Apparently you did not consider this even a reasonable assessment. This is what statistics say looking at a two card holding: it is 21% that someone has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good that holding is. Looking at a three card holding it is 14% that someone has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good that holding is. Is a 7% difference enough to demonstrably suggest which suit, provided there is one, when there are other inferences from the extraneous information? I don't think so. I think that it is easier to justify that the question, and huddle before the pass demonstrably suggest the player has only a 5 card holding[s] over a six card holding. After all, isn't it easier to assess the risk and decide between bidding and passing with a six card holding in a strong auction than with a 5 five card holding? [Meaning that the risk is greater on a five than a six+ card holding and it might be weighed longer.] And didn't the player take quite some time to pass? I did not say that it did demonstrably suggest, merely that it was easier to justify. regards roger pewick > QED. Prepare the boiling oil. > > Best wishes > > Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 4 20:15:56 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:15:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <004501c29bb9$0813de10$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000701c29bf5$a39096d0$6b44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > Steve wrote: > > > > > I wonder whether any of the "traditionalists" would > > > advocate a modification of L75D2 along the following > > > lines: "If partner gives a wrong explanation, you must > > > immediately summon the TD and give the correct > > > explanation?" If eliminating MI is really all-important, > > > surely this is the logical procedure. > > +=+ My mind is not closed to any such possible solution. But I would not jump in with 'yes' or 'no' until I have had time to mull it over - and to see what anxieties others may express. . ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 5 00:28:01 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:28:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <000901c29bf5$a65730e0$6b44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > On 12/2/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > {Sven wrote} > >> No, that is not what Law75D2 says. > > > > > >Yes, that is what L75D2 says. > > This is what blml has come to? Sheesh. > +=+ Actually, Ed, these statements provide two unmistakable opinions. Quite a rarity. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 5 00:19:44 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:19:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: Message-ID: <000801c29bf5$a4ef1560$6b44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 1:53 PM Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses > > If these laws are to be repaired we need much > more competent 'authorities'. > > Best Regards, > > Jürgen > +=+ You should tell us, Jurgen, what is the sum of your acquaintance with the 'authorities' you judge incompetent. You know them well? Their souls bear the imprint of your close scrutiny? ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 4 19:59:47 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:59:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212041601.LAA00271@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DEE2F77.6070404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c29bf5$a261dad0$6b44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > Steve Willner wrote: > > >>From: "Sven Pran" > >>Do we agree that when deciding whether to alert the > >>3C bid or not I may not let the knowledge that partner > >>has mistaken our agreements influence my choice? > >> > > > > Grattan, for one, disagrees. I would have thought his opinion > > would be unanimous. (See his reply earlier in this very thread.) > > +=+ That's my name. So what am I supposed to disagree with? I think an alert is an 'action', but I do not think it is a 'logical alternative action' within the meaning of Law 16. In that Law I think the context requires that such action be a call or play. The word 'action' in 16A refers inferentially to 'call or play' in the preceding conditional statement 'that may suggest a call or play'. (We have all agreed, have we not, that the Law would have been better served if written in a different English style? But we must deal, for now, with what we have, for now.) Alerting is governed by regulation. 'Unanimous' - held by one person only :-) ? +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 5 04:30:16 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:30:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <002f01c29b77$193ce570$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 12/4/02, Sven Pran wrote: >You have missed a correcting post: "Illegal" was a typo - >it should have been "legal": > >Nobody has so far argued that this is legal. Ah. Well, never mind, then. :-) From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 5 07:56:05 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:56:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001d01c29c33$e1f218c0$617687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again> > > IMO, we would be best served in the future by a law that doesn't worry > about distinguishing "misbids" from "misexplanations", but instead > addresses the general case of "player's bid differs from partner's > explanation", and gives one coherent set of instructions as to what the > player caught in such a situation at the table is to do. > +=+ Noted. I will give thought to opening up this question in the subcommittee. It has been touched upon already. We do, of course, have "in his opinion" in 75D2, looking towards that question. ~ G ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Dec 5 08:03:18 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilhelm Busch Message-ID: =20 > And the last line says; > This bird, it seems to me, has a sense of humor. >=20 > You'll have to ask David why he thinks this fits > the context. He and Ton couldn't quite decide > whether to declare me too stupid to understand > the BLML discussion, hence too dumb to joke > about it. >=20 > Regards, J=FCrgen >=20 In whatever distinction or interpretation you make stupidity seems to = be part of it.=20 Looking for a descripton of this habit the word fitting best would be contraproductive for this message, since the world is more complex than = to be described with stupid or its alternative.=20 My impression at this moment is that you are outclassing me in having = strong opinions. And knowing that I don't get away with it all the time myself = you certainly have some problems once in a while.=20 It would be a pity if my English is too poor to let you undertand what = I am saying.=20 ton =20 From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 5 08:32:08 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:32:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <3DEF0F08.3080007@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Steve wrote: > > >>I wonder whether any of the "traditionalists" would advocate a >>modification of L75D2 along the following lines: "If partner gives a >>wrong explanation, you must immediately summon the TD and give the >>correct explanation?" If eliminating MI is really all-important, >>surely this is the logical procedure. >> > > Well I wouldn't consider myself a traditionalist (despite believing that > L75D2 excludes disclosure required by L75C. Yes Herman, I know it > doesn't actually say so but I believe any other interpretation renders > consistent application impossible). I would favour the above change. It > would eliminate the slight hesitancy but nothing I can put my finger on > approach that some opponents adopt to clue their partner in to a > misunderstanding. It might also encourage better teaching of UI > obligations (currently an extremely poorly taught area). > Indeed Tim, it would. But only after about 20 years. > Tim > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 5 08:38:42 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:38:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DEF1092.2080005@skynet.be> Eric makes a point that I have also considered more than once and not often enough get around to mentioning. Eric Landau wrote: >> > > I believe there is a fundamental problem with L75, which exists whether > we're talking about the traditional interpretation, Herman's > interpretation, or any of the various suggestions that have been made > regarding future changes and/or clarifications. Each of these: > > (a) Gives clear instructions as to what to do when you are sure that you > have bid according to your partnership agreement, but partner has > subsequently misexplained it -- which covers fewer than 1% of the > problem cases. > I do believe this is slightly more than 1%, if you count the cases in which the player mistakenly believes he is right. But the point is valid whatever the figure. > (b) Gives clear instructions as to what to do when you have misbid > according to your partnership agreement, but are "woken up" to the > actual agreement when partner subsequently explains it correctly -- > which also covers fewer than 1% of the problem cases. > > None of them, however: > > (c) Gives any useful instructions when you haven't a clue whether (a) or > (b) is actually the case -- which is the reality in over 98% of the > problem cases. > Yes, one interpretation does: dWS. In the dWS, the explanation that a player has to provide in cases (a) and (b) are the same - so of course the same explanation als has to be given in case (c). Which is why I believe the advice to be so good - you can give it to players without having to cater for three possibilities. > What's more, in the vast majority of cases covered by (c), we find > ourselves unable to ascertain even after the fact, with all parties > gathered in the AC room, whether (a) or (b) was actually the case, > notwithstanding that the current law does provide us with a default > presumption. > Whereas one thing is certain. Everyone knows how partner interpreted his bid, since he actually told so. If he says "Blackwood", then you know 5Di shows some number of aces. Opponents have the right to know how many. > ISTM that if we wish to write (or interpret) L75 in such a way as to > minimize real-life problems with such situations, we must attempt to do > it in manner that assumes that, when the assumptions about your > agreements on which you have actually based your call differs from > partner's, it is case (c) that must be dealt with, and provides > appropriate instructions. And that if we do that, those instructions > will serve quite nicely in cases (a) and (b) as well. > > IMO, we would be best served in the future by a law that doesn't worry > about distinguishing "misbids" from "misexplanations", but instead > addresses the general case of "player's bid differs from partner's > explanation", and gives one coherent set of instructions as to what the > player caught in such a situation at the table is to do. > And the dWS fits that bill nicely. > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Dec 5 09:53:09 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:53:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: > > If these laws are to be repaired we need much > more competent 'authorities'. > > Best Regards, > > Jürgen > +=+ You should tell us, Jurgen, what is the sum of your acquaintance with the 'authorities' you judge incompetent. You know them well? Their souls bear the imprint of your close scrutiny? ~ G ~ +=+ ------------------------- The result of the efforts of the Bridge authorities generally, and of the lawmakers in particular, are quite well known. The processes that lead to such results are not a mystery; they are not at all specific to Bridge. The reasoning processes of the current authorities are on display; e.g. in the 1997 laws, the various minutes, the recent 'Laws of Electronic Bridge', the arguments in this discussion group. Your implicit statement that I do not know the people involved personally is true. The rhetorical device, namely the suggestion that one must know the shoemaker to judge the quality of the shoe, is an instance of the informal fallacy known as 'ignoratio elenchi', and, depending upon how you parse it, of 'dicto simpliciter'. Best Regards, Jürgen From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 5 10:16:16 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:16:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <3DEF1092.2080005@skynet.be> References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:38 5/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Whereas one thing is certain. Everyone knows how partner interpreted his >bid, since he actually told so. If he says "Blackwood", then you know 5Di >shows some number of aces. Opponents have the right to know how many. AG : not for sure. Say we are in a situation where 4NT is a Puppet to 5C (why not ?). Then 5D is non-sytemic. The opponents are entitled to know your system. They are not entitled to know what partner showed in some other system. BTA in case (c) you'd better tell them. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 5 10:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > I see this kind of thing often in club games around here. ACBL Alert > regs, since March 1, 2002, have required the partner of a player making > an opening bid of 1NT to announce the range of that bid. They don't. > Frequently, opener will say something, or otherwise point out the error. Perhaps a technical illegality but hardly a UI problem. Since all 1N ranges are alertable it doesn't suggest anything (except abiding by the alert rules!). As it happens I believe it is better for partner to do this reminding than opps and that the ACBL could include such a requirement in their alert rules if they so chose. I sometimes play on-line with SAYC partners under EBU rules (not in a self-alerting club). They often forget to alert my weak 2 bids. I know damn well they have just forgotten the alert (rather than being confused by the system). Opponents have never objected to my reminders. Tim From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 5 10:35:12 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:35:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005001c29c4a$00eadc60$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 09:38 5/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Whereas one thing is certain. Everyone knows how partner interpreted his > >bid, since he actually told so. If he says "Blackwood", then you know 5Di > >shows some number of aces. Opponents have the right to know how many. > > AG : not for sure. Say we are in a situation where 4NT is a Puppet to 5C > (why not ?). Then 5D is non-sytemic. > The opponents are entitled to know your system. They are not entitled to > know what partner showed in some other system. BTA in case (c) you'd better > tell them. I am not sure we any longer discuss what the rules are today. My impression is that we are now speculating whether a major change in the principle that opponents are entitled to our agreements but nothing more could be feasible. And I take some of the later suggestions to be that opponents should be entitled to "everything": Agreements, inferences, consequences of misunderstandings etc. (you name it). There can be so many possibly undesired side-effects from changing the laws in such directions that I seriously doubt if I (we?) shall be happy with it. But we have an alternative: Emphasize and enforce a rule that the questions your partner asks and the explanations your partner gives (including alerts) are UI for you. (This actually already applies when playing with screens). The present Law75D can then be "reduced" to specifying that you are required - after the final pass or at the end of the play as the case may be - to inform your opponents that they have received misinformation from your partner, although the fact that partner has given misinformation is UI to you for absolutely all other purposes. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 5 10:52:31 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:52:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205115134.025642d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:28 5/12/2002 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Ed wrote: > > > I see this kind of thing often in club games around here. ACBL Alert > > regs, since March 1, 2002, have required the partner of a player making > > an opening bid of 1NT to announce the range of that bid. They don't. > > Frequently, opener will say something, or otherwise point out the error. > >Perhaps a technical illegality but hardly a UI problem. Since all 1N >ranges are alertable it doesn't suggest anything (except abiding by the >alert rules!). AG : it does. It suggests that the 1NT opening is defined as "natural, range X-Y". Else partner wouldn't have any right to awaken you. > As it happens I believe it is better for partner to do >this reminding than opps and that the ACBL could include such a >requirement in their alert rules if they so chose. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 5 10:59:56 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:59:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <005001c29c4a$00eadc60$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205115656.02564d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:35 5/12/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > At 09:38 5/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > >Whereas one thing is certain. Everyone knows how partner interpreted his > > >bid, since he actually told so. If he says "Blackwood", then you know 5Di > > >shows some number of aces. Opponents have the right to know how many. > > > > AG : not for sure. Say we are in a situation where 4NT is a Puppet to 5C > > (why not ?). Then 5D is non-sytemic. > > The opponents are entitled to know your system. They are not entitled to > > know what partner showed in some other system. BTA in case (c) you'd >better > > tell them. > >I am not sure we any longer discuss what the rules are today. >My impression is that we are now speculating whether a major change >in the principle that opponents are entitled to our agreements but nothing >more could be feasible. > >And I take some of the later suggestions to be that opponents should be >entitled to "everything": Agreements, inferences, consequences of >misunderstandings etc. (you name it). > >There can be so many possibly undesired side-effects from changing the >laws in such directions that I seriously doubt if I (we?) shall be happy >with it. > >But we have an alternative: Emphasize and enforce a rule that the questions >your partner asks and the explanations your partner gives (including alerts) >are UI for you. (This actually already applies when playing with screens). AG : I don't understand the point. When playing with screens, you don't either see or hear partner's explanations and alerts. What UI can there possibly be ? As for explanations not transmitting UI, written explanations are one solution. It proved right with screens. But without screens, you would need to determine whether partner could possibly have seen them. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Dec 5 11:02:10 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:02:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205115656.02564d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003401c29c4d$c292a340$b89e23d9@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > AG : I don't understand the point. When playing with screens, you don't > either see or hear partner's explanations and alerts. What UI can there > possibly be ? Well, you can often hear a lot of whispering going on the other side of the screen, so that you know at least that partner thinks your call (or, more importantly, his call) needs explaining to his screen-mate. Yes, Ton, I know you are supposed to write the explanation down. But bridge players are not very good at writing, so they grip the pencil very hard and write very laboriously, so that the whole table shakes. This also is detectable on the other side of the screen. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 5 11:13:16 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:13:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205115656.02564d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005e01c29c4f$4f12b250$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >But we have an alternative: Emphasize and enforce a rule that the questions > >your partner asks and the explanations your partner gives (including alerts) > >are UI for you. (This actually already applies when playing with screens). > > AG : I don't understand the point. When playing with screens, you don't > either see or hear partner's explanations and alerts. What UI can there > possibly be ? That is exactly my point, you don't get the information. Screens are an effective means to prevent you from receiving this UI from partner. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Dec 5 11:31:43 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:31:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: > Alain wrote: > > > AG : I don't understand the point. When playing with screens, you > don't > > either see or hear partner's explanations and alerts. What UI can > there > > possibly be ? > > Well, you can often hear a lot of whispering going on the > other side of > the screen, so that you know at least that partner thinks > your call (or, > more importantly, his call) needs explaining to his screen-mate. Yes, > Ton, Why me here? Are you suggesting that I am living on my own unrealistic planet? I might be one of the few people around combining the opinions that we might abandon appeal committees and screens without suffering severe losses. The only advantage I hear for using screens nowadays is to be relieved from partners face. Remembering the daily job of building and removing 100 or more screens in Montreal that advantage isn't big enough for me. We could introduce masks in stead. Geneva '90 went reasonable well, we had a big hall with a 'natural' background sound caused by the airconditioning system or whatever preventing detectable sounds coming through or over the screens. In our new bridge home the technical equipment is so advanced that there are really 0 (zero) decibels hanging in the air. Impossible to play in. ton > David Burn > London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 5 11:56:30 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:56:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DEF3EEE.6040408@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:38 5/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Whereas one thing is certain. Everyone knows how partner interpreted >> his bid, since he actually told so. If he says "Blackwood", then you >> know 5Di shows some number of aces. Opponents have the right to know >> how many. > > > AG : not for sure. Say we are in a situation where 4NT is a Puppet to 5C > (why not ?). Then 5D is non-sytemic. Which just might serve to counteract your own UI, but bring in nothing into our discussion as to how 5Di ought to be explained. > The opponents are entitled to know your system. They are not entitled to > know what partner showed in some other system. I don't think so. If I may use L75C (everyone else seems to think this is the most important law in the book), this says "all information conveyed to him through partnership agreement". Partner has certainly conveyed the fact that he has one ace. I believe the opponents must be informed of this. BTA in case (c) you'd > better tell them. > Of course. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 5 12:50:28 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:50:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C84.0020453E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205134706.02564ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:32 3/12/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:09 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > > > > > And, of course, there has been no significant > > logical reason put forward contradicting the > > assertion that the UI demonstrably suggested > > the Ace of spades lead. > > >I will tell you the thought that first occurred to me when the question >was asked about whether 2C was forcing to game. It put the idea into my >head that maybe partner was licking his chops holding something like >CKJx and wanted an idea whether he might get pounded or ignored if he >overcalled some trash. Now, is that what is meant by demonstrably >suggested? AG : the "demonstrably suggested" holding depends of the question asked. If somebody asks whether a bid is natural, he suggests he hols the suit ; if he asks about the strength of the opponents' bidding, he suggests he wants to overcall but is afraid of a double (BTW, the fact that 2C is GF doesn't mean you will get doubled more frequently, so the decision to pass was a poor one, doubly so after the question). >If I were paying attention to UI here I might be inclined to believe >that the road to 'happiness' would start with a club lead in spite of AI >that suggests that a club lead is likely to lead to sadness. > >Earlier in the thread I suggested that while a two card holding made a >long suit in partner's hand more probable than a three card holding, the >difference was not enough to demonstrably suggest it. Apparently you >did not consider this even a reasonable assessment. > >This is what statistics say looking at a two card holding: it is 21% >that someone has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good >that holding is. Looking at a three card holding it is 14% that someone >has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good that holding >is. Is a 7% difference enough to demonstrably suggest which suit, >provided there is one, when there are other inferences from the >extraneous information? I don't think so. AG : right ; but a 4-card holding in diamonds might be enough (AJ9x over Dummy's K10x, with the SA as reentry). Best regards, alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 5 13:34:19 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:34:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C84.0020453E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021205083000.0269c730@pop.starpower.net> At 10:32 AM 12/3/02, Roger wrote: >I will tell you the thought that first occurred to me when the question >was asked about whether 2C was forcing to game. It put the idea into my >head that maybe partner was licking his chops holding something like >CKJx and wanted an idea whether he might get pounded or ignored if he >overcalled some trash. Now, is that what is meant by demonstrably >suggested? > >If I were paying attention to UI here I might be inclined to believe >that the road to 'happiness' would start with a club lead in spite of AI >that suggests that a club lead is likely to lead to sadness. > >Earlier in the thread I suggested that while a two card holding made a >long suit in partner's hand more probable than a three card holding, the >difference was not enough to demonstrably suggest it. Apparently you >did not consider this even a reasonable assessment. > >This is what statistics say looking at a two card holding: it is 21% >that someone has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good >that holding is. Looking at a three card holding it is 14% that someone >has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good that holding >is. Is a 7% difference enough to demonstrably suggest which suit, >provided there is one, when there are other inferences from the >extraneous information? I don't think so. > >I think that it is easier to justify that the question, and huddle >before the pass demonstrably suggest the player has only a 5 card >holding[s] over a six card holding. After all, isn't it easier to >assess the risk and decide between bidding and passing with a six card >holding in a strong auction than with a 5 five card holding? [Meaning >that the risk is greater on a five than a six+ card holding and it might >be weighed longer.] And didn't the player take quite some time to pass? > >I did not say that it did demonstrably suggest, merely that it was >easier to justify. The point at issue has nothing at all to do with the question of two-card holdings vs. three-card holdings. It is whether the inference from the UI, which suggests that partner holds a marginally biddable suit, demonstrably suggests leading the SA to preserve the option of switching to diamonds at trick 2 after seeing the dummy. 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 Dec 5 16:45:55 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:45:55 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <4A256C84.0020453E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205134706.02564ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > At 09:32 3/12/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:09 AM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > > > > > > > > > And, of course, there has been no significant > > > logical reason put forward contradicting the > > > assertion that the UI demonstrably suggested > > > the Ace of spades lead. > > > > > >I will tell you the thought that first occurred to me when the question > >was asked about whether 2C was forcing to game. It put the idea into my > >head that maybe partner was licking his chops holding something like > >CKJx and wanted an idea whether he might get pounded or ignored if he > >overcalled some trash. Now, is that what is meant by demonstrably > >suggested? > > AG : the "demonstrably suggested" holding depends of the question asked. If > somebody asks whether a bid is natural, he suggests he hols the suit ; if > he asks about the strength of the opponents' bidding, he suggests he wants > to overcall but is afraid of a double (BTW, the fact that 2C is GF doesn't > mean you will get doubled more frequently, so the decision to pass was a > poor one, doubly so after the question). I am inclined to feel that what is or is not demonstrably suggested over something else depends on the difference in the inferences available from the [unauthorized] information itself and the inferences from AI. If you pay attention to what is available from AI only versus what is added from extraneous means in this instance, just how material are the differences? From AI the minimum bidding suggests that partner has some honors and is likely to hold a long pointy suit not worth mentioning . The UI suggests that partner has some honors, length in one or both pointy suits of indeterminate quality, or possibly some club honors, or badly placed hearts, or a good hand that is too dangerous to bid. Just how useful are the differences? They do not seem very material. > >If I were paying attention to UI here I might be inclined to believe > >that the road to 'happiness' would start with a club lead in spite of AI > >that suggests that a club lead is likely to lead to sadness. > > > >Earlier in the thread I suggested that while a two card holding made a > >long suit in partner's hand more probable than a three card holding, the > >difference was not enough to demonstrably suggest it. Apparently you > >did not consider this even a reasonable assessment. > > > >This is what statistics say looking at a two card holding: it is 21% > >that someone has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good > >that holding is. Looking at a three card holding it is 14% that someone > >has at least a 6 card holding, nothing said about how good that holding > >is. Is a 7% difference enough to demonstrably suggest which suit, > >provided there is one, when there are other inferences from the > >extraneous information? I don't think so. > > AG : right ; but a 4-card holding in diamonds might be enough (AJ9x over > Dummy's K10x, with the SA as reentry). > > Best regards, > > alain. I do concur [very much] that the difference of four diamonds and two spades combined with the UI demonstrably suggests the spade over the diamond; while the difference between 3D and 2S as referenced above do not. I very much agree with David Burn that the partner's antics have clarified that the possibility of a successful defense is more likely, even demonstrably, but does not demonstrably include which suit, nor does it demonstrably so suggest over the authorized inferences that come from partner is likely to have 9-11 cards in the pointy suits. And I am sympathetic toward wanting to adjust but I resist it because a spade lead was among the things that the defense clearly called for when only AI was present and UI did not reduce the risk of a spade enough to be material. I said before that I felt that the table result had more to do with declarer's judgement to bid 3N than use of UI, and so far I still feel that way. I would like very much if players would conduct themselves with more respect towards the game than this partner. But I understand many reasons why not. If players would not start the auction until everyone was ready to do battle, if they would actively mask when they did their thinking most of the time, if they would use the CC instead of the question as their first choice toward knowledge, and that if they do ask questions would always be bland about it- incidents like this one would be far between. But they do not, nor are they actively encouraged. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > The point at issue has nothing at all to do with the question of > two-card holdings vs. three-card holdings. It is whether the inference > from the UI, which suggests that partner holds a marginally biddable > suit, demonstrably suggests leading the SA to preserve the option of > switching to diamonds at trick 2 after seeing the dummy. But on what basis is there to judge which suit to attack first? It is the one partner holds. According to David Burn, the UI suggests he holds a good suit that is also long and therefore demonstrably suggests the SA over a diamond to get a look at partner's signal and then abandon spades or switch. Well, that is a valid inference but the inference that the huddle then pass suggests a ragged suit is stronger. Both inferences are valid; one is much stronger than the other. Let us say that the UI suggests a marginal suit say KTxxxx. What is the likelihood that partner will get in before T12 to cash his suit? To me this demonstrably suggests that spades are likely to not be the best suit to attack [sets up a trick for declarer while wasting time not setting up diamonds]. Well, imo the information is too nebulous to apply to the play period. The core issue is the suit to attack, and imo the information is still too nebulous to compellingly demonstrably suggest either a diamond or a spade over the other, but if it demonstrably suggests anything over anything it is a club over a pointed suit. regards roger pewick > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 16:54:13 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:54:13 -0600 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DEF3EEE.6040408@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > If I may use L75C (everyone else seems to think this > is the most important law in the book), If I must declare which passage of law I feel compelling I would decline because only the entirety of law can be ultimately of good use. But if I must still declare but a single passage I declare L73A1 above all others. roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From gester@lineone.net Thu Dec 5 16:54:30 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:54:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: Message-ID: <002b01c29c7f$28f63940$b3242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:53 AM Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses > > > Your implicit statement that I do not know the > people involved personally is true. The > rhetorical device, namely the suggestion that > one must know the shoemaker to judge > the quality of the shoe, > +=+ What you are doing, Jurgen, is rather to look at the shoe and judge the ability of the shoemaker. You overlook the question of the circumstances in which the shoe was made. In the matter of bridge laws you are naive, an innocent child, in your understanding of the factors that have influenced their development; you know nothing of the restraints or the complexities of international dealings essential to the process. You just do not have the basis for expressing an opinion on the people or the exercise currently in train, and in your naivety it may not have even occurred to you that whatever skills may be deployed, a major entity, should it feel hostile, could seek to put back for years any chance of progress. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 5 18:50:31 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:50:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DEF3EEE.6040408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c29c8f$300dc3a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Roger Pewick" > > If I may use L75C (everyone else seems to think this > > is the most important law in the book), > > If I must declare which passage of law I feel compelling I would decline > because only the entirety of law can be ultimately of good use. But if > I must still declare but a single passage I declare L73A1 above all > others. How do you rate L74A2? That one is my favourite (needless to say I assume). Sven From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Dec 5 18:53:05 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:53:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <001d01c29c33$e1f218c0$617687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:56 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:46 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again> > > > IMO, we would be best served in the future by a law > that doesn't worry > > about distinguishing "misbids" from > "misexplanations", but instead > > addresses the general case of "player's bid differs > from partner's > > explanation", and gives one coherent set of > instructions as to what the > > player caught in such a situation at the table is to do. > > > +=+ Noted. I will give thought to opening up this > question in the subcommittee. It has been touched > upon already. We do, of course, have "in his opinion" > in 75D2, looking towards that question. ~ G ~ +=+ Please make certain the instructions will not effectively kill psyching. I also worry that the case where your intent doesn't match partner's explanation has been lost in this conversation. -Todd From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Dec 5 19:13:27 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:13:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: <002b01c29c7f$28f63940$b3242850@pacific> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gester@lineone.net > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > > In the matter of bridge laws you are naive, an > innocent child, in your understanding of the > factors that have influenced their development; > you know nothing of the restraints or the > complexities of international dealings essential > to the process. You just do not have the basis > for expressing an opinion on the people or the > exercise currently in train, and in your naivety > it may not have even occurred to you that > whatever skills may be deployed, a major > entity, should it feel hostile, could seek to put > back for years any chance of progress. I don't claim to be any better schooled, but I am intensely curious about what sort of organization would seek to create a set of "Laws for Online Bridge" and simultaneously sabotage the effort. I hope it's not the same organization that advised Alan LeBendig while he was envisioning a set of protocols for computer vs. computer play. -Todd From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Dec 5 20:20:56 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:20:56 -0600 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: <000801c29bf5$a4ef1560$6b44e150@endicott> References: Message-ID: And in connection with the subject line... I'm sure all will be glad to learn that my grandfather raised and dealt in draft horses. He raised at least a few Belgians. Let us now get back to Bridge Laws. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 20:04:05 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:04:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DEF3EEE.6040408@skynet.be> <001101c29c8f$300dc3a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > From: "Roger Pewick" > > > If I may use L75C (everyone else seems to think this > > > is the most important law in the book), > > > > If I must declare which passage of law I feel compelling I would decline > > because only the entirety of law can be ultimately of good use. But if > > I must still declare but a single passage I declare L73A1 above all > > others. > > How do you rate L74A2? > That one is my favourite (needless to say I assume). > > Sven Well, 74A2 is a recipe for human harmony in any setting. Nothing wrong with that. It is wonderful. Should I be hesitant to ask, lest it breach 74A2, to what aim it speaks towards doing battle at the bridge table? And what of tolerance from others for the occasional yelp of pain? This too is part of getting along in a satisfactory way, no? but it is not mentioned anywhere in TFLB. But in bridge L74A2 bears no weight. For there have been many instances, the following was particularly notable: three players were engaged in a pitched battle of slanderous and evil word such that they were disruptive more than 50 feet away. With a director but 20 feet away a request was made that he dispel the naughty happenings. His refusal was absolute and forceful as it was improper for anyone but a member of the table to make such a request. Of course the tirade continued for forty minutes. Anyway, once it is determined that the game is played by two partnerships, with a deck of cards having a certain arithmetic, where the dealer rotates, and the mathematics of the auction and scoring are set, then most all the problems arise from, and, their solutions reside in L73A1. regards roger pewick From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 5 20:26:56 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:26:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <200212011901.OAA05746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20021204161842.00a10ca0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205111439.0256d980@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DEF3EEE.6040408@skynet.be> <001101c29c8f$300dc3a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c29c9c$a8d68ee0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Roger Pewick" > > > > How do you rate L74A2? > > That one is my favourite (needless to say I assume). > > > > Sven > > Well, 74A2 is a recipe for human harmony in any setting. Nothing wrong > with that. It is wonderful. Should I be hesitant to ask, lest it > breach 74A2, to what aim it speaks towards doing battle at the bridge > table? And what of tolerance from others for the occasional yelp of > pain? This too is part of getting along in a satisfactory way, no? but > it is not mentioned anywhere in TFLB. > > But in bridge L74A2 bears no weight. For there have been many > instances, the following was particularly notable: three players were > engaged in a pitched battle of slanderous and evil word such that they > were disruptive more than 50 feet away. With a director but 20 feet > away a request was made that he dispel the naughty happenings. His > refusal was absolute and forceful as it was improper for anyone but a > member of the table to make such a request. Of course the tirade > continued for forty minutes. NO WEIGHT ! ? ? ? Try that happening you describe here in Norway and I can tell you the Director would act (on his own initiative if necessary!). First a warning, and if the "noise" doesn't stop immediately (that is within a split second) a substantial PP. Except if the player (or players) involved shows any sign of being under influence of alcohol (or drugs) in which case there will be no PP, they will immediately be shown the exit door and asked not to return until they are sober and can behave. And - in that case - a compulsory report from the Director to the NBA. Tough rules, but the players know - and they behave. We enforce a "no tolerance" on L74A2. Sven From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 5 19:55:43 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:55:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. In-Reply-To: <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be> References: <5260090.1038920615781.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >> Jurgen wrote: >> >> >>>Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - >>>on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies >>>the man from rational intercourse. >>> >> >> Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, worked >together for various organisations, and - although they do not necessarily share >one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree of >spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. >> >> And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a >situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate and >"disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know what they >are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk about >it. >> >> Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. >> > > >I second this feeling. >I was not insulted by the word Belgian - that is common banter between >neighbours. > The English, the English, the English are best I won't give tuppence for all of the rest. Anyway here in England we're European, it's just that the guys across the channel are all foreign, dagos, spics, wops, krauts and worse, as indeed are most of the celts, danes and norse who live North of Potters Bar. Anyone left to be abused? 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.asimere.com/~john From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 5 22:13:02 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:13:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: Message-ID: <000401c29cac$71abfd00$0c4c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > > I don't claim to be any better schooled, but I am > intensely curious about what sort of organization would > seek to create a set of "Laws for Online Bridge" and > simultaneously sabotage the effort. I hope it's not the > same organization that advised Alan LeBendig while > he was envisioning a set of protocols for computer > vs. computer play. > +=+ Alan's problem is outwith my acquaintance. As for 'Online Laws', these were put, in draft, to the main Online Game Providers for their views prior to ratification and publication. The chief problem in setting them up was the incompatibility of software programs, one with another, across the field of Online Bridge. It was decided the approach should be to allow wide flexibility through regulation in the hands of OGPs, in the hope over time of a gradual pythonic (*Pythonesque ? :-) constriction of the prey with the best software practices surviving eventually through a process akin to natural selection. Of course, in the animal world natural selection takes thousands of generations - and looks as if it may have gone wrong anyway. ~ G ~ +=+ * non-Brits who pick this could deserve one of DB's bottles of beer and a Belgian medal of honour. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 5 22:31:32 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:31:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: <200212052231.RAA12452@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Anyone left to be abused? Well, there's us rude, crass, and arrogant yanks, but since we _are_ in fact arrogant, we don't care what you think. :-) From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Dec 5 23:23:17 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:23:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. In-Reply-To: References: <5260090.1038920615781.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:55:43 +0000, John Probst wrote: >Anyway here in England we're European, it's just that the guys across >the channel are all foreign, dagos, spics, wops, krauts and worse, as >indeed are most of the celts, danes and norse who live North of Potters >Bar. > >Anyone left to be abused? > Only you bloody Cockneys, i.e. anyone born south of Runcorn. Brian. From toddz@worldnet.att.com Fri Dec 6 01:27:37 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 20:27:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian medals of honor In-Reply-To: <000401c29cac$71abfd00$0c4c87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval > Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > > of OGPs, in the hope over time of a gradual pythonic > (*Pythonesque ? :-) constriction of the prey with the best > [snip] > * non-Brits who pick this could deserve one of DB's > bottles of beer and a Belgian medal of honour. If pick is used to mean "understand", then I'm you've either underestimated Mr. Gilliam's (who was born American) measure of international success or decided that DB is feeling generous. Monty Python is so often mentioned in casual conversation (particularly in geeky crowds) that I've made it one of my goals in life to be able to quote from the movies as well as anyone who has actually seen them. -Todd From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 6 08:31:47 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:31:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wilhelm Busch References: Message-ID: <005701c29d02$43d170d0$a92de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:14 PM Subject: [blml] Wilhelm Busch > > You'll have to ask David why he thinks this fits > the context. He and Ton couldn't quite decide > whether to declare me too stupid to understand > the BLML discussion, hence too dumb to joke > about it. > > Regards, Jürgen > +=+ What is it that makes me think the message has not been understood ? :-) +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 6 13:14:18 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:14:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: <000401c29cac$71abfd00$0c4c87d9@4nrw70j> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206081125.025836e0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:13 PM 12/5/02, grandeval wrote: >...in the hope over time of a gradual pythonic >(*Pythonesque ? :-) constriction of the prey... > ~ G ~ +=+ >* non-Brits who pick this could deserve one of DB's >bottles of beer and a Belgian medal of honour. Grattan is being far too free with David's beer; MPFC is widely known and appreciated in North America. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 6 13:40:48 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:40:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206081125.025836e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DF0A8E0.7020604@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:13 PM 12/5/02, grandeval wrote: > >> ...in the hope over time of a gradual pythonic >> (*Pythonesque ? :-) constriction of the prey... >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> * non-Brits who pick this could deserve one of DB's >> bottles of beer and a Belgian medal of honour. > > > Grattan is being far too free with David's beer; MPFC is widely known > and appreciated in North America. > Or in Belgium (remember that I am a founding member of the MP Bridge team). Rather, the word pythonic was new to me. I assume it refers to the snake of that name? But then again, I am already a permanent inclusion in David's beer list. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 6 15:39:27 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:39:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Belgian medals of honor Message-ID: <200212061539.KAA17016@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > one of my goals > in life to be able to quote from the movies as well as anyone who > has actually seen them. Some of us, even here in North America, are old enough to remember the TV shows. Or did Grattan mean the new(ish) computing language? :-) See http://www.python.org From gester@lineone.net Fri Dec 6 16:32:20 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:32:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206081125.025836e0@pop.starpower.net> <3DF0A8E0.7020604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007701c29d45$2e8a1220$741e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > Rather, the word pythonic was new to me. I > assume it refers to the snake of that name? > But then again, I am already a permanent > inclusion in David's beer list. > +=+ Herman uncovers himself as a man of distinctions and gets the first prize; consolation awards to those who got the obvious half of it right. +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Dec 6 16:38:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205115134.025642d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > At 10:28 5/12/2002 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >Ed wrote: > > > > > I see this kind of thing often in club games around here. ACBL Alert > > > regs, since March 1, 2002, have required the partner of a player > > > making > > > an opening bid of 1NT to announce the range of that bid. They don't. > > > Frequently, opener will say something, or otherwise point out the > > > error. > > > >Perhaps a technical illegality but hardly a UI problem. Since all 1N > >ranges are alertable it doesn't suggest anything (except abiding by the > >alert rules!). > > AG : it does. It suggests that the 1NT opening is defined as "natural, > range X-Y". Else partner wouldn't have any right to awaken you. Why? I'm pretty sure that in ACBL land either 1N is natural with an announceable range *or* it is alertable. Partner is expected to do something either way. Saying "Partner?" suggests neither one nor the other. Tim From shrike@surfbest.net Fri Dec 6 17:14:11 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 11:14:11 -0600 Subject: [blml] weight of 74A2 In-Reply-To: <20021206110006.17694.23760.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > From: "Sven Pran" > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:26:56 +0100 > To: "blml" > Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > From: "Roger Pewick" [snip] >> But in bridge L74A2 bears no weight. For there have been many >> instances, the following was particularly notable: three players were >> engaged in a pitched battle of slanderous and evil word such that they >> were disruptive more than 50 feet away. With a director but 20 feet >> away a request was made that he dispel the naughty happenings. His >> refusal was absolute and forceful as it was improper for anyone but a >> member of the table to make such a request. Of course the tirade >> continued for forty minutes. > > NO WEIGHT ! ? ? ? > > Try that happening you describe here in Norway and I can tell you > the Director would act (on his own initiative if necessary!). > > First a warning, and if the "noise" doesn't stop immediately (that is > within a split second) a substantial PP. Try it in ACBL-land, with me directing. And if the "slanderous" words are particularly offensive, there won't even be a warning. Now, I don't believe much of L74 belongs in the laws -- I think we could do without the whole thing, as the only important ones in my opinion (part C, items 1-4, 6, and 7 -- 8 is unimportant and I think the conduct described in 5 should be permitted) are really covered by L73. But as long as we have the conduct laws, and in ACBL we have our "zero tolerance" policy, I'll enforce them. Yes, zero tolerance in practice means some tolerance, but that's inevitable. And yes, enforcement policies vary among directors, but that's another issue. Anyway, it's unreasonable to say a law bears no weight because some (but certainly not all) directors don't enforce it properly. Doug Couchman Arlington, TX shrike@surfbest.net From rjfs48u@comcast.net Fri Dec 6 18:47:55 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:47:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <5260090.1038920615781.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009301c29d57$fd6f4a80$6601a8c0@james> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > In article <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > >> Jurgen wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - > >>>on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies > >>>the man from rational intercourse. > >>> > >> > >> Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, worked > >together for various organisations, and - although they do not necessarily share > >one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree of > >spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. > >> > >> And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a > >situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate and > >"disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know what they > >are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk about > >it. > >> > >> Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. > >> > > > > > >I second this feeling. > >I was not insulted by the word Belgian - that is common banter between > >neighbours. > > > The English, the English, the English are best > I won't give tuppence for all of the rest. > > Anyway here in England we're European, it's just that the guys across > the channel are all foreign, dagos, spics, wops, krauts and worse, as > indeed are most of the celts, danes and norse who live North of Potters > Bar. > > Anyone left to be abused? > Well there's always us colonials across the pond and the canucks and the kiwis and the aussies. As the Quaker lady once said "Everyone is a little strange save thee and me...and sometimes I wonder about thee." Besides John you nailed the eye-tays with three pejoratives and let the frogs off the hook. This sort of name calling is of course rather...well...Belgian? Perhaps I lead a sheltered life here in the USA, but I have found the Belgians of my acquaintance including all those posting here to be of generally high intelligence..if also the holders of strong opinions. What we do not need is gratuitous insults, particularly when directed to those such as Grattan, Ton and Kojak who give large amounts of time and efforts to design a code of laws that will be both acceptable and workable in a multinational setting. By all means challange the areas of law that you believe could be better phrased and constucted...that sort of input can be a value. But do not attack our "highly paid" and "much rewarded" WBF Laws Committee. Instead make your case as clearly and succinctly as possible...and save the pejoratives for those whom you do know well enough to have them taken in a friendly and jocular manner. In a global village we must needs be kind even unto the village idiot, for there will be times that we may indeed have to portray that role ourselves. Craig > 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.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rjfs48u@comcast.net Fri Dec 6 18:47:21 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:47:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <5260090.1038920615781.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008d01c29d57$e8e6a360$6601a8c0@james> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > In article <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > >> Jurgen wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - > >>>on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies > >>>the man from rational intercourse. > >>> > >> > >> Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, worked > >together for various organisations, and - although they do not necessarily share > >one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree of > >spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. > >> > >> And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a > >situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate and > >"disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know what they > >are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk about > >it. > >> > >> Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. > >> > > > > > >I second this feeling. > >I was not insulted by the word Belgian - that is common banter between > >neighbours. > > > The English, the English, the English are best > I won't give tuppence for all of the rest. > > Anyway here in England we're European, it's just that the guys across > the channel are all foreign, dagos, spics, wops, krauts and worse, as > indeed are most of the celts, danes and norse who live North of Potters > Bar. > > Anyone left to be abused? > Well there's always us colonials across the pond and the canucks and the kiwis and the aussies. As the Quaker lady once said "Everyone is a little strange save thee and me...and sometimes I wonder about thee." Besides John you nailed the eye-tays with three pejoratives and let the frogs off the hook. This sort of name calling is of course rather...well...Belgian? Perhaps I lead a sheltered life here in the USA, but I have found the Belgians of my acquaintance including all those posting here to be of generally high intelligence..if also the holders of strong opinions. What we do not need is gratuitous insults, particularly when directed to those such as Grattan, Ton and Kojak who give large amounts of time and efforts to design a code of laws that will be both acceptable and workable in a multinational setting. By all means challange the areas of law that you believe could be better phrased and constucted...that sort of input can be a value. But do not attack our "highly paid" and "much rewarded" WBF Laws Committee. Instead make your case as clearly and succinctly as possible...and save the pejoratives for those whom you do know well enough to have them taken in a friendly and jocular manner. In a global village we must needs be kind even unto the village idiot, for there will be times that we may indeed have to portray that role ourselves. Craig > 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.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rjfs48u@comcast.net Fri Dec 6 18:50:37 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:50:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: <000701c29d58$5e2cc370$6601a8c0@james> ----- Original Message ----- From: "rjfs48u" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > > > In article <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > > writes > > >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > > > >> Jurgen wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - > > >>>on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies > > >>>the man from rational intercourse. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, > worked > > >together for various organisations, and - although they do not > necessarily share > > >one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree > of > > >spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. > > >> > > >> And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a > > >situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate > and > > >"disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know > what they > > >are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk > about > > >it. > > >> > > >> Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. > > >> > > > > > > > > >I second this feeling. > > >I was not insulted by the word Belgian - that is common banter between > > >neighbours. > > > > > The English, the English, the English are best > > I won't give tuppence for all of the rest. > > > > Anyway here in England we're European, it's just that the guys across > > the channel are all foreign, dagos, spics, wops, krauts and worse, as > > indeed are most of the celts, danes and norse who live North of Potters > > Bar. > > > > Anyone left to be abused? > > > > Well there's always us colonials across the pond and the canucks and the > kiwis and the aussies. As the Quaker lady once said "Everyone is a little > strange save thee and me...and sometimes I wonder about thee." Besides John > you nailed the eye-tays with three pejoratives and let the frogs off the > hook. This sort of name calling is of course rather...well...Belgian? > Perhaps I lead a sheltered life here in the USA, but I have found the > Belgians of my acquaintance including all those posting here to be of > generally high intelligence..if also the holders of strong opinions. > > What we do not need is gratuitous insults, particularly when directed to > those such as Grattan, Ton and Kojak who give large amounts of time and > efforts to design a code of laws that will be both acceptable and workable > in a multinational setting. By all means challange the areas of law that you > believe could be better phrased and constucted...that sort of input can be a > value. But do not attack our "highly paid" and "much rewarded" WBF Laws > Committee. Instead make your case as clearly and succinctly as > possible...and save the pejoratives for those whom you do know well enough > to have them taken in a friendly and jocular manner. In a global village we > must needs be kind even unto the village idiot, for there will be times that > we may indeed have to portray that role ourselves. > > Craig > > > > 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.asimere.com/~john > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rjfs48u@comcast.net Fri Dec 6 18:52:01 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:52:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: <001b01c29d58$8fdf8ab0$6601a8c0@james> ----- Original Message ----- From: "rjfs48u" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > > > In article <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > > writes > > >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > > > >> Jurgen wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - > > >>>on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies > > >>>the man from rational intercourse. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, > worked > > >together for various organisations, and - although they do not > necessarily share > > >one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree > of > > >spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. > > >> > > >> And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a > > >situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate > and > > >"disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know > what they > > >are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk > about > > >it. > > >> > > >> Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. > > >> > > > > > > > > >I second this feeling. > > >I was not insulted by the word Belgian - that is common banter between > > >neighbours. > > > > > The English, the English, the English are best > > I won't give tuppence for all of the rest. > > > > Anyway here in England we're European, it's just that the guys across > > the channel are all foreign, dagos, spics, wops, krauts and worse, as > > indeed are most of the celts, danes and norse who live North of Potters > > Bar. > > > > Anyone left to be abused? > > > > Well there's always us colonials across the pond and the canucks and the > kiwis and the aussies. As the Quaker lady once said "Everyone is a little > strange save thee and me...and sometimes I wonder about thee." Besides John > you nailed the eye-tays with three pejoratives and let the frogs off the > hook. This sort of name calling is of course rather...well...Belgian? > Perhaps I lead a sheltered life here in the USA, but I have found the > Belgians of my acquaintance including all those posting here to be of > generally high intelligence..if also the holders of strong opinions. > > What we do not need is gratuitous insults, particularly when directed to > those such as Grattan, Ton and Kojak who give large amounts of time and > efforts to design a code of laws that will be both acceptable and workable > in a multinational setting. By all means challange the areas of law that you > believe could be better phrased and constucted...that sort of input can be a > value. But do not attack our "highly paid" and "much rewarded" WBF Laws > Committee. Instead make your case as clearly and succinctly as > possible...and save the pejoratives for those whom you do know well enough > to have them taken in a friendly and jocular manner. In a global village we > must needs be kind even unto the village idiot, for there will be times that > we may indeed have to portray that role ourselves. > > Craig > > > > 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.asimere.com/~john > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rjfs48u@comcast.net Fri Dec 6 18:53:01 2002 From: rjfs48u@comcast.net (rjfs48u) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:53:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. Message-ID: <002101c29d58$b4105f90$6601a8c0@james> ----- Original Message ----- From: "rjfs48u" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > > > In article <3DEDBC46.2040405@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael > > writes > > >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > > > >> Jurgen wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>Insinuating stupidity - or any other general characteristic - > > >>>on the grounds of nationality certainly disqualifies > > >>>the man from rational intercourse. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Well, here are Ton and Herman, who have known each other for years, > worked > > >together for various organisations, and - although they do not > necessarily share > > >one another's views - may be said to have reached a stage where a degree > of > > >spirited rhetoric from one will not be taken amiss by the other. > > >> > > >> And here is some lunatic who wishes to impose his code of ethics in a > > >situation to which it is totally irrelevant, in an effort to denigrate > and > > >"disqualify" one of the two or three people in this forum who (a) know > what they > > >are talking about and (b) are better qualified than anyone else to talk > about > > >it. > > >> > > >> Jurgen, please go and poison some other atmosphere. > > >> > > > > > > > > >I second this feeling. > > >I was not insulted by the word Belgian - that is common banter between > > >neighbours. > > > > > The English, the English, the English are best > > I won't give tuppence for all of the rest. > > > > Anyway here in England we're European, it's just that the guys across > > the channel are all foreign, dagos, spics, wops, krauts and worse, as > > indeed are most of the celts, danes and norse who live North of Potters > > Bar. > > > > Anyone left to be abused? > > > > Well there's always us colonials across the pond and the canucks and the > kiwis and the aussies. As the Quaker lady once said "Everyone is a little > strange save thee and me...and sometimes I wonder about thee." Besides John > you nailed the eye-tays with three pejoratives and let the frogs off the > hook. This sort of name calling is of course rather...well...Belgian? > Perhaps I lead a sheltered life here in the USA, but I have found the > Belgians of my acquaintance including all those posting here to be of > generally high intelligence..if also the holders of strong opinions. > > What we do not need is gratuitous insults, particularly when directed to > those such as Grattan, Ton and Kojak who give large amounts of time and > efforts to design a code of laws that will be both acceptable and workable > in a multinational setting. By all means challange the areas of law that you > believe could be better phrased and constucted...that sort of input can be a > value. But do not attack our "highly paid" and "much rewarded" WBF Laws > Committee. Instead make your case as clearly and succinctly as > possible...and save the pejoratives for those whom you do know well enough > to have them taken in a friendly and jocular manner. In a global village we > must needs be kind even unto the village idiot, for there will be times that > we may indeed have to portray that role ourselves. > > Craig > > > > 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.asimere.com/~john > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 6 21:20:40 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:20:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: <3DF0A8E0.7020604@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206081125.025836e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206155741.02583c40@pop.starpower.net> At 08:40 AM 12/6/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 05:13 PM 12/5/02, grandeval wrote: >> >>>...in the hope over time of a gradual pythonic >>>(*Pythonesque ? :-) constriction of the prey... >>> ~ G ~ +=+ >>>* non-Brits who pick this could deserve one of DB's >>>bottles of beer and a Belgian medal of honour. >> >>Grattan is being far too free with David's beer; MPFC is widely known >>and appreciated in North America. > >Or in Belgium (remember that I am a founding member of the MP Bridge >team). >Rather, the word pythonic was new to me. I assume it refers to the >snake of that name? Sorry, but no. Pythonesque: Of, pertaining to or resembling Monty Python's Flying Circus. MPFC was a (progressive? experimental? bizarre?) and, in retrospect, rather influential British comedy troupe that made a series of the same name for British TV (plus, later, several movies) some decades back (IIRC, they were Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones & Michael Palin). Their humour was distinctly British but appreciated in many other countries, although not, unfortunately, of the sort that could stand up to translation from English, which is probably why they are little known on the continent. >But then again, I am already a permanent inclusion in David's beer list. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Fri Dec 6 23:23:46 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:23:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <002101c29d7e$936057c0$a39690d4@rabbit> "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > Well, you can often hear a lot of whispering going on the > > other side of the screen, so that you know > > at least that partner thinks your call (or, > > more importantly, his call) needs explaining to his screen-mate. David, if your partner does not use written explanations, blame him, not the screens. I always write down my own explanations, I always ask my screenmate to write down his explanations as well (albeit not always successfully), and I expect to get ruled against in some MI situation if I did not write down my explanations. > Why me here? Are you suggesting that I am > living on my own unrealistic planet? > I might be one of the few people around combining the > opinions that we might abandon appeal committees > and screens without suffering severe losses. > The only advantage I hear for using screens nowadays > is to be relieved from partners face. Screens do significantly reduce UI and tempo problems. You can't see that certain smile on partner's face, you won't notice if he hesitates for three seconds, and you don't get to see any questions he writes down, nor do you get to see his written explanations. Playing with screens, I hardly ever have the TD at my table because of UI. And with written explanations, the TD gets to see the explanations, making rulings easier. Thomas From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Dec 7 01:05:32 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 02:05:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: Message-ID: <00aa01c29d8e$afd3b7c0$739790d4@rabbit> "Jürgen Rennenkampff" wrote: > Kooijman, A.: > > >[...] > > >I don't know what dWS is, ... > > >I don't know what CIS is, ... > > >[...] > > >Could you try to use this > >information as input for your Belgium brains? > > >[...] > > With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > comprehending the arguments of others, and your > insufficient command of English, you have > totally disqualified yourself. Pot. Kettle. Black. Thomas From adam@irvine.com Sat Dec 7 01:35:40 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:35:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:05:32 +0100." <00aa01c29d8e$afd3b7c0$739790d4@rabbit> Message-ID: <200212070135.RAA31738@mailhub.irvine.com> Thomas Dehn wrote: > "Jürgen Rennenkampff" wrote: > > Kooijman, A.: > > > > >[...] > > > > >I don't know what dWS is, ... > > > > >I don't know what CIS is, ... > > > > >[...] > > > > >Could you try to use this > > >information as input for your Belgium brains? > > > > >[...] > > > > With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > > comprehending the arguments of others, and your > > insufficient command of English, you have > > totally disqualified yourself. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. Does it strike anyone else here as ironic that we have here a German criticizing another German for slamming a Dutchman for insufficient command of English? :) -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Dec 7 07:19:49 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 07:19:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206081125.025836e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021206155741.02583c40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301c29dc1$1f69c6b0$9b45e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > >Or in Belgium (remember that I am a founding member of the MP Bridge > >team). > >Rather, the word pythonic was new to me. I assume it refers to the > >snake of that name? > > Sorry, but no. > > Pythonesque: Of, pertaining to or resembling > Monty Python's Flying Circus. > +=+ Come on, Eric, catch up. Herman correctly identified that Pythonesque refers as you say to MPFC and that the correct adjective relating to the snake is 'pythonic'. ~ G ~ +=+ From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Dec 7 07:41:41 2002 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 07:41:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] 12C1 Message-ID: <004601c29dc4$155ca860$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Tables 8 and 1 share boards (Hesitation Mitchell) NS 1 are stationary At Table 8 the EW pairs swivel Table 8 plays and scores Board 17 and passes it to Table 1 who also play and score it but in returning the cards to the board contrive to rotate them 90 degrees The Board is then mistakenly passed back to Table 1, who are waiting for the "board they haven't played". They replay the board with the arrowswitched cards - no one recognising their opponents cards (Completely different contract 3NT instead of 2S ) - When they try to score the board they stilll do not realise their error but call the TD and complain that somethings gone wrong because EW now have the Spades not NS as the previous scores on the traveller suggests) - The move has been called by this time and the TD moves them on and checks the hand orientation and the traveller, He works out what has happened - and obviously the first score stands but Board 18 is now unplayed. One pair say "Can we play Board 18 at the end?" Should the TD accede to this request? If not what score should he assign the players at Table 8 for Board 18? mike From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 7 07:40:59 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 07:40:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <200212070135.RAA31738@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001901c29dc4$444ddea0$293d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Cc: Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 1:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > > With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > > > comprehending the arguments of others, and your > > > insufficient command of English, you have > > > totally disqualified yourself. > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > Does it strike anyone else here as ironic that we > have here a German criticizing another German for > slamming a Dutchman for insufficient command of > English? :) > +=+ In this highly amusing episode the onlooker has been rolling about in the aisles as a variety of contributors distinguish themselves in the bumptious pomposity of debating the English language of a man who, himself, is sufficiently adult to admit gracefully from time to time that he finds some point of English language difficult. I have always found it possible to argue robustly with ton about a matter of language in the laws, without loss of esteem, and I like him for it. It would be fitting in my view if we would allow one German to finish what another began. And, yes, your point is well made. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Dec 7 08:34:39 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 09:34:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <200212070135.RAA31738@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002201c29dcc$d3e0a7c0$e39490d4@rabbit> "Adam Beneschan" > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > "Jürgen Rennenkampff" wrote: > > > Kooijman, A.: > > > > > > >[...] > > > > > > >I don't know what dWS is, ... > > > > > > >I don't know what CIS is, ... > > > > > > >[...] > > > > > > >Could you try to use this > > > >information as input for your Belgium brains? > > > > > > >[...] > > > > > > With this outrageous comment, your difficulty > > > comprehending the arguments of others, and your > > > insufficient command of English, you have > > > totally disqualified yourself. > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > Does it strike anyone else here as ironic that we have here a German > criticizing another German for slamming a Dutchman for insufficient > command of English? :) I can resists anything but temptation. ;-) I wasn't referring to Juergen's knowledge of English, but to his own "difficulty (in) comprehending the arguments of others", including those of Ton, and the cute combination of "outrageous comment" and "totally disqualified yourself". Then, as a German, Juergen should be aware of Pi's law: by putting his opponent's name into the subject line, he has automatically conceited defeat. Thomas From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 7 08:12:49 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 08:12:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <002101c29d7e$936057c0$a39690d4@rabbit> Message-ID: <002901c29dcd$59012920$293d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > > Screens do significantly reduce UI and tempo problems. > You can't see that certain smile on partner's face, > you won't notice if he hesitates for three seconds, > and you don't get to see any questions he writes down, > nor do you get to see his written explanations. > Playing with screens, I hardly ever have the > TD at my table because of UI. > > And with written explanations, the TD gets to see the > explanations, making rulings easier. > > Thomas > +=+ We cannot say, of course, how often Thomas has the Director to his table, but for the rest appeals committees, in my experience, find all of this to be true. In particular the increased difficulty when explanations have not been written is frequently enough at the heart of a problem. Players will be players and, alas, we shall not change their abridgement of all they find tedious in bridge. So, if to dispense with has its price, the price must be paid. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 7 08:52:25 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 08:52:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <200212070135.RAA31738@mailhub.irvine.com> <002201c29dcc$d3e0a7c0$e39490d4@rabbit> Message-ID: <003501c29dce$0f07fa00$293d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > Then, as a German, Juergen should be aware of Pi's law: > by putting his opponent's name into the subject line, he > has automatically conceited defeat. > > > Thomas > +=+ Or even conceded ? +=+ From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Dec 7 16:42:14 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:42:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <200212070135.RAA31738@mailhub.irvine.com> <002201c29dcc$d3e0a7c0$e39490d4@rabbit> <003501c29dce$0f07fa00$293d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000001c29e24$81acec40$a69590d4@rabbit> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Then, as a German, Juergen should be aware of Pi's law: > > by putting his opponent's name into the subject line, he > > has automatically conceited defeat. > > > > > > Thomas > > > +=+ Or even conceded ? +=+ conceived ;-) Thomas From jurgenr@t-online.de Sat Dec 7 20:55:46 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:55:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reading Message-ID: As you all know, I have trouble with reading - also with riting and rithmeticking, but that isn't relevant now. I read the following in the Phoenix NABC Bulletin (7-12-02): -------begin quote------------ His first real directing adventure came in 1964. “I was accused of murder by the partner of a player who died of a heart attack after I gave a ruling against him. There was no basis for the accusation, but Harry Goldwater heard about it and asked for me to be assigned to his tournaments. ‘I want anyone who can give rulings like that,’ he said. “On my first assignment in New York, Harry said, ‘Get me five appeals this session’. I got him six! One resulted in a suspension for cheating.” -------end quote---------- The context makes it apparent that this behavior is to be admired, and I don't understand why. Would somebody please explain? Jürgen From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 8 03:32:44 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 03:32:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Reading References: Message-ID: <004701c29e6a$7c7ec540$329868d5@default> Phoenix NABC Bulletin] His first real directing adventure came in 1964. "I was accused of murder by the partner of a player who died of a heart attack after I gave a ruling against him. There was no basis for the accusation, but Harry Goldwater heard about it and asked for me to be assigned to his tournaments. 'I want anyone who can give rulings like that,' he said. "On my first assignment in New York, Harry said, 'Get me five appeals this session'. I got him six! One resulted in a suspension for cheating." [Jürgen Rennenkampff] The context makes it apparent that this behavior is to be admired, and I don't understand why. Would somebody please explain? [Nigel Guthrie] I cannot explain why Harry would want a TD who would induce heart attacks but I can understand why he would want one prepared to rule against experts -- which the author appears to have done on no fewer than six occasions. (: Presumably these rulings were overturned by crony dominated ACs :) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 8 04:08:29 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 04:08:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Reading Message-ID: <000f01c29e6f$7bc40e80$1e9468d5@default> [corrected] [Phoenix NABC Bulletin] His first real directing adventure came in 1964 "I was accused of murder by the partner of a player who died of a heart attack after I gave a ruling against him. There was no basis for the accusation, but Harry Goldwater heard about it and asked for me to be assigned to his tournaments. 'I want anyone who can give rulings like that,' he said. "On my first assignment in New York, Harry said, 'Get me five appeals this session'. I got him six! One resulted in a suspension for cheating." [Jürgen Rennenkampff] The context makes it apparent that this behavior is to be admired, and I don't understand why. Would somebody please explain? [Nigel Guthrie] I cannot explain why Harry would want a TD who would induce heart attacks but I can understand why he would want one prepared to rule against experts -- which the author appears to have done on no fewer than six occasions. (: And at least one of his rulings was not overturned by crony dominated ACs :) From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Sun Dec 8 08:50:31 2002 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 10:50:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <007501c29e96$de2d7800$434c003e@mycomputer> From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 8 09:38:20 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:38:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. References: <200212070135.RAA31738@mailhub.irvine.com> <002201c29dcc$d3e0a7c0$e39490d4@rabbit> <003501c29dce$0f07fa00$293d87d9@4nrw70j> <000001c29e24$81acec40$a69590d4@rabbit> Message-ID: <002401c29e9d$a6a1c970$414ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Then, as a German, Juergen should be aware of Pi's law: > > > by putting his opponent's name into the subject line, he > > > has automatically conceited defeat. > > > > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > +=+ Or even conceded ? +=+ > > conceived ;-) > > > Thomas > +=+ Conception can certainly be a risk. But we deal more frequently with misconception in this ward. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 8 09:35:50 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:35:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Reading References: Message-ID: <002301c29e9d$a572e660$414ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 8:55 PM Subject: [blml] Reading > As you all know, I have trouble with reading - also > with riting and rithmeticking, but that isn't > relevant now. > > I read the following in the Phoenix NABC > Bulletin (7-12-02): > +=+ Now I have to guess whether this is 12th July or 7th December +=+ < > -------begin quote------------ > His first real directing adventure came in 1964. “I > was accused of murder by the partner of a player who > died of a heart attack after I gave a ruling against him. > There was no basis for the accusation, but Harry > Goldwater heard about it and asked for me to be assigned > to his tournaments. ‘I want anyone who can > give rulings like that,’ he said. > > “On my first assignment in New York, Harry said, > ‘Get me five appeals this session’. I got him six! One > resulted in a suspension for cheating.” > -------end quote---------- > > The context makes it apparent that this behavior > is to be admired, and I don't understand why. Would > somebody please explain? > > Jürgen > +=+ When in doubt assume irony. I speak as an exponent of the genre. +=+ ['Irony': the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.] From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 8 09:41:48 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:41:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <007501c29e96$de2d7800$434c003e@mycomputer> Message-ID: <003201c29e9e$2009f4e0$414ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 8:50 AM Subject: [blml] (no subject) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nancy@dressing.org Sun Dec 8 13:48:12 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 08:48:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <007501c29e96$de2d7800$434c003e@mycomputer> <003201c29e9e$2009f4e0$414ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <002e01c29ec0$732ddc50$6401a8c0@hare> And one of the few that was absolutely on the topic!! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 4:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] (no subject) > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Name Change should follow: > 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > to be > 'Society for the Enhancement of the Quality > of Understanding of the English Language" > ( 'SEQUEL' ) > ================================ > +=+ One of the most intelligent submissions ever > to blml. ! +=+ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 8:50 AM > Subject: [blml] (no subject) > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Schoderb@aol.com Fri Dec 6 00:56:14 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:56:14 EST Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: <146.44c9182.2b214fae@aol.com> --part1_146.44c9182.2b214fae_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Got me!!! I can't resist any longer responding to this thread. Grattan, you are wasting your good time, efforts, and energies trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. There are those who are so far above all the rest of us, that there is no reaching them with logic, pleas, intelligent quid-pro-quo, or simple explanation. They have always been with us, see the meglomanics of the past few centuries, and will continue to make flatulent noises without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about. I appreciate your humanity in making them into humans, but I am convinced it is a thankless and fruitless task. Save your energies for the great, important, and difficult task ahead without piddling away any efforts to talk to the ignorant. Kojak --part1_146.44c9182.2b214fae_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Got me!!!

I can't resist any longer responding to this thread.  Grattan, you are wasting your good time, efforts, and energies trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

There are those who are so far above all the rest of us, that there is no reaching them with logic, pleas, intelligent quid-pro-quo, or simple explanation.  They have always been with us, see the meglomanics of the past few centuries, and will continue to make flatulent noises without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about.

I appreciate your humanity in making them into humans, but I am convinced it is a thankless and fruitless task.

Save your energies for the great, important, and difficult task ahead without piddling away any efforts to talk to the ignorant.

Kojak --part1_146.44c9182.2b214fae_boundary-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 8 16:53:07 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:53:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wilhelm Busch References: Message-ID: <005f01c29eda$4d387540$569d68d5@default> [David Burn] [Wilhelm Busch] > Es sitzt ein Vogel auf dem Leim, > Der flattert sehr und kann nicht heim. > Ein schwarzer Kater schleicht herzu, > Die Krallen scharf, die Augen gluh. > Am Baum hinauf und immer h=F6her > Kommt er dem armen Vogel n=E4her. > Der Vogel denkt: "Weil das so ist > Und weil der Kater doch mich fri=DFt > So will ich keine Zeit verlieren, > Will noch ein wenig quinquilieren > Und lustig pfeifen wie zuvor". > Der Vogel, scheint mir, hat Humor. [Jürgen Rennenkampff] Wilhelm Busch (1832-1906) was a humorist, known and admired by most Germans. Wrote and illustrated doggerel verse. Completely untranslatable, of course. Usually, as in the case above, the form rather than the content is funny: A bird is caught on a lime-twig; a cat approaches. So the bird decides, as there is no escape, that it might as well continue singing cheerfully as before. And the last line says; This bird, it seems to me, has a sense of humor. You'll have to ask David why he thinks this fits the context. He and Ton couldn't quite decide whether to declare me too stupid to understand the BLML discussion, hence too dumb to joke about it. [Nigel Guthrie] David, thank you for the poem; and Jürgen, thank you for the context and translation -- to my simple mind it is a fable of the human condition. In general, BLMLers are as subtle as charging rhinos so I reckon David and Grattan are giving you the "Bird" (: role :). But why? They cannot object to your language because neither are averse to "robust" (i.e. offensive) remarks. So I guess that one of the points that you argue has pricked a raw nerve. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Dec 8 17:09:29 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:09:29 -0800 Subject: [blml] David talks to ACBL TDs Message-ID: <000a01c29edc$96d488e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> David Stevenson was invited to address a group of ACBL TDs for three hours one recent morning at the NABC in Phoenix. When I asked him how this would be structured, he said he would start out with a few items of his own and then have an open discussion. I tried to crash the meeting, of course, "just to take a few pictures of David for his web site," but CTD Rick Beye would not let me in. Later I ran into David in the hotel lobby and asked him how it went. As I remember, he said, "It was a bit rocky at first, but then we had some fun." Still later I ran into Mike Flader, author of the "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL's *Bridge Bulletin*. When I asked him how the meeting went, he said, "How would you feel if the first thing a speaker did was to insult you?" Further inquiry revealed that David had started out by saying something like this to the assembled TDs: "For organizing a tournament, there is no one else I would rather have than you. If I were playing, you are the last ones I would like to see at my table." What a great opening statement! By copy of this message, I ask David to fill us in on what transpired after that. Or would Rick Beye forbid it? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sun Dec 8 17:58:50 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:58:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <002101c29d7e$936057c0$a39690d4@rabbit> <002901c29dcd$59012920$293d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <008501c29ee3$8e7089e0$8f9490d4@rabbit> "grandeval" wrote: > > Screens do significantly reduce UI and tempo problems. > > You can't see that certain smile on partner's face, > > you won't notice if he hesitates for three seconds, > > and you don't get to see any questions he writes down, > > nor do you get to see his written explanations. > > Playing with screens, I hardly ever have the > > TD at my table because of UI. > > > > And with written explanations, the TD gets to see the > > explanations, making rulings easier. > > > +=+ We cannot say, of course, how often Thomas has > the Director to his table, but for the rest appeals committees, > in my experience, find all of this to be true. In particular the > increased difficulty when explanations have not been written > is frequently enough at the heart of a problem. > Players will be players and, alas, we shall not change > their abridgement of all they find tedious in bridge. So, if to > dispense with has its price, the price must be paid. There is one problem with screens: they do cost a lot of time. I am usually one of the fastest players in the room, but I do get in time trouble when playing with screens. Probably some players do not use written explanations simply because they cost extra time. Thomas From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 8 19:33:29 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:33:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: <146.44c9182.2b214fae@aol.com> Message-ID: <00e201c29ef0$d64e71c0$569d68d5@default> {Nigel Guthrie] "BLMLers are megalomaniac subhuman ignorant farts" What merits Kojak's tirade? Has some sacrilegious swine turned his snout up at a TFLB pearl of wisdom cast before him? Has some blasphemous bird questioned the infallibility of the WBFLC? The Ministry of Information should investigate immediately! Or perhaps Grattan in his infinite mercy can vouchsafe us forgiveness again. [Kojak] Got me!!! I can't resist any longer responding to this thread. Grattan, you are wasting your good time, efforts, and energies trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. There are those who are so far above all the rest of us, that there is no reaching them with logic, pleas, intelligent quid-pro-quo, or simple explanation. They have always been with us, see the meglomanics of the past few centuries, and will continue to make flatulent noises without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about. I appreciate your humanity in making them into humans, but I am convinced it is a thankless and fruitless task. Save your energies for the great, important, and difficult task ahead without piddling away any efforts to talk to the ignorant. Kojak From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 8 19:50:39 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:50:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] David talks to ACBL TDs References: <000a01c29edc$96d488e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ea01c29ef3$1b9227c0$569d68d5@default> [David Stevenson] "For organizing a tournament, there is no one else I would rather have than you. If I were playing, you are the last ones I would like to see at my table." [Marvin L. French] What a great opening statement! By copy of this message, I ask David to fill us in on what transpired after that. Or would Rick Beye forbid it? [Nigel Guthrie] David seems to be in awe of his audience -- he welcomes them as TDs but fears them as opponents. A severe critic might quibble that his introduction was a bit smarmy; but how can Mike Flader read an insult into it? From toddz@worldnet.att.com Sun Dec 8 19:54:58 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:54:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] David talks to ACBL TDs In-Reply-To: <00ea01c29ef3$1b9227c0$569d68d5@default> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > [Nigel Guthrie] > David seems to be in awe of his audience -- he > welcomes them as TDs but fears them as opponents. > A severe critic might quibble that his > introduction was a bit smarmy; but how can Mike > Flader read an insult into it? One of us missed a nuance. I read that their organizational skills are great, but their rulings are bad and understood nothing about them as players. -Todd From toddz@worldnet.att.com Sun Dec 8 20:20:26 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:20:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: <00e201c29ef0$d64e71c0$569d68d5@default> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Guthrie > Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > > {Nigel Guthrie] > "BLMLers are megalomaniac subhuman ignorant farts" > What merits Kojak's tirade? I don't know. As he likes to edit out all content, some people are left wondering what he's responding to. He's responding to a post by Grattan which was a response to one of mine where I ask who would "sabotage the effort [of creating laws for online bridge]." I, for one, greatly appreciate Grattan's cogent contributions. Specifically in this thread, I come to understand that the WBFLC cannot realistically ask for or impose broad changes upon internet bridge sites all at once. So changes will be made slowly over time hopefully constricting the sites and establishing clout for the WBFLC. Or maybe I am hopeless to understand. *shrug* -Todd From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 9 00:28:44 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 00:28:44 -0000 Subject: Unholy Truth (was Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions) References: <4A256C82.007DB589.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003601c29b97$c1df5080$649c68d5@default> <001801c29baf$5a96a780$90242850@pacific> Message-ID: <017001c29f19$f29a6a40$569d68d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ If current ideas prosper the Proprieties will disappear, as such. Essential matters extracted from the former Proprieties will be compacted into the substantive laws, as part of the elimination of duplicated references to subjects. For example, to have 75C off on its own, away from Law 20, is an evident inefficiency. +=+ [Nigel Guthrie] I hope WBFLC reconsiders. IMO, "Proprieties" used to have a useful function -- to remind people of good manners where it was hard to define an enforceable law e.g. you should be open in disclosures. e.g. you should own up to breaking the law even if opponents do not notice (as Richard Hills suggests). A friend who plays correspondence chess says he wishes there was a "Propriety" to ban computers from analyzing positions or checking your moves. Quite a good example of an "unenforceable" law. He thinks that had there been such a "Propriety" then correspondence players might have complied with it; and lack of such a "Propriety" has altered the nature of correspondence chess and almost killed it. I suppose the demise of "Proprieties" will have beneficial effects. e.g. Kaplan & Pro questions will become legal -- as a ban is unenforceable except by telepaths. From nancy@dressing.org Mon Dec 9 00:53:51 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:53:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: Message-ID: <001b01c29f1d$70caebd0$6401a8c0@hare> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 3:20 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Belgian Horses > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nigel Guthrie > > Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > > > > {Nigel Guthrie] > > "BLMLers are megalomaniac subhuman ignorant farts" > > What merits Kojak's tirade? > > I don't know. Kojak is using AOL which doesn't allow the message he is responding to to be displayed. He is not editing out the message he is responding to. AOL does it automatically. It would help all of us if he could find a way to get around that!! Nancy > As he likes to edit out all content, some people are left > wondering what he's responding to. He's responding to a post by > Grattan which was a response to one of mine where I ask who would > "sabotage the effort [of creating laws for online bridge]." > > I, for one, greatly appreciate Grattan's cogent contributions. > Specifically in this thread, I come to understand that the WBFLC > cannot realistically ask for or impose broad changes upon internet > bridge sites all at once. So changes will be made slowly over > time hopefully constricting the sites and establishing clout for > the WBFLC. Or maybe I am hopeless to understand. *shrug* > > -Todd > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz@worldnet.att.com Mon Dec 9 01:19:15 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:19:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: <001b01c29f1d$70caebd0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Nancy T Dressing > Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > As he likes to edit out all content.... > > Kojak is using AOL which doesn't allow the message he > is responding to to be > displayed. He is not editing out the message he is > responding to. AOL does > it automatically. It would help all of us if he could > find a way to get around that!! Oh, I didn't know that. I'm not familiar at all with AOL's mail reader, but is there no forward option he can use rather than reply to? -Todd From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 9 01:53:59 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:53:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law online References: Message-ID: <01c101c29f27$c4281fa0$569d68d5@default> [Todd Zimnoch in another thread] I, for one, greatly appreciate Grattan's cogent contributions. Specifically in this thread, I come to understand that the WBFLC cannot realistically ask for or impose broad changes upon internet bridge sites all at once. So changes will be made slowly over time hopefully constricting the sites and establishing clout for the WBFLC. Or maybe I am hopeless to understand. *shrug* [Nigel Guthrie] The WBFLC is doing its best but perhaps those of us who occasionally play on-line bridge can help them with suggestions. Random thoughts... I like the way that software prevents most mechanical errors e.g. exposed cards, bids/plays out of turn, leads from wrong hand. revokes and insufficient bids. IMO that should be enshrined in on-line law. Even at ordinary bridge, some players like Eric Crowhurst often refuse to enforce mechanical error penalties. IMO, there should be an on-line questionnaire about methods (with defaults to SAYC, "standard" Acol or whatever) to produce a comprehensive CC rather than the outline version on most sites or at ordinary bridge. IMO, the software should display the meaning from your CC, of each bid that you make (to opponents only). IMO, if the software cannot detect the bidding pattern on the CC, it should prompt the bidder to explain his bid (again to opponents only). Examples of unenforceable "proprieties" at on-line bridge are that you must not communicate with partner except through bids and plays; nor may you use any additional hardware or software to help you play. (: If you have ever played "Spades" on the Microsoft Zone, you will know that partner will use "Messenger" software to try to tell you what to do:). (:(: Oh.. you must not "partner" yourself :):) Spurious "disconnections" are another problem. (Cheats disconnect as soon as the finesse for their grand slam loses in the hope that the software won't score the board against them). I reckon such boards should be played out by a substitute robot and the board scored as usual. There should be a kind of "lint" program to perform regression tests to ensure that on-line bridge sites present a similar play interface and enforce the latest on-line laws correctly. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 9 02:06:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:06:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses References: <001b01c29f1d$70caebd0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <01c201c29f27$c52b85e0$569d68d5@default> Hi Nancy, Kojak, I don't know AOL. Do you mean AOL does not allow "Cut and Paste"? In MS windows... Hold down left mouse button and pass mouse over the text that you want to include. Hold down and press letter "C" - to cut the text from the original. Click in your composed message or reply. Hold down and press letter "V" - to paste it into the new message. Regards, Nigel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Todd Zimnoch" ; "BLML" Sent: 09 December 2002 00:53 Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 3:20 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Belgian Horses > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nigel Guthrie > > Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > > > > {Nigel Guthrie] > > "BLMLers are megalomaniac subhuman ignorant farts" > > What merits Kojak's tirade? > > I don't know. Kojak is using AOL which doesn't allow the message he is responding to to be displayed. He is not editing out the message he is responding to. AOL does it automatically. It would help all of us if he could find a way to get around that!! Nancy > As he likes to edit out all content, some people are left > wondering what he's responding to. He's responding to a post by > Grattan which was a response to one of mine where I ask who would > "sabotage the effort [of creating laws for online bridge]." > > I, for one, greatly appreciate Grattan's cogent contributions. > Specifically in this thread, I come to understand that the WBFLC > cannot realistically ask for or impose broad changes upon internet > bridge sites all at once. So changes will be made slowly over > time hopefully constricting the sites and establishing clout for > the WBFLC. Or maybe I am hopeless to understand. *shrug* > > -Todd > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Dec 9 03:23:49 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:23:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: <001b01c29f1d$70caebd0$6401a8c0@hare> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021208221424.028a0c30@mail.fscv.net> At 07:53 PM 8/12/2002, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Kojak is using AOL which doesn't allow the message he is responding to to be >displayed. He is not editing out the message he is responding to. AOL does >it automatically. It would help all of us if he could find a way to get >around that!! Nancy One way around the problem of AOL not quoting the message to which it is replying is to: 1. copy the address of the sender (in this case the "sender" is "BLML" ") 2. forward the message instead of replying to it 3. paste the address of the sender in the TO: line This won't give you a line beside the quote, but it will give you the quote. Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 05:07:16 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:07:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics Message-ID: <4A256C8A.001A9308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> One problem a Director in a small club has is that you occasionally rule against friends. Auction: Friend South West North 3D 3S 5D Double(1) Pass Pass Redouble Pass Pass 5S All pass (1) Break in tempo. I subsequently ruled that, after the redouble, South's cards meant that bidding 5S was the only logical alternative. My friend took issue with the ruling I made, and made an interesting point about bridge ethics. >>>I have to take issue with you on one aspect of >>>your ruling last night when I called you to >>>the table. I am perfectly happy to be told >>>when I am stepping out of line but this >>>crusade you seem to be on where you feel it is >>>almost your duty to protect the weaker player >>>is misguided. If nothing else, they never >>>learn anything about the ethics of the game. >>> >>>One aspect of the auction which I feel you did >>>not give proper regard to was the fact that >>>South only bid 3S(!) at his first bid holding >>>8 spades to the KQ!! 99% of people would bid >>>4S on that hand and I believe, whatever your >>>views about protecting the weak, there was a >>>definite hesitation by North (conceded by him >>>after you left the table) from which a reluctant >>>South drew comfort and now bid 5S. I believe >>>this line of argument holds true irrespective of >>>the stupid redouble by my partner. I responded to my friend: >>I agree that whether logical alternatives have been >>reduced from two to one by a penalty redouble is a >>question of judgement. >> >>I further note that the Laws of Bridge permit a >>Director's judgement to be taken to an Appeals >>Committee. And the Laws of Bridge permit an >>Appeals Committee to overrule a Director's >>judgement. >> >>I remind you that Law 16 irregularities are *not* a >>matter of the ethics of the game, but merely >>technical breaches. Please do not confuse Law 16 >>with Law 73B2, which states: >> >>"The gravest possible offence is for a partnership >>to exchange information through prearranged methods >>of communication other than those sanctioned by >>these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." My friend countered: >There is no way I would seek to argue with you about >which Law applies in which situation but it seems to >be that Law 73B2 because it says "the gravest >possible offence" presumably anticipates there are >other situations where people (without any intention >to "cheat") decide to take action when in receipt of >unauthorised information but don't have the hand for >it. > >Had you taken the time to question the people at the >time I believe you would have got an "admission". >Certainly North said after you had gone and I >enquired as to why he took a long time to double, he >said "because I was thinking about bidding 5S"(!) > >OK, one might seek to argue that a cunning West >could take advantage of the hesitation situation and >redouble for extras knowing the auction would get >wound back (ie the "double shot) but my partner's >total inexperience of these situations ruled that out. > >We will never teach weaker players about the need to >ensure they have their bid after partner hesitates >unless we pull them up from time to time. Someone >who rebids at the 5 level after a mealy-mouthed 3 >opening with that hand deserves all he gets. How should the current interpretation of the Laws on bridge ethics be further clarified to my friend? Should the 2005 Laws take a harder line (closer to my friend's position) on bridge ethics? Best wishes Richard From Anne Jones" <5.1.1.6.0.20021208221424.028a0c30@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <000501c29f3c$53dea6f0$23540550@annescomputer> Surely AOL has some sort of facility to tick a box and so include the previous mail? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Nancy T Dressing" ; "Todd Zimnoch" ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Horses > At 07:53 PM 8/12/2002, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >Kojak is using AOL which doesn't allow the message he is responding to to be > >displayed. He is not editing out the message he is responding to. AOL does > >it automatically. It would help all of us if he could find a way to get > >around that!! > > > Nancy > > One way around the problem of AOL not quoting the message to which it is > replying is to: > > 1. copy the address of the sender (in this case the "sender" is > "BLML" ") > 2. forward the message instead of replying to it > 3. paste the address of the sender in the TO: line > > This won't give you a line beside the quote, but it will give you the quote. > > Walt > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 9 04:44:30 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:44:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] David talks to ACBL TDs References: Message-ID: <003201c29f3e$29e72c80$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > David seems to be in awe of his audience -- he > > welcomes them as TDs but fears them as opponents. > > A severe critic might quibble that his > > introduction was a bit smarmy; but how can Mike > > Flader read an insult into it? > > One of us missed a nuance. I read that their organizational > skills are great, but their rulings are bad and understood nothing > about them as players. > The correct interpretation, I'm sure. >From David: > It is true that what I said originally was misunderstood, and I probably > did not get my meaning across. Of course I did not say what was quoted > here. David's words were actually quoted second-hand, as Mike Flader had not himself attended the meeting. I know David does not like to be quoted, and I was just quoting Mike to the best of my (and Alice's) memory. So, let's leave it at that. I guess I'll have to quiz one of my ACBL TD friends as to what went on in the meeting. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 06:30:22 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:30:22 +1000 Subject: Unholy Truth (was Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions) Message-ID: <4A256C8A.00222DA4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: [big snip] >>e.g. Kaplan & Pro questions will become >>legal -- as a ban is unenforceable >>except by telepaths. Like Nigel, I support the idea that, despite some laws being hard to enforce, those laws should still exist. For example, I support more Laws having the voluntary enforcement policy of Law 16B: >the Director should be notified forthwith, >preferably by the recipient of the >information. However, I disagree with Nigel's assertion that ruling on Kaplan and Pro questions requires telepathy. If a pro asserts: "I forgot what I had learned previously, so I had to ask to refresh my memory," then a competent TD has little difficulty in making a balance of probabilities assessment on the veracity of the pro's assertion. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 06:47:46 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:47:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] David talks to ACBL TDs Message-ID: <4A256C8A.0023C598.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>David seems to be in awe of his audience -- he >>welcomes them as TDs but fears them as opponents. >>A severe critic might quibble that his >>introduction was a bit smarmy; but how can Mike >>Flader read an insult into it? Todd Zimnoch replied: >One of us missed a nuance. I read that their >organizational skills are great, but their rulings >are bad and understood nothing about them as >players. In an earlier thread, I posted an article from David Stevenson's website which contained some criticism of particular ACBL TDs. One such particular incident David related was a particular East-West pair being very slow. The TD took no action, despite a complaint to the TD by the East-West pair following. By an unfortunate coincidence, the unpenalised particular very slow East-West pair were two household-name experts. This caused some particular observers to cast Caesar's-wife suspicions - that that particular TD was biased. Those particular observers thought (possibly without foundation) that some ACBL TDs were more lenient towards household names, than those particular TDs were to hoi polloi. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 07:04:15 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 17:04:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C1 Message-ID: <4A256C8A.002547CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mike Amos asked: [big snip] >Board 18 is now unplayed. One pair say "Can >we play Board 18 at the end?" > >Should the TD accede to this request? Other things being equal, then yes. If the request is inappropriate due to the nature of the event, then no. Law 82B. >If not what score should he assign the players >at Table 8 for Board 18? Since the absence of Board 18 was due to the carelessness of the players at the sharing Table 1 fouling a board, and then playing a board twice, then Law 88 states that both pairs at Table 8 should receive Ave+. Meanwhile, both pairs at Table 1 should be fined a PP for infracting Law 90B6 and Law 90B7. Best wishes Richard From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 07:37:17 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:37:17 -0600 Subject: [blml] Congratulations Message-ID: Congratulations to blml's own Adam Wildavsky in winning the Reisinger. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 9 07:38:11 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:38:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics References: <4A256C8A.001A9308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001b01c29f56$18902960$69b8193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 5:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > > One problem a Director in a small club has is > that you occasionally rule against friends. > +=+ Always ? +=+ From adam@tameware.com Mon Dec 9 08:51:47 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:51:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:37 AM -0600 12/9/02, Roger Pewick wrote: >Congratulations to blml's own Adam Wildavsky in winning the Reisinger. Thanks! Afterwards I asked Barry Rigal if he would now admit that I was right about case #2 from Phoenix. He was strangely silent -- apparently victory does not convey authority. If anyone wishes to defend the committee decision in that case be my guest. I'm tired, so first you'll have to look it up in the daily bulletin. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 9 09:19:04 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:19:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] David talks to ACBL TDs References: <4A256C8A.0023C598.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <002d01c29f64$65b98c00$7d08e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:47 AM Subject: RE: [blml] David talks to ACBL TDs > > In an earlier thread, I posted an article from > David Stevenson's website which contained some > criticism of particular ACBL TDs. > ---------------- \X/ ---------------------- > > By an unfortunate coincidence, the unpenalised > particular very slow East-West pair were two > household-name experts. > > This caused some particular observers to cast > Caesar's-wife suspicions - that that particular TD > was biased. Those particular observers thought > (possibly without foundation) that some ACBL TDs > were more lenient towards household names, than > those particular TDs were to hoi polloi. > +=+ David has an advantage in the fact that outside of England wherever he talks he does so independently, without the encumbrance of the perception in others that he represents anyone but himself. Locally in England he is afflicted with the gravitas of any member of the English Bridge Union's Laws and Ethics Committee. I would doubt that ACBL Directors weight their judgements any more in favour of 'household names' than do their European counterparts; there will always be a few, wherever, that are diffident in the face of reputation. Equally, there will always be a minority amongst those players unsuccessful in their pleas, wherever, who cry 'injustice' and allege partiality. In Zone 2 there are notable numbers of household names, which could be more a consequence of publicity than of bridge expertise, so we may hear a little more of it. Different Zones have different attitudes to subjects, and there are some ACBL reports that cause raised eyebrows in Europe. It would astonish me greatly if the converse were not also true. However, criticism is not fairly addressed to individuals - or, at least, when justified is more appropriately addressed to the system if it seems not to respond to the need to educate and develop its agents. Meanwhile, comment that crosses boundaries between coexistent bodies should be restrained and whispered, not assertive and aggressive, since no one party has the right of everything and merely to succeed in arousing sensitivity and resentment achieves nothing. David knows this and could be expected to speak temperately [as we all do ;-) on blml]. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 9 11:30:50 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:30:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <4A256C8A.001A9308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021209122513.024d0460@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:07 9/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >One problem a Director in a small club has is >that you occasionally rule against friends. > >Auction: > >Friend South West North >3D 3S 5D Double(1) >Pass Pass Redouble Pass >Pass 5S All pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >I subsequently ruled that, after the redouble, >South's cards meant that bidding 5S was the >only logical alternative. AG : it is quite possible that South bid 3S with the firm intention of bidding them once more if needed, but without overstating his hand's potential by bidding 4S. He might even have tried to get doubled in 4S. Now that his partner reluctantly doubled 5S, South decided that he had to bend backwards and pass the double, knowing it would probably cost him. The redouble changes it all : if EW tell you they are about to make 5D, double or no double, your hand tells you you may believe them. 5S is indeed the only LA. My feeling is that West did not try for a double shot (I will believe your correspondent when he says West is unable to think of it), but he might well have acted on the belief that South was barred by his partner's tempo - a belief which we all know is wrong. Too bad for him. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 9 11:35:52 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:35:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <001b01c29f56$18902960$69b8193e@4nrw70j> References: <4A256C8A.001A9308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021209123108.024d30a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:38 9/12/2002 +0000, grandeval wrote: >Grattan Endicott========================================= >"A master of the English language does not >need to exaggerate." [~ Lord Hailsham.] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 5:07 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > > > > > > > One problem a Director in a small club has is > > that you occasionally rule against friends. > > >+=+ Always ? +=+ AG : I don't think this is the right formula. When you act as a TD, the persons you deal with are momentarily no friends. I've just ended a long session of the Voting Commission of the University of Brussels, where we had to reject an appeal introduced by several persons, including the one that shares my office. During the time of the session, he was no friend, only an appealant. Now I have to tell him this. Ouch. Best regards, Alain. From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 9 12:21:09 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:21:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <001b01c29f56$18902960$69b8193e@4nrw70j> References: <4A256C8A.001A9308.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001b01c29f56$18902960$69b8193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <9d19vuo059g0b29qhsd8giasa2ne7cdhoq@4ax.com> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:38:11 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >Grattan Endicott========================================= >"A master of the English language does not >need to exaggerate." [~ Lord Hailsham.] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 5:07 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > >> >> >> One problem a Director in a small club has is >> that you occasionally rule against friends. >> >+=+ Always ? +=+ > I would sincerely hope not, because IMHO a TD should be impartial, and ruling against your friends is synonymous with favouring players whom you do not regard as friends. A TD's decisions should be totally independent of the *specific* players sitting at the table (specific players as opposed to category of player, e.g. a novice, expert, etc). No player should be at an advantage or disadvantage due to circumstances unrelated to the game in progress. And just occasionally, Grattan, it happens that a TD not only rules in favour of a "name" but is unwise enough to say so openly. I remember playing against a now-deceased England international who was slumming it in a local teams event. He would *not* be quiet during the play of the hand, and eventually I gave up on the polite requests and called the TD. "Do you know who that is?" was his response. "Yes", I said, "but why does that matter?". "Continue play", I was told. That TD made it onto the EBU 'A' list, I hope he knew better by then. Yes, I now know that I should have gathered witnesses (there were plenty at adjacent tables, believe me!) and reported the matter to the EBU, but I didn't know enough to do that then. 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 Mon Dec 9 12:45:46 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:45:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics Message-ID: <6516784.1039437946438.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Brian wrote: > One problem a Director in a small club has is > that you occasionally rule against friends. > = Always ? = > I would sincerely hope not... Brian, you have been away from England too long. The disease of literalism has reached an advanced stage. Seek treatment before it is too late. What Grattan meant was that if you are the director of a small club, then all its members should be among your friends, therefore... but it will be all right. With proper care, you will start understanding things like this again soon. David Burn London, England From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 9 13:15:25 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:15:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <6516784.1039437946438.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <6516784.1039437946438.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <0959vuo4pnu5hgddj6dntt12k3brmrr3r8@4ax.com> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:45:46 +0000 (GMT), David Burn wrote: >Brian wrote: > >> One problem a Director in a small club has is >> that you occasionally rule against friends. > >> = Always ? = > >> I would sincerely hope not... > >Brian, you have been away from England too long. The disease of literalism has reached an advanced stage. Seek treatment before it is too late. > >What Grattan meant was that if you are the director of a small club, then all its members should be among your friends, therefore... but it will be all right. With proper care, you will start understanding things like this again soon. > Sorry, Grattan. I shouldn't reply to e-mails before the early morning tea has sunk in - although I still stick with the second paragraph of my posting! Having been recruited to run my local (very small) ACBL club while the usual TD is escaping the Pennsylvanian winter in deepest Florida, I only wish that Grattan's basic premise was correct. Unfortunately, I have first hand knowledge that the size of the club is no defence against the local PITA. :-( 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 9 15:31:14 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:31:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Congratulations Message-ID: <200212091531.KAA00481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > At 1:37 AM -0600 12/9/02, Roger Pewick wrote: > >Congratulations to blml's own Adam Wildavsky in winning the Reisinger. Yes, a terrific achievement. Congratulations indeed. From: Adam Wildavsky > Afterwards I asked Barry Rigal if he would now admit that I was right > about case #2 from Phoenix. He was strangely silent -- apparently > victory does not convey authority. Indeed it doesn't, although it certainly conveys that one's bridge judgment is to be respected. The appeal report seems to be available only in the pdf edition at ftp://www.acbl.org/nabc/2002fall/db7.pdf It's on page 5. FWIW, I think Jeff Goldsmith makes a really good point. I'm surprised he wasn't able to persuade the rest of the AC. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 9 16:11:25 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:11:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Congratulations References: <200212091531.KAA00481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DF4C0AD.5030809@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>At 1:37 AM -0600 12/9/02, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>>Congratulations to blml's own Adam Wildavsky in winning the Reisinger. >>> > > Yes, a terrific achievement. Congratulations indeed. > Me too. > From: Adam Wildavsky > >>Afterwards I asked Barry Rigal if he would now admit that I was right >>about case #2 from Phoenix. He was strangely silent -- apparently >>victory does not convey authority. >> > > Indeed it doesn't, although it certainly conveys that one's bridge > judgment is to be respected. > I believe this is one of those cases where one had to be there. The AC heard NS statements, we did not. > The appeal report seems to be available only in the pdf edition at > ftp://www.acbl.org/nabc/2002fall/db7.pdf > It's on page 5. > A thouroughly enjoyable bulletin for the rest of it as well. > FWIW, I think Jeff Goldsmith makes a really good point. I'm surprised > he wasn't able to persuade the rest of the AC. > I was surprised the AC did not write-up their decision in a slightly different manner. It is clear that the non-alert carries information, but in this partnership perhaps not as clear what that non-alert means. I can certainly understand that an AC may accept the argument that the non-alert means that partner has forgotten to alert, not forgotten the system. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 9 16:23:04 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:23:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] 12C1 Message-ID: <200212091623.LAA00548@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "mamos" > Table 8 plays and scores Board 17 and passes it to Table 1 who also play > and score it but in returning the cards to the board contrive to rotate them > 90 degrees ... Good job by the TD to figure out what happened before more damage was done! > One pair say "Can we play Board 18 at the end?" > > Should the TD accede to this request? If time and circumstances allow, I think so. The players came to play bridge. The normal policy on late plays, if there is one, should probably apply. > If not what score > should he assign the players at Table 8 for Board 18? I think avg, "partially at fault," not avg+ as someone else suggested. Surely it isn't expecting too much to ask the players to notice and keep track of the board numbers. I'd apply it to both pairs at Table 8. However, if only one of those pairs is stationary, I could understand avg+ for the moving pair. As the other poster said, the pairs who fouled the board at Table 1 get a PP. From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Mon Dec 9 16:29:45 2002 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:29:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: <200212091531.KAA00481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021209172945.00e96e20@ip-worldcom.ch> At 10:31 09/12/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >From: Adam Wildavsky >> Afterwards I asked Barry Rigal if he would now admit that I was right >> about case #2 from Phoenix. He was strangely silent -- apparently >> victory does not convey authority. > >Indeed it doesn't, although it certainly conveys that one's bridge >judgment is to be respected. > >The appeal report seems to be available only in the pdf edition at >ftp://www.acbl.org/nabc/2002fall/db7.pdf >It's on page 5. Strange AC decision indeed, I would consider giving 3C+1. Here is the text: Case 2 Subject: Unauthorized Information Event: Life Master Open Pairs, Nov. 29, First Qualifying Session Bd: 10 Dlr: East S A Q J 7 2 Vul: Both H A 9 4 2 D 7 6 C Q J S K 10 4 H 8 D K J 10 4 C K 10 6 3 2 West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H Pass 3S Pass 4S All Pass (1) Not Alerted; intended as Reverse Drury The Facts: 4S made five, +650 for N/S. The opening lead was the S9. East called the Director as soon as dummy came down, saying he did not believe South’s hand justified a jump to 3S (in light of the non-Alert of 2C). South had informed E/W of the failure to Alert before the opening lead. After the play ended E/W petitioned the Director for redress saying they did not believe N/S would have reached game without South’s jump to 3S. The Director ruled that South had unauthorized information from his partner’s failure to Alert 2C, that 2S was a logical alternative to 3S at South’s third turn, that the failure to Alert demonstrably suggested the 3S bid, and that if South had bid only 2S North did not have another bid. Therefore, the contract was changed to 2S made five, +200 for N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling and were the only players at the hearing. N/S said they had played together for 10-15 years, then took a break, and had recently resumed playing together (for the last two years). They play five-card majors in third and fourth seats and reverse Drury. North’s 2H bid was natural in their system and forcing for one round, promising a full opening bid. When asked, South said that North frequently forgot to Alert some bids even though he was good at remembering their system. The Committee Decision: The Committee discussed the correct bridge auction (behind screens) after the 2H bid. Some favored rebidding 2S (as South) while others favored rebidding 3S -- which clearly made 2S a logical alternative. They agreed that if unauthorized information had been passed a score adjustment to 2S was appropriate. The Committee members agreed that the failure to Alert conveyed unauthorized information (that North may have forgotten Drury), 2S was a logical alternative to 3S, and the unauthorized information suggested bidding 3S. However, N/S’s statements had been remarkably convincing that North was aware of their system but prone to forgetting to Alert. The Committee decided that in this particular case South had not acted upon unauthorized information and made what he deemed to be the right bridge bid which, in the absence of unauthorized information, he was free to do so. The Committee appreciated that it would be normal to impute unauthorized information, since South’s statement (that North is prone to forget to Alert even though he remembers his system) is clearly self-serving, but in this case South’s reluctance to admit North’s failing convinced most of the Committee members of its truth. The Committee restored the table result of 4S made five, +650 for N/S, and warned N/S about the problems inherent in forgetting to Alert. In addition, they determined that this was an appropriate issue to bring to the attention of the recorder in N/S’s home District. Dissenting Opinion (Jeff Goldsmith): While it is certainly legal for the Committee to decide as it did, I feel that there is not even close to enough evidence to do so. I do not buy the non-unauthorized information argument at all. Given unauthorized information, South’s logical alternatives seem to include 2S, 2NT, 3C, 3S and 4S. The two of these not suggested over the others by the unauthorized information are 2S and 3C. Apparently South never thought about bidding 3C (as an aside, if South’s assertion that North never forgot their system but often forgot to Alert were true, then 3C would be a clear choice: it’s not suggested by the unauthorized information and if North did forget Drury they would end up in a silly spot while if he did not forget they would reach game and be able to keep their result). Thus 2S should be the action imposed on him. In a poll taken after the hearing I found several good players who would (and some who did) pass 2S with the North hand; so the Directors got this one right. Question: Is a warning or a procedural penalty appropriate for South? I would warn him, firmly making him aware of his responsibilities when playing with someone who often fails to Alert. I’d also award an Appeal Without Merit Warning, although since the Committee decided in N/S’s favor perhaps that is too harsh. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Jeff Goldsmith, Richard Popper, Riggs Thayer, Dave Treadwell From gester@lineone.net Mon Dec 9 16:31:17 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:31:17 -0000 Subject: Free plug: (was Re: [blml] The Lawful theory) References: <6516784.1039437946438.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <0959vuo4pnu5hgddj6dntt12k3brmrr3r8@4ax.com> Message-ID: <000201c29fa0$e427ea00$5c2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > Having been recruited to run my local (very small) > ACBL club while the usual TD is escaping the > Pennsylvanian winter in deepest Florida, I only wish > that Grattan's basic premise was correct. > Unfortunately, I have first hand knowledge that the > size of the club is no defence against the local PITA. > :-( > > Brian. > +=+ Brian, Having nothing better to do I read your cv on the Wellsboro Computing web site. The question in my mind was why you had picked Runcorn - distinguished for the presence of my car at its railway station when I slip away to London. Having read your cv I could see why you might pick on Aberystwyth, but RUNCORN? And, of course, 'always' was a poor keyword to choose. ~ G ~ +=+ From toddz@worldnet.att.com Mon Dec 9 16:36:48 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:36:48 -0500 Subject: Phnx Appeals case 2 (was: [blml] Congratulations) In-Reply-To: <3DF4C0AD.5030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Subject: Re: [blml] Congratulations > > I believe this is one of those cases where one had to > be there. The AC heard NS statements, we did not. Or perhaps 'there' should be a different location. I wonder how this appeal would have fared at the Everett or Penticton regional in Mr. Hosch's home district. > > FWIW, I think Jeff Goldsmith makes a really good > > point. I'm surprised > > he wasn't able to persuade the rest of the AC. > > I was surprised the AC did not write-up their decision > in a slightly different manner. It is clear that the > non-alert carries information, but in this partnership > perhaps not as clear what that non-alert means. I can > certainly understand that an AC may accept the argument > that the non-alert means that partner has forgotten to > alert, not forgotten the system. Maybe I'm callous, but I don't believe that just because a player shouldn't have to be reminded of his ethical obligations that you shouldn't actually do so. Mr. Hosch knows better and after 2 years of playing he could have drilled proper alert procedure into his partner. This is not an auction that has changed since the last update to the alert procedure. I feel like the appeals committee is encouraging poor behavior here, which isn't part of their charter. -Todd From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 9 17:00:08 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:00:08 -0500 Subject: Free plug: (was Re: [blml] The Lawful theory) In-Reply-To: <000201c29fa0$e427ea00$5c2a2850@pacific> References: <6516784.1039437946438.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <0959vuo4pnu5hgddj6dntt12k3brmrr3r8@4ax.com> <000201c29fa0$e427ea00$5c2a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <4oi9vu859hf4v5ohsb32qvck7mk2ujjjfd@4ax.com> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:31:17 -0000, Grattan wrote: >Having read your cv I could see >why you might pick on Aberystwyth, but RUNCORN? During the 25 years or so that I lived on either side of the Mersey, Grattan, woollyback territory always started at Runcorn. 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.co.uk Mon Dec 9 17:35:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 17:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: <200212091531.KAA00481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Likewise congratulations to Adam. But case 2 from Phoenix. P -P-1S-P 2C-P-2H-P ? 2C, reverse Drury, not alerted. The AC ruling that there was no UI is slightly surprising but, as the dissenting JG said, entirely legal. Had I been there I too might have judged the testimony sufficiently compelling to allow such a decision. What really amazes me is how anybody could consider signing off in 2S with KTx,x,KJTx,KTxxx after partner shows a "full value opening bid with 5+S and 4+H" (the partnership agreement on 2H over a Drury 2C). This hand must surely qualify as an absolute maximum in context. Indeed my main worry after a non-alert would be that a pard who had forgotten the system would bid 2H on a 5431 sub-minimum opening. I wonder, had opener had Axxxx,KQxx,xxx,x and responder bid only 2S would we saying that he used UI to avoid overbidding becasuse he feared partner didn't really have the values promised? Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 9 18:57:23 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:57:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Congratulations References: Message-ID: <000a01c29fb5$3adaa5e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> > > Roger Pewick wrote: > >Congratulations to blml's own Adam Wildavsky in winning the Reisinger. > > Thanks! > > Afterwards I asked Barry Rigal if he would now admit that I was right > about case #2 from Phoenix. He was strangely silent -- apparently > victory does not convey authority. > > If anyone wishes to defend the committee decision in that case be my > guest. I'm tired, so first you'll have to look it up in the daily > bulletin. > Barry was the chairman of the AC, which produced a horrific decision. No need to show the whole deal, the South hand tells it all: S- K104 H- 8 D- KJ104 C-K10632 South bid a Reverse Drury 2C, not Alerted, after partner opened 1S in fourth seat. When North rebid 2H South jumped to 3S. The final 4S contract, making with an overtrick, was adjusted to 2S making five by the TD. (South had informed E/W of the failure to Alert before the opening lead was made.) The AC restored the table result. As dissenter Jeff Goldsmith wrote, there are LAs of 2S, 2NT, 3C, 3S, and 4S. Permitting the 3S bid, as the AC decided, is unconscionable. South's defense was that North often forgets to Alert the Drury response, so no UI existed. Buying that argument, the AC wrote: "South's reluctance to admit North's failing convinced most of the Committee members of its truth." Huh?? One of the AC members had been on an AC that decided against me in a similar case at a sectional tournament some years ago. His words then were, "I serve on the national Appeals Committee, so I have learned how to decide such cases." Are they ever going to get these people educated? As with a failure to Announce a transfer, a failure to Alert is too much UI to disregard. I think the TD was too generous. +/- 130 for a 3C contract, North holding S- AQJ72 H- A942 D- 76 C- QJ looks right to me (clubs 4-2). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 22:13:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:13:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] TD Code Message-ID: <4A256C8A.0078843E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In September, Vitold issued his draft TD Code to blml for comment. After further research, I found that the Australian Bridge Directors Association had already adopted a Code of Ethics & Procedural Principles for Tournament Directors in January 1998. The complete ABDA Code is located at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/0005.html The ABDA Code has merely advisory status in Australia, as the ABDA is not an official arm of the ABF (although the two organisations cordially cooperate). Even so, I have qualms about the first dot point of the ABDA Code: >A Tournament Director should aim to achieve equity >for all players at all times and in all situations. >Justice should not only be done, but it should also >be seen to be done. The thrice-repeated word "all" gives a whiff of a Procrustean impression that a TD should first determine what an equitable ruling is, and then merely secondarily select a law which justifies the ruling. Disclaimer: I am the current Secretary of the ABDA, but the views expressed are merely my own, and are *not* the official views of the ABDA. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 9 22:50:20 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:50:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Down in the dumps Message-ID: <4A256C8A.007BE4D4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Over decades, The Bridge World has been debating in its Editorials whether it is ethical for a team to dump a match, so as to enhance their chances of winning the overall event. While opinion continues to be divided on this issue, a consensus has emerged that it is the responsibility of SOs to carefully design CoCs which minimise the incentive for a team to dump. I am therefore down in the dumps after reading the new ABF CoC for the playoff to select the Australian Team. >Format. The 2003 Playoff consists of 4 stages > >Stage I: 5 x 16 = 80-board round-robin to rank the teams >1 through 6 > >Stage II: 4 x 12 = 48-board quarterfinal of 1 v 6, 2 v 5, >3 v 4 to determine semi-finalists. The three winners and >the loser ranked highest in the round robin proceed to >the semi-finals. The two quarterfinal losers ranked lowest >in the round robin play for fifth place (with PQPs at >stake). > >Stage III: 4 x 12 = 48-board semi-finals and match for 5th >place. The semi-final draw is highest-ranked winner v >highest-ranked loser, second-ranked winner v third-ranked >winner. The winners proceed to the final. The losing semi- >finalists play off for third place with reserve team >status and PQPs at stake. > >Stage IV: 4 x 16 = 64-board final and match for 3rd place Best wishes Richard From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Dec 9 22:26:32 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:26:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] Kooijman, A. In-Reply-To: <003501c29dce$0f07fa00$293d87d9@4nrw70j> References: <200212070135.RAA31738@mailhub.irvine.com> <002201c29dcc$d3e0a7c0$e39490d4@rabbit> Message-ID: >Grattan Endicott========================================= >"A master of the English language does not >need to exaggerate." [~ Lord Hailsham.] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Thomas Dehn" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 8:34 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Kooijman, A. > > >> >> Then, as a German, Juergen should be aware of Pi's law: >> by putting his opponent's name into the subject line, he >> has automatically conceited defeat. >> >> >> Thomas >> >+=+ Or even conceded ? +=+ Somehow, one conceiting defeat supplies a suitably surreal sound. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 9 22:30:38 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:30:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] 12C1 In-Reply-To: <200212091623.LAA00548@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200212091623.LAA00548@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <200212091623.LAA00548@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "mamos" >> Table 8 plays and scores Board 17 and passes it to Table 1 who also play >> and score it but in returning the cards to the board contrive to rotate them >> 90 degrees >... > >Good job by the TD to figure out what happened before more damage was >done! > >> One pair say "Can we play Board 18 at the end?" >> >> Should the TD accede to this request? > >If time and circumstances allow, I think so. The players came to play >bridge. The normal policy on late plays, if there is one, should >probably apply. > >> If not what score >> should he assign the players at Table 8 for Board 18? > >I think avg, "partially at fault," not avg+ as someone else suggested. >Surely it isn't expecting too much to ask the players to notice and >keep track of the board numbers. I'd apply it to both pairs at Table >8. However, if only one of those pairs is stationary, I could >understand avg+ for the moving pair. > >As the other poster said, the pairs who fouled the board at Table 1 get >a PP. > > I thought this was right myself "partially at fault" was my view. >_______________________________________________ >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 Mon Dec 9 22:34:15 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:34:15 +0000 Subject: Free plug: (was Re: [blml] The Lawful theory) In-Reply-To: <4oi9vu859hf4v5ohsb32qvck7mk2ujjjfd@4ax.com> References: <6516784.1039437946438.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <0959vuo4pnu5hgddj6dntt12k3brmrr3r8@4ax.com> <000201c29fa0$e427ea00$5c2a2850@pacific> <4oi9vu859hf4v5ohsb32qvck7mk2ujjjfd@4ax.com> Message-ID: In article <4oi9vu859hf4v5ohsb32qvck7mk2ujjjfd@4ax.com>, Brian Meadows writes >On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:31:17 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >>Having read your cv I could see >>why you might pick on Aberystwyth, but RUNCORN? > >During the 25 years or so that I lived on either side of the >Mersey, Grattan, woollyback territory always started at Runcorn. > >Brian. > Fond memories of travelling on the transporter bridge after a day in N Wales enjoying the sheep and my parents idea of an enjoyable day out :) -- 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 Tue Dec 10 01:25:31 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:25:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed destruction Message-ID: <4A256C8B.000643C2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: [snip] >I'm ready to change my view to this one : >"there will be an automatic fine for a >partnership that hasn't prepared for likely >auctions when playing any convention, when >there is any likelihood that said >impreparation could damage the opposition ; "Likely"; "likelihood"; lovely words - even better than the ACBL's choice of words: "to be expected auctions". I suspect that only thee and me would have put in the necessary homework to avoid infracting Alain's or the ACBL's regulation - and I am not sure about thee. >the penalty will usually be disallowance to >play said convention for the remainder of >the event and a procedural PP" I can see it now - 90% of pairs in a local Aussie bridge club are not only barred from playing their favourite Extended Stayman convention, but also humiliated with a PP. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 10 01:39:48 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:39:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Congratulations References: Message-ID: <006201c29fed$5cb02b30$c312e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Congratulations > Likewise congratulations to Adam. > +=+ Success for a good guy is good for the game.+=+ < > But case 2 from Phoenix. > TWM said: > What really amazes me is how anybody could consider > signing off in 2S with KTx,x,KJTx,KTxxx after partner > shows a "full value opening bid with 5+S and 4+H" > (the partnership agreement on 2H over a Drury 2C). < +=+ I think there is here a point (not HC) that is eluding me, too. Reading what is published I drew these impulsive conclusions: 1. The failure to alert must be taken to show Reverse Drury forgotten. When ruling no question of "may show" enters into it. 2, South must bid his hand on the basis, if this is the agreement, that North has a full opener with 5S & 4+H. He must carefully avoid making any bid that, on the contrary, takes account of a possibility that North has other than that - so no alternative may be selected that allows North may not have a full opener. 3. The question that arises, I thought, is whether the knowledge that North may not have such a hand has caused South to bid 3S when this is less suggested than some other logical call opposite a hand 5/4+ with a full opener. (As a bridge judgement one can conceive that South might judge his values not well placed and, in a pairs event, exercise restraint. But how could such a possibility make 3S more suggested by the UI than 2S?) 4. However, many well-equipped judges have thought 3S "suggested over" 2S (or some other call) by the knowledge that North may have a hand other than the one his bidding shows. Well-equipped judges will not be fazed by the existence of a misexplanation, so my late night thoughts have evidently gone awry. Perhaps someone will alert me to the dawning light. 5. I was tempted to ask whether there was any suggestion that North had UI of which we have not heard. I do not see any questioning whether he, not South, had the partnership agreement correct, or whether there was in fact no agreement, but let us draw comfort that the facts must have been established for sure in the hearing. 6. One applauds the committee chairman's refusal to comment about the committee decision. In the wake of the tournament the report of the appeal should be left to speak for the committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 16 " ... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 10 01:49:01 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:49:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Congratulations References: Message-ID: <006101c29fee$50418820$f63827d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > What really amazes me is how anybody could consider signing off in 2S with > KTx,x,KJTx,KTxxx after partner shows a "full value opening bid with 5+S > and 4+H" Nobody "signed off in 2S". 2S would have been invitational, showing what the bidder had: a sound raise, but with a misfit for hearts, and dubious values in the minors, none of which might be worth a damn in actual play. 3S was because partner had forgotten that 2C showed spades, and all this nonsense about "he remembers our system, he just forgets to alert" was ex post facto hogwash. The decision by the AC in this case was not only absurd but manifestly absurd, and Goldsmith is the only one of them who ought to be allowed anywhere near a committee room again. Well done Adam, by the way. I was up last night watching the final live on Bridge Base, until a somewhat eccentric 6H was reached on a 4-3 fit by Adam and Doug Doub. I don't know how Adam and Doug came back from that, because it was four in the morning and I thought I ought to go to bed. But however they did it, they must have dome plenty of things the right side of heroic, and the more credit to them. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 9 23:58:20 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:58:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Congratulations References: <000a01c29fb5$3adaa5e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002f01c29ff0$f90c5e60$709568d5@default> [Marvin L French] Barry [Rigal] was the chairman of the AC, which produced a horrific decision. No need to show the whole deal, the South hand tells it all: S- K104 H- 8 D- KJ104 C-K10632 South bid a Reverse Drury 2C, not Alerted, after partner opened 1S in fourth seat. When North rebid 2H South jumped to 3S. The final 4S contract, making with an overtrick, was adjusted to 2S making five by the TD. (South had informed E/W of the failure to Alert before the opening lead was made). The AC restored the table result. As dissenter Jeff Goldsmith wrote, there are LAs of 2S, 2NT, 3C, 3S, and 4S. Permitting the 3S bid, as the AC decided, is unconscionable. South's defense was that North often forgets to Alert the Drury response, so no UI existed. Buying that argument, the AC wrote: "South's reluctance to admit North's failing convinced most of the Committee members of its truth." Huh?? One of the AC members had been on an AC that decided against me in a similar case at a sectional tournament some years ago. His words then were, "I serve on the national Appeals Committee, so I have learned how to decide such cases." Are they ever going to get these people educated? As with a failure to Announce a transfer, a failure to Alert is too much UI to disregard. I think the TD was too generous. +/- 130 for a 3C contract, North holding S-AQJ72 H- A942 D- 76 C- QJ looks right to me (clubs 4-2). [Nigel Guthrie] Many Happy Returns Adam. How can anybody disagree with Marvin? Are East-West relatively poor or unpopular? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 10 03:31:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:31:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C1 Message-ID: <4A256C8B.0011D258.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >>I think avg, "partially at fault," not avg+ as >>someone else suggested. Surely it isn't expecting >>too much to ask the players to notice and keep >>track of the board numbers. I'd apply it to both >>pairs at Table 8. However, if only one of those >>pairs is stationary, I could understand avg+ for >>the moving pair. >> >>As the other poster said, the pairs who fouled the >>board at Table 1 get a PP. John (MadDog) Probst agreed: >I thought this was right myself "partially at fault" >was my view. I disagree. My understanding of the facts is that Table 8 were waiting for board 18 to arrive from the board-sharing Table 1. The board never did arrive, because Table 1 fouled board 17, then Table 1 played board 17 a second time. Naturally, the pairs at Table 8 would have assumed that Table 1's replay of board 17, was actually Table 1 playing board 18. No way am I going to rule that Table 8 are partially at fault for not correcting Table 1's error. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 10 03:46:00 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:46:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Third opinion Message-ID: <4A256C8B.0013203E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Hills/ACT/IMMI/AU on 10/12/2002 01:42 PM --------------------------- dalburn@btopenworld.com@rtflb.org on 09/12/2002 10:45:46 PM Sent by: blml-admin@rtflb.org To: blml@rtflb.org cc: Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics Brian wrote: > One problem a Director in a small club has is > that you occasionally rule against friends. > = Always ? = > I would sincerely hope not... Brian, you have been away from England too long. The disease of literalism has reached an advanced stage. Seek treatment before it is too late. What Grattan meant was that if you are the director of a small club, then all its members should be among your friends, therefore... but it will be all right. With proper care, you will start understanding things like this again soon. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 10 04:02:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:02:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics Message-ID: <4A256C8B.0014A93E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Brian Meadows wrote: [snip] >A TD's decisions should be totally independent of >the *specific* players sitting at the table >(specific players as opposed to category of >player, e.g. a novice, expert, etc). No player >should be at an advantage or disadvantage due to >circumstances unrelated to the game in progress. [snip] Totally agree. However, my friend wrote: [snip] >>crusade you seem to be on where you feel it is >>almost your duty to protect the weaker player >>is misguided. If nothing else, they never >>learn anything about the ethics of the game. [snip] In what circumstances should the categories of novice or expert affect a TD's decision, and by how much? Best wishes Richard From adam@tameware.com Tue Dec 10 04:30:53 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 21:30:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: <006101c29fee$50418820$f63827d9@pbncomputer> References: <006101c29fee$50418820$f63827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: At 1:49 AM +0000 12/10/02, David Burn wrote: >I was up last night watching the final live >on Bridge Base, until a somewhat eccentric 6H was reached on a 4-3 fit >by Adam and Doug Doub. I don't know how Adam and Doug came back from >that, because it was four in the morning and I thought I ought to go to >bed. It's very simple. We didn't discuss it, we just went on to the next hand. I call this the Keller convention. I still don't know why we reached 6H! We don't take this to ridiculous extremes though. We'll certainly discuss it before the next time we play. In fact we won two out of three boards that round. On one of them Doug found the winning call. In second seat holding AJTxxx Txxx xxx void he put out a Pass card. 4H made five while our opponents played 2S. As it turns out we were playing against the team that finished second, so each board that round had twice the usual impact. >But however they did it, they must have done plenty of things the >right side of heroic, and the more credit to them. My partner (and fellow NABC Appeals Committee member) Doug Doub did a few -- I just followed suit. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 10 09:13:38 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:13:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics References: <4A256C8B.0014A93E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001b01c2a02c$6d87d9a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > > Brian Meadows wrote: > > [snip] > > >A TD's decisions should be totally independent of > >the *specific* players sitting at the table > >(specific players as opposed to category of > >player, e.g. a novice, expert, etc). No player > >should be at an advantage or disadvantage due to > >circumstances unrelated to the game in progress. > > [snip] > > Totally agree. However, my friend wrote: > > [snip] > > >>crusade you seem to be on where you feel it is > >>almost your duty to protect the weaker player > >>is misguided. If nothing else, they never > >>learn anything about the ethics of the game. > > [snip] > > In what circumstances should the categories of > novice or expert affect a TD's decision, and by > how much? TD should practise a much higher tolerance against novices than against experienced players. This is especially important when the experience of the player is a factor itself, for instance hesitation cases. Sven From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Dec 10 09:28:12 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:28:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <001b01c2a02c$6d87d9a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <002201c2a02e$7972c660$649637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2002 10:14 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:02 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > In what circumstances should the categories of > > novice or expert affect a TD's decision, and by > > how much? > > TD should practise a much higher tolerance against > novices than against experienced players. > > This is especially important when the experience of > the player is a factor itself, for instance hesitation cases. > I guess they should show some tolerance for novice's revokes too. Wayne From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 10 08:03:00 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:03:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] 12C1 In-Reply-To: <4A256C8B.0011D258.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C8B.0011D258.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article <4A256C8B.0011D258.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au>, richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > >Steve Willner wrote: > >[snip] > >>>I think avg, "partially at fault," not avg+ as >>>someone else suggested. Surely it isn't expecting >>>too much to ask the players to notice and keep >>>track of the board numbers. I'd apply it to both >>>pairs at Table 8. However, if only one of those >>>pairs is stationary, I could understand avg+ for >>>the moving pair. >>> >>>As the other poster said, the pairs who fouled the >>>board at Table 1 get a PP. > >John (MadDog) Probst agreed: > >>I thought this was right myself "partially at fault" >>was my view. > Table 8 replayed board 17 when they should have been playing 18 so they are partially at fault for not playing 18 was my opinion. The fact they discovered that the other table had misboarded board 17 was fortuitious, and does not change the ruling with respect to board 18. We did not have time for them to play the board at the end, and indeed at another table where there had been slow play by one pair I removed a board and did not let them play it at the end too. >I disagree. My understanding of the facts is that >Table 8 were waiting for board 18 to arrive from the >board-sharing Table 1. The board never did arrive, >because Table 1 fouled board 17, then Table 1 played >board 17 a second time. > >Naturally, the pairs at Table 8 would have assumed >that Table 1's replay of board 17, was actually Table >1 playing board 18. > >No way am I going to rule that Table 8 are partially at >fault for not correcting Table 1's error. > >Best wishes > >Richard > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 10 10:31:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: <006101c29fee$50418820$f63827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > Tim wrote: > > > What really amazes me is how anybody could consider signing off in 2S > with KTx,x,KJTx,KTxxx after partner shows a "full value opening bid with > > 5+S and 4+H" > > Nobody "signed off in 2S". 2S would have been invitational, Well I have obviously misunderstood reverse Drury. I imagined that 2S would show a minimum for the 2C bid - Qxx,xxx,KTxx,QJx or some such. > showing what > the bidder had: a sound raise, but with a misfit for hearts, and dubious > values in the minors, none of which might be worth a damn in actual > play. A singleton with good trumps is not exactly a misfit, and the minor kings are likely to have some value (surely one expects at least one Ace with RHO. It seems strange that opener has to make a move over 2S with AQxxx,AJxx,Qxx,x or the like - surely he has already bid his hand? Tim From henk@ripe.net Tue Dec 10 10:58:24 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:58:24 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Tim wrote: > > > > > What really amazes me is how anybody could consider signing off in 2S > > with KTx,x,KJTx,KTxxx after partner shows a "full value opening bid with > > > 5+S and 4+H" > > > > Nobody "signed off in 2S". 2S would have been invitational, > > Well I have obviously misunderstood reverse Drury. I imagined that 2S > would show a minimum for the 2C bid - Qxx,xxx,KTxx,QJx or some such. I think this is a simple 2S raise, not even close to an invitational hand. > > showing what > > the bidder had: a sound raise, but with a misfit for hearts, and dubious > > values in the minors, none of which might be worth a damn in actual > > play. > > A singleton with good trumps is not exactly a misfit, and the minor kings > are likely to have some value (surely one expects at least one Ace with > RHO. It seems strange that opener has to make a move over 2S with > AQxxx,AJxx,Qxx,x or the like - surely he has already bid his hand? Without looking at the auction, suppose that opener had shown a minimum opening bid with 5S-4H, and responder had shown a 10 count with 3S and a singleton heart. Both players choose the conservative action with their hand and the partnership did not bid a 23 point with no spectacular distribution game in a matchpoint event. Do you think that anybody has done anything seriously wrong? 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 jvickers@fish.co.uk Sun Dec 8 21:24:59 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:24:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again Message-ID: <005401c29f00$e84ef420$ca7abc3e@oemcomputer> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C29F00.432E0120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [David Burn:] if the word "action" is going to be used in the Laws, a line should = appear in the Definitions to the effect that an action is a call or play = (and not anything else);=20 [Grattan:] I think the context requires that such action be a call or play. The word 'action' in 16A refers inferentially to 'call or play' in the preceding conditional statement 'that may suggest a call or play'.=20 [James Vickers:] In my last contribution to BLML back in April 2001 I argued that where = the word "action" appeared in L16, this refers to a call or play, and I = quoted in support the wording of the relevant law, and the EBU TD Guide, = which says as much unequivocally. No-one supported my point of view, in = fact, Grattan, David Stevenson, Alain Gottcheiner, Steve Willner and = others all disagreed, saying that "action" could refer to "bidding" as = opposed to "passing" or "doubling". (NB I was not arguing about what the = law _should_ be, only what it actually does say.) Now in December 2002 David Burn and Grattan are arguing that "action" = does indeed refer to a call or play, and no-one is objecting. What has = happened in the intervening time to make everyone change their minds? If = opinions change back again, will we be informed of this? James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK [Alain Gottcheiner (back in April 2001):] James Vickers wrote: > What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two =3D > alternative actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). "Not-double" = =3D > now becomes a logical alternative and the score may be adjusted as the = =3D > offender could have chosen "not-double". Unfortunately "not-double" is = =3D > not an action, it is the sum of many different actions, and it is = clear =3D > from the Laws and the TD Guide that "logical alternative" refers to _a = =3D > call or play_ and not all other conceivable calls or plays in their = =3D > entirety, however much you may wish it were otherwise. It's not clear from the Laws at all. The Laws use the terms "logical alternative" and "logical alternative action"; however, neither of these, nor the term "action", is defined in the Laws. So there's nothing in the Laws that would make it wrong to call "a bid other than double" an "action". ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C29F00.432E0120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[David Burn:]
if the word "action" is going to be used in the Laws, a line should = appear=20 in the Definitions to the effect that an action is a call or play (and = not=20 anything else);
[Grattan:]
I think the context requires that such action be a call or = play.
The=20 word 'action' in 16A refers inferentially to 'call or play' in
the = preceding=20 conditional statement 'that may suggest a call
or play'.
 
[James Vickers:]
In my last contribution to BLML back in = April 2001=20 I argued that where the word "action" appeared in L16, this refers to a = call or=20 play, and I quoted in support the wording of the relevant law, and the = EBU TD=20 Guide, which says as much unequivocally. No-one supported my point of = view, in=20 fact, Grattan, David Stevenson, Alain Gottcheiner, Steve Willner and = others all=20 disagreed, saying that "action" could refer to "bidding" as = opposed to=20 "passing" or "doubling". (NB = I was not=20 arguing about what the law _should_ be, only what it actually does=20 say.)
 
Now in December 2002 David Burn and = Grattan are=20 arguing that "action" does indeed refer to a call or play, and no-one is = objecting. What has happened in the intervening time to make everyone = change=20 their minds? If opinions change back again, will we be informed of=20 this?
 
James Vickers
Wolverhampton, UK
 
 
[Alain Gottcheiner (back in April=20 2001):]
James Vickers wrote:
> What Alain and others seem to be = saying is=20 that there are two =3D
> alternative actions: double (40%) and = "not-double"=20 (60%). "Not-double" =3D
> now becomes a logical alternative and = the score=20 may be adjusted as the =3D
> offender could have chosen = "not-double".=20 Unfortunately "not-double" is =3D
> not an action, it is the sum = of many=20 different actions, and it is clear =3D
> from the Laws and the TD = Guide that=20 "logical alternative" refers to _a =3D
> call or play_ and not all = other=20 conceivable calls or plays in their =3D
> entirety, however much = you may=20 wish it were otherwise.

It's not clear from the Laws at = all.  The=20 Laws use the terms "logical
alternative" and "logical alternative = action";=20 however, neither of
these, nor the term "action", is defined in the=20 Laws.  So there's
nothing in the Laws that would make it wrong = to call=20 "a bid other than
double" an "action".
------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C29F00.432E0120-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Dec 9 17:50:15 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:50:15 EST Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: <60.2a2a331a.2b2631d7@aol.com> --part1_60.2a2a331a.2b2631d7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Nancy, for the information. From here on I will highlight and copy those portions of messages I'm responding to to make it clear what I'm saying -- if that ispossible. Kojak --part1_60.2a2a331a.2b2631d7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Nancy, for the information.  From here on I will highlight and copy those portions of messages I'm responding to to make it clear what I'm saying -- if that ispossible.

Kojak --part1_60.2a2a331a.2b2631d7_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Dec 9 17:50:07 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:50:07 EST Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: <144.49d3a64.2b2631cf@aol.com> --part1_144.49d3a64.2b2631cf_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/8/2002 3:23:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, toddz@worldnet.att.com writes: > >{Nigel Guthrie] > >"BLMLers are megalomaniac subhuman ignorant farts" > >What merits Kojak's tirade? > Please tell me where this quote came from. I can't find it in any of my sent mail. I don't need someone to paraphrase me or make my comments more vituperative than they are in the original! What I think you are referring to is my comment to Grattan about his heroic attempts (repeatedly so) to educate the individual whose posting questioned the "competence" of the people working on the Laws revisions and WBFLC. > I don't know. > > As he likes to edit out all content, some people are left > wondering what he's responding to. He's responding to a post by > Grattan which was a response to one of mine where I ask who would > "sabotage the effort [of creating laws for online bridge]." > If I "edit out all content" it is a happenstance and not intentional. I forgot that using "reply" doesn't copy the text in AOL, and have learned better as you can see from this posting. I take offense at the comments made about our competence, and that appears not to be your posting at all. We have worked hard, long hours, many without recompense -- and at substantial personal cost to us (not to mention hours that could more joyously be spent on the golf course)-- to apply our years of experience, playing, officiating, listening, and protecting our game, and deserve to be spared the approbium of those whose personal vistas of the game of international bridge can be best described as "limited." I have no knowledge of what you are talking about re "online bridge," nor have I commented on it in BLML to my recollection. > I, for one, greatly appreciate Grattan's cogent contributions. > Specifically in this thread, I come to understand that the WBFLC > cannot realistically ask for or impose broad changes upon internet > bridge sites all at once. So changes will be made slowly over > time hopefully constricting the sites and establishing clout for > the WBFLC. Or maybe I am hopeless to understand. *shrug* On further reading, I think you were not in any way involved in my response; my interest and involvement in On-line bridge laws is minimal. I share your comment on those of Grattan's postings that I have read on that subject. > > -Todd > And if anyone is offended by the above, sorry about that! Some of us are fated to offend, even when we are trying to educate. Kojak --part1_144.49d3a64.2b2631cf_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/8/2002 3:23:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, toddz@worldnet.att.com writes:

>{Nigel Guthrie]
>"BLMLers are megalomaniac subhuman ignorant farts"
>What merits Kojak's tirade?




Please tell me where this  quote came from.  I can't find it in any of my sent mail. I don't need someone to paraphrase me or make my comments more vituperative than they are in the original!

What I think you are referring to is my comment to Grattan about his heroic attempts (repeatedly so) to educate the individual whose posting questioned the "competence" of the people working on the Laws revisions and WBFLC.    

  I don't know.

  As he likes to edit out all content, some people are left
wondering what he's responding to.  He's responding to a post by
Grattan which was a response to one of mine where I ask who would
"sabotage the effort [of creating laws for online bridge]."

If I "edit out all content" it is a happenstance and not intentional.  I forgot that using "reply" doesn't copy the text in  AOL, and have learned better as you can see from this posting.

I take offense at the comments made about our competence, and that appears not to be your posting at all.  We have worked hard, long hours, many without recompense -- and at substantial personal cost to us  (not to mention hours that could more joyously be spent on the golf course)-- to apply our years of experience, playing, officiating, listening, and protecting our game, and deserve to be spared the approbium of those whose personal vistas of the game of international bridge can be best described as "limited."  I have no knowledge of what you are talking about re "online bridge," nor have I commented on it in BLML to my recollection. 

  I, for one, greatly appreciate Grattan's cogent contributions.
Specifically in this thread, I come to understand that the WBFLC
cannot realistically ask for or impose broad changes upon internet
bridge sites all at once.  So changes will be made slowly over
time hopefully constricting the sites and establishing clout for
the WBFLC.  Or maybe I am hopeless to understand.  *shrug*




On further reading, I think you were not in any way involved in my response; my interest and involvement in On-line bridge laws is minimal. I share your comment on those of Grattan's postings that I have read on that subject.


-Todd


And if anyone is offended by the above,  sorry about that! Some of us are fated to offend, even when we are trying to educate.



Kojak








--part1_144.49d3a64.2b2631cf_boundary-- From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 10 11:53:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > Tim wrote: > > > > > > > What really amazes me is how anybody could consider signing off > > > > in 2S > > > with KTx,x,KJTx,KTxxx after partner shows a "full value opening bid > > > with > > > > 5+S and 4+H" > > > > > > Nobody "signed off in 2S". 2S would have been invitational, > > > > Well I have obviously misunderstood reverse Drury. I imagined that 2S > > would show a minimum for the 2C bid - Qxx,xxx,KTxx,QJx or some such. > > I think this is a simple 2S raise, not even close to an invitational > hand. As I said, I have misunderstood the system. I have been (ab)using it to distinguish between sound+ raises to 2S (those that might accept a game try) and minimal ones (4 card support and little else raises). What about making the hand Qxx,Jxx,KQxx,QJx? > Without looking at the auction, suppose that opener had shown a minimum > opening bid with 5S-4H But I'm not allowed to suppose that in this UI case. I *have* to assume that opener has shown a "full value" opening bid. To me the actual hand still demands a degree of co-operation - 3C certainly looks reasonable. The AC then has to decide on the likelihood of opener having forgotten the convention - a decision they made anyway. Tim From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 10 12:11:07 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:11:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: [Kojak:] I have no knowledge of what you are talking about re "online bridge," ... ====================== "The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge 2001 promulgated by the World Bridge Federation" can be found at http://www.bridge.gr/dept/laws/OnlineLaws.pdf The document was mentioned in the current context as an example of the quality of the work of the WBFLC. Jürgen From henk@ripe.net Tue Dec 10 12:27:39 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:27:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Without looking at the auction, suppose that opener had shown a minimum > > opening bid with 5S-4H > > But I'm not allowed to suppose that in this UI case. I *have* to assume > that opener has shown a "full value" opening bid. Full value means a hand that would have opened in 1st/2nd seat, that still covers a range from 12 to 20. > To me the actual hand still demands a degree of co-operation - 3C > certainly looks reasonable. My point is: if (absent UI), the auction had ended in a spade partial, nobody would have done anything unreasonable. If so, then with the UI responder's choice of 2S (instead of 3) and opener's pass are LA's. 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 Tue Dec 10 12:34:10 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:34:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: [Nigel:} > >"BLMLers are megalomaniac subhuman ignorant farts" > >What merits Kojak's tirade? > [Kojak:] Please tell me where this quote came from. I can't find it in any of my sent mail. ============================= I had no difficulty recalling the source, in part because the malapropism fits the context so nicely: "They have always been with us, see the meglomanics [sic] of the past few centuries, and will continue to make flatulent noises without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about." Jürgen From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 10 12:42:21 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:42:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <005401c29f00$e84ef420$ca7abc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <3DF5E12D.4040903@skynet.be> Hello James, James Vickers wrote: > > In my last contribution to BLML back in April 2001 I argued that where > the word "action" appeared in L16, this refers to a call or play, and I > quoted in support the wording of the relevant law, and the EBU TD Guide, > which says as much unequivocally. No-one supported my point of view, in > fact, Grattan, David Stevenson, Alain Gottcheiner, Steve Willner and > others all disagreed, saying that "action" could refer to "bidding" as > opposed to "passing" or "doubling". (NB I was not arguing about what the > law _should_ be, only what it actually does say.) > > > > Now in December 2002 David Burn and Grattan are arguing that "action" > does indeed refer to a call or play, and no-one is objecting. What has > happened in the intervening time to make everyone change their minds? If > opinions change back again, will we be informed of this? > > Very nice James, but I do believe you know you are taking things a little too literally. When in one context "action" can mean "bidding" in stead of "passing" and in another it is stated that "action" does not include "alerting", these sayings are not really contradictory. Need I explain more ? > > James Vickers > > Wolverhampton, UK > > > > > > [Alain Gottcheiner (back in April 2001):] > > James Vickers wrote: > > What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two = > > alternative actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). "Not-double" = > > now becomes a logical alternative and the score may be adjusted as the = > > offender could have chosen "not-double". Unfortunately "not-double" is = > > not an action, it is the sum of many different actions, and it is clear = > > from the Laws and the TD Guide that "logical alternative" refers to _a = > > call or play_ and not all other conceivable calls or plays in their = > > entirety, however much you may wish it were otherwise. > > It's not clear from the Laws at all. The Laws use the terms "logical > alternative" and "logical alternative action"; however, neither of > these, nor the term "action", is defined in the Laws. So there's > nothing in the Laws that would make it wrong to call "a bid other than > double" an "action". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 10 13:11:45 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:11:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: [Kojak:] I take offense at the comments made about our competence, and that appears not to be your posting at all. We have worked hard, long hours, many without recompense -- and at substantial personal cost to us (not to mention hours that could more joyously be spent on the golf course)-- to apply our years of experience, playing, officiating, listening, and protecting our game, and deserve to be spared the approbium of those whose personal vistas of the game of international bridge can be best described as "limited." ============================================== In the entire interchange the only issue worthy of discussion is the cause of the poor quality of the laws. It does not matter whether my education and my mental capacity are deficient in various ways, nor even whether I am a lunatic, as has been suggested. Here are various possible reasonable reactions to the assertion that the laws could be improved: 1. The laws are not as bad as they seem. (Wagner's music is not as bad as it sounds*). 2. The laws are weak but sufficient. 3. The circumstances make it impossible to repair the laws, no matter who the lawgivers are. 4. The lawgivers cannot overcome the obstacles, and thus either a) Obstacles need to be removed b) More capable lawgivers need to be found Jürgen *ascribed variously to Mark Twain and G.B. Shaw From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Dec 10 14:11:57 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:11:57 GMT Subject: [blml] A simple ruling ?? Message-ID: <3df5f62d.44c2.0@esatclear.ie> Pairs Vul vs Nil Plyr 1 S x H AKT6 D J98xxx C Kx Bidding Plyr1 3H P 4H P(1) P DBL All pass (1) Slight Pause - agreed by all. Td called and rules 4H - 1 no double. Plyr1's side appeals. They claim that the double is so "Obvious" that it should be allowed. They estimate that 90+% of players would double with this hand. The singleton spade, the H6 which requires any heart over a 6 in pd's hand for a 4th trick, the CK a possible outside trick - all shout for a double. Your Call. Karel -- http://www.iol.ie From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 10 15:48:17 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:48:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] No Penalty Card, but UI? Message-ID: <3DF60CC1.90407@skynet.be> First let me give you the hand you will have to decide upon: QJ7 986 K KQT872 The bidding starts on your right, with 1Cl, you pass, and you hear 1Di-1Sp-2Sp (partner always passing) and you on lead the king of clubs. This is dummy: (your hand repeated for convenience) K852 AJ754 9653 - QJ7 986 K KQT872 declarer throws a diamond, and takes the club ace. declarer cashes king and ace of hearts, and ruffs a heart. declarer cashes ace and king of spades, and plays another heart, which you ruff with you high trump. You're in hand and this is left: 85 J 965 - - - K QT872 What do you play? In case you're wondering about appeals from partner, don't. When I asked them after the hand, it was clear they did not watch them. If needed, you can remember that partner threw a club on the fourth heart. He followed to everything else. Thought of the LA's ? OK, now the rest of the story. Along with the second spade, partner dropped the ace of diamonds. Declarer was very gentle, allowing this card to be picked up and not calling the TD. Do you agree with my ruling: -no PC -no chance of refusing diamonds for declarer -yes to UI -no LA to the DK At the table, she played the diamond king, dummy called me after the board, and I ruled that the result could stand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Tue Dec 10 16:17:05 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:17:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <005401c29f00$e84ef420$ca7abc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <004101c2a067$bda6dc20$8c182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Alain Gottcheiner" ; "BLML" Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 9:24 PM Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again [David Burn:] if the word "action" is going to be used in the Laws, a line should appear in the Definitions to the effect that an action is a call or play (and not anything else); [Grattan:] I think the context requires that such action be a call or play. The word 'action' in 16A refers inferentially to 'call or play' in the preceding conditional statement 'that may suggest a call or play'. [James Vickers:] In my last contribution to BLML back in April 2001 I argued that where the word "action" appeared in L16, this refers to a call or play, and I quoted in support the wording of the relevant law, and the EBU TD Guide, which says as much unequivocally. No-one supported my point of view, in fact, Grattan, David Stevenson, Alain Gottcheiner, Steve Willner and others all disagreed, saying that "action" could refer to "bidding" as opposed to "passing" or "doubling". (NB I was not arguing about what the law _should_ be, only what it actually does say.) +=+ In my view, the Law 16 use of 'action' limits its application use there, by inference, to 'call or play'. More widely I do not think that a call or play are the only bridge actions to which the word can refer when used in the Laws. I am not conscious that my position has ever been different - from the time when Edgar began making free with the use of the word 'action' in relation to Laws and Regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From torsten.astrand@telia.com Tue Dec 10 16:32:37 2002 From: torsten.astrand@telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:32:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] No Penalty Card, but UI? References: <3DF60CC1.90407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <017e01c2a069$c03f9d80$4d1b42d5@telia.com> Correct, but I would like to have a chat with all of them a that table. Torsten ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:48 PM Subject: [blml] No Penalty Card, but UI? > First let me give you the hand you will have to decide upon: >=20 > QJ7 986 K KQT872 >=20 > The bidding starts on your right, with 1Cl, you pass, and you hear=20 > 1Di-1Sp-2Sp (partner always passing) and you on lead the king of = clubs. >=20 > This is dummy: (your hand repeated for convenience) >=20 > K852 AJ754 9653 - > QJ7 986 K KQT872 >=20 > declarer throws a diamond, and takes the club ace. > declarer cashes king and ace of hearts, and ruffs a heart. > declarer cashes ace and king of spades, and plays another heart, which = > you ruff with you high trump. > You're in hand and this is left: >=20 > 85 J 965 - > - - K QT872 >=20 > What do you play? > In case you're wondering about appeals from partner, don't. When I=20 > asked them after the hand, it was clear they did not watch them. If=20 > needed, you can remember that partner threw a club on the fourth=20 > heart. He followed to everything else. >=20 > Thought of the LA's ? >=20 > OK, now the rest of the story. Along with the second spade, partner=20 > dropped the ace of diamonds. Declarer was very gentle, allowing this=20 > card to be picked up and not calling the TD. >=20 > Do you agree with my ruling: > -no PC > -no chance of refusing diamonds for declarer > -yes to UI > -no LA to the DK >=20 > At the table, she played the diamond king, dummy called me after the=20 > board, and I ruled that the result could stand. >=20 > --=20 > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 10 16:52:45 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:52:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] A simple ruling ?? In-Reply-To: <3df5f62d.44c2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021210173418.024dbaa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:11 10/12/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Pairs Vul vs Nil > >Plyr 1 > >S x >H AKT6 >D J98xxx >C Kx > > >Bidding > Plyr1 >3H P 4H P(1) >P DBL All pass > >(1) Slight Pause - agreed by all. > > >Td called and rules 4H - 1 no double. Plyr1's side appeals. They claim that >the double is so "Obvious" that it should be allowed. They estimate that 90+% >of players would double with this hand. The singleton spade, the H6 which >requires >any heart over a 6 in pd's hand for a 4th trick, the CK a possible outside >trick >- all shout for a double. Your Call. AG : my call is that in such a high auction, passing at torpedo speed would be more indicative than inserting a slight pause. Extending the Stop regulation to thoses case is difficult (you would need a simple definition able to encompass several types of auction), but always taking a slight pause after a stratospheric auction is not a bad move. Congratulate player # 3 (# 1's partner). As to the soundness of the double, I'd say it is less than the player said : for one thing, the CK will not be a trick if opponents happen to have several side-suit tricks ; for another, opopnents might escape into 4S (or 5C, or 4NT). But, since there was wirtually no UI, the player #1 is allowed to produce this double if he wishes.I would do it only in an 'Arab double' situation : some players deserve to be doubled at the slightest excuse. If you don't know why, they will know. But if the opposing hands are the not unexpected : Axxx Kx x QJ97xxx Axx Kx AQxxx xx I'll regret it (remark that partner's holding the H8 doesn't help, contradicting #1's version) Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 10 17:02:46 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:02:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] No Penalty Card, but UI? In-Reply-To: <3DF60CC1.90407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021210175355.024dda40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:48 10/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >First let me give you the hand you will have to decide upon: > >QJ7 986 K KQT872 > >The bidding starts on your right, with 1Cl, you pass, and you hear >1Di-1Sp-2Sp (partner always passing) and you on lead the king of clubs. > >This is dummy: (your hand repeated for convenience) > >K852 AJ754 9653 - > QJ7 986 K KQT872 > >declarer throws a diamond, and takes the club ace. >declarer cashes king and ace of hearts, and ruffs a heart. >declarer cashes ace and king of spades, and plays another heart, which you >ruff with you high trump. >You're in hand and this is left: > >85 J 965 - > - - K QT872 > >What do you play? >In case you're wondering about appeals from partner, don't. When I asked >them after the hand, it was clear they did not watch them. If needed, you >can remember that partner threw a club on the fourth heart. He followed to >everything else. > >Thought of the LA's ? AG : there are none. A diamond switch is automatic. >OK, now the rest of the story. Along with the second spade, partner >dropped the ace of diamonds. Declarer was very gentle, allowing this card >to be picked up and not calling the TD. AG : wrong. He could, however, have called and asked him whether it was possible to avoid the penalty card status (perhaps he, too, felt that a diamond was obvious). L81C8 could then come into action. >Do you agree with my ruling: >-no PC >-no chance of refusing diamonds for declarer >-yes to UI >-no LA to the DK AG : if the player had called you, and asked that the penalty card statut be forfeited, you'd be 100% right. If the home rules about home tournaments were that inadvertent incorrections could be disregarded (not a bad idea), you'd be right. Else, the four player's omission is an infraction in itself. >At the table, she played the diamond king, dummy called me after the board AG : too late. And inconsequetial : if declarer doesn't want to exert his rights, his side is bound to it. One exception : if there is a reasonable chance that declarer didn't see the DA. >, and I ruled that the result could stand. AG : OK, with a lecture on L9. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 10 19:42:35 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:42:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again Message-ID: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "James Vickers" [any chance you could drop the html and limit line length to 72 characters?] > ....Steve Willner and others all disagreed, saying that "action" > could refer to "bidding" as opposed to "passing" or "doubling". I confess not remembering the earlier exchange, but I fail to see how choosing a bid instead of a pass or double can be considered anything other than an "action," even within the narrowest definition of that word. If you happen to remember the Subject line, I'll look up the earlier thread. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 10 19:57:20 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:57:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics Message-ID: <200212101957.OAA06505@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > However, my friend wrote: > >>crusade you seem to be on where you feel it is > >>almost your duty to protect the weaker player > >>is misguided. If nothing else, they never > >>learn anything about the ethics of the game. It seems to me that the TD's primary duty is to apply the rules as fairly and correctly as possible. In an ordinary UI situation, that means making the correct technical ruling. That has nothing to do with ethics as such nor with protecting the weaker players. I suppose there is a secondary duty to teach players, especially beginners, what the rules are. Perhaps you might mention to the player in question that the ruling would have been different had he held fewer than eight spades, or whatever would have made a pass a LA. It also sounds as though your friend, despite his experience, might also need some education. Even with UI, players are never obliged to choose an action that is not a LA. "You are barred when you have UI," is not what the rules actually say, although some players believe it is true. (Perhaps this myth goes along with "Dummy cannot revoke.") I don't know enough about the circumstances to say how or whether you should have done something educational in this instance, but it's something to consider. > In what circumstances should the categories of novice or expert affect > a TD's decision, and by how much? UI, MI, and disputed claim cases are the obvious ones. Also in assigning adjusted scores under L12C2/12C3. Probably others. Sometimes the difference will benefit the novice and other times the expert. Anybody care to guess what fraction of rulings might be affected? Half? A quarter? Much lower for claims, I'd expect. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 10 20:20:39 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:20:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] TD Code Message-ID: <200212102020.PAA06530@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The thrice-repeated word "all" gives a whiff of a > Procrustean impression that a TD should first > determine what an equitable ruling is, and then merely > secondarily select a law which justifies the ruling. This is a long-standing opinion in some quarters. EK was known to say much the same. (Something to the effect of "If you don't like the result a law gives you, find another law.") Some of us would like to see the Laws written with rather less, ... um..., flexibility. There will always be need for bridge judgment, but for the most part it ought to be possible to write Laws which pose specific bridge questions, and once those questions are answered, lead to unambiguous rulings. (The main UI law is a good example. While there may not be unanimous agreement on LA's or "suggested over another" in a particular case, those are at least clear questions to pose to a suitable panel.) From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Dec 10 22:11:40 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:11:40 +1300 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <200212101957.OAA06505@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000301c2a099$2c065c50$df2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2002 8:57 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > In what circumstances should the categories of novice or > expert affect > > a TD's decision, and by how much? > > UI, MI, and disputed claim cases are the obvious ones. Also in > assigning adjusted scores under L12C2/12C3. Probably others. > Sometimes the difference will benefit the novice and other times the > expert. > > Anybody care to guess what fraction of rulings might be affected? > Half? A quarter? Much lower for claims, I'd expect. > I couldn't agree less with UI, MI if these offenses are allowed to become habitual with new players then that simply perpetuates poor ethics. In my experience new players are happy to be told and accept graciously rulings under these (and other) laws. The players you have problems with are the ones who have developed bad habits and not be corrected when they were learning. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Dec 10 22:13:07 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:13:07 +1300 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <200212101957.OAA06505@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c2a099$5524a2e0$df2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2002 8:57 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics > > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > In what circumstances should the categories of novice or > expert affect > > a TD's decision, and by how much? > > UI, MI, and disputed claim cases are the obvious ones. Also in > assigning adjusted scores under L12C2/12C3. Probably others. > Sometimes the difference will benefit the novice and other times the > expert. > > Anybody care to guess what fraction of rulings might be affected? > Half? A quarter? Much lower for claims, I'd expect. > I couldn't agree less with UI, MI if these offenses are allowed to become habitual with new players then that simply perpetuates poor ethics. In my experience new players are happy to be told and accept graciously rulings under these (and other) laws. The players you have problems with are the ones who have developed bad habits and not be corrected when they were learning. Wayne From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Dec 10 22:48:07 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:48:07 -0800 Subject: [blml] TD Code References: <200212102020.PAA06530@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003e01c2a09e$37fd0180$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > Some of us would like to see the Laws written with rather less, ... > um..., flexibility. There will always be need for bridge judgment, but > for the most part it ought to be possible to write Laws which pose > specific bridge questions, and once those questions are answered, lead > to unambiguous rulings. Yes, without regard to "the class of player involved," so that everyone is treated equally. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jvickers@fish.co.uk Wed Dec 11 01:20:47 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:20:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00e701c2a0b3$e3277800$5578bc3e@oemcomputer> [Steve Willner:] > [any chance you could drop the html and limit line length to 72 > characters?] I've given it my best shot. Please be patient if it hasn't worked. > > ....Steve Willner and others all disagreed, saying that "action" > > could refer to "bidding" as opposed to "passing" or "doubling". > > I confess not remembering the earlier exchange, but I fail to see how > choosing a bid instead of a pass or double can be considered anything > other than an "action," even within the narrowest definition of that > word. My problem was that the laws define "action" as a bid or play, whereas you all want to interpret it to mean choosing "bidding" over and above "passing", where "bidding" could include several different bids (each of which, according to the laws, are separate "actions"). E.g. partner's UI suggests passing over bidding. Case 1, you have only one choice of bid, this is deemed to be an LA and so passing is not allowed. Case 2, you have a choice of several bids, all equally likely. This reduces the proportion of your peers who would choose any one of these to below percentage which your SO considers an LA. As making any one bid is not an LA you may pass with impunity. Of course, I do not think such a law is very fair, but it is nonetheless what the law says. I even think when I catch you out like this that some of you agree with me (even though you don't admit it). I just wish the law could be changed to say what it means, so that simple folk such as me could understand it without recourse to such cryptic "interpretations", but we all know what a futile desire that is. > If you happen to remember the Subject line, I'll look up the earlier > thread. It was originally "MI from Japan" and later became "logical alternatives". [Herman de Wael:] >Very nice James, but I do believe you know you are taking things a >little too literally. You cannot interpret laws too literally. They should be unambiguous and say what they mean. James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 11 02:48:41 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:48:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics Message-ID: <200212110248.VAA09999@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Wayne Burrows" > I couldn't agree less with UI, MI if these offenses are allowed to > become habitual with new players then that simply perpetuates poor > ethics. Huh?! Who said anything about failing to enforce the MI or UI Laws? That would be crazy. The question is how often your judgment about LA's or "suggested over another" will differ for players of different experience levels. Novices simply won't think of calls or plays that would be obvious to an expert, and you have to take different bridge abilities into account in all sorts of judgment decisions. The result is that your decision in particular cases may well differ, depending on the experience level of the players. But that is very far indeed from failing to enforce the Laws. What I'm asking about is the fraction of cases where experience levels will affect the final ruling. Maybe my estimate was too high, but zero is too low. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 11 07:47:47 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:47:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games Message-ID: <00e401c2a0e9$9be9a540$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> The Competition and Conventions committee meeting in Phoenix had some interesting dicussions about scoring the qualification sessions of the big pair events. The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with the inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in the different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for overall standings in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. It is generally agreed that matchpointing across the entire event is best, but hardly feasible for, say, 14 sections (as in the first day of the recent Blue Ribbon). With the current software there is a problem with entering all the data. Henry Bethe had a suggestion for solving this problem, which seemed to meet with general approval and may get recommended to the BoD next spring. It goes like this (if I remember right): If there are 7 or fewer sections, matchpoint across the entire Mitchell fields, everyone changing direction (as usual) for the evening session. With 8 or more sections (forcing an even number if necessary), use "twinned" sections for matchpointing, 25 top. As usual, everyone changes direction for the second session. Pairs are qualified separately from each twinned group. The result is that pairs have faced the same opponents (mostly) as everyone else in their qualifying group. That seems pretty fair. Forcing an even number of sections may lead to some 16-table sections playing 32 boards, but that is not a great concern for qualifying rounds, I guess. The Blue Ribbon had sections of 16, 17, and 18 tables and no one but me seemed to care. -- Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 11 08:30:55 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:30:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <00e701c2a0b3$e3277800$5578bc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <3DF6F7BF.3060708@skynet.be> Hello James, James Vickers wrote: > > My problem was that the laws define "action" as a bid or play, whereas you > all want to interpret it to mean choosing "bidding" over and above > "passing", where "bidding" could include several different bids (each of > which, according to the laws, are separate "actions"). > > E.g. partner's UI suggests passing over bidding. Case 1, you have only one > choice of bid, this is deemed to be an LA and so passing is not allowed. > Case 2, you have a choice of several bids, all equally likely. This reduces > the proportion of your peers who would choose any one of these to below > percentage which your SO considers an LA. As making any one bid is not an LA > you may pass with impunity. > I remember the argument well. Since "bidding" is considered an "action", and that action is now again a LA, you may not pass. I believe we have just rediscovered why L16 contains the words "calls or plays" 3 times, but "actions" the fourth. > Of course, I do not think such a law is very fair, but it is nonetheless > what the law says. I even think when I catch you out like this that some of > you agree with me (even though you don't admit it). I just wish the law > could be changed to say what it means, so that simple folk such as me could > understand it without recourse to such cryptic "interpretations", but we all > know what a futile desire that is. > You can rest assured, James, the interpretation that "bidding" is a LA "action" is the majority one in this forum. You can also rest assured, anyone, that "actions" of L16 does not include alerting and explaining. That too is a majority opinion with sufficient consensus. > > [Herman de Wael:] > >>Very nice James, but I do believe you know you are taking things a >>little too literally. >> > > You cannot interpret laws too literally. They should be unambiguous and say > what they mean. > Please read again. I did not say that you were interpreting the laws too literally, just the contributions of members of this list. That is a very unwise thing to do, as I must be included in the list of people who apparently say one thing in one message and the opposite in the next. That just comes from uncareful snipping and disregard for context. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Dec 11 08:30:48 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:30:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games Message-ID: Marvin L. French > > The Competition and Conventions committee meeting in Phoenix had some > interesting dicussions about scoring the qualification > sessions of the big > pair events. > > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five > sections, with the > inevitable result that the same score will get different > matchpoints in the > different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for > overall standings > in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. > It is generally > agreed that matchpointing across the entire event is best, > but hardly feasible > for, say, 14 sections (as in the first day of the recent Blue > Ribbon). With > the current software there is a problem with entering all the data. It is interesting to read this. As usual we had quite a few complaints in Montreal regarding late results, almost all of them from ACBL-side. Not surprising since the Europeans are familiar with a waiting time of at least half an hour after finishing a large pairs session scored over the field. Where in Montreal we had the complication of playing those events sharing two different hotels, causing extra communication problems. Of course all these events should be scored over the field, though in practise it seems not that important to me. Seeding probably gets more weight when playing in groups with the same number of qualifiers in each group. But I don't understand why the ACBL has a problem with the current software. In 1994 Albuquerque we used ACBL-software scoring over the field, specially made for that purpose. Sol Weinstein was in charge of the result room and one thing there that didn't go wrong in ABQ was the scoring. Very fast even since we followed the ACBL-procedure with TD's entering the scores in a couple of sections and then merging the results. Why not trying to find that software? > > With 8 or more sections (forcing an even number if > necessary), use "twinned" > sections for matchpointing, 25 top. As usual, everyone > changes direction for > the second session. That doesn't make much sense to me, unless the fairness is restricted to being stationary pair. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Dec 11 08:35:52 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:35:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games Message-ID: Marvin: > Forcing an even number of sections may lead to some 16-table > sections playing > 32 boards, but that is not a great concern for qualifying > rounds, I guess. The > Blue Ribbon had sections of 16, 17, and 18 tables and no one > but me seemed to > care. I don't like 34/ 36 boards in play of which a pair plays only 24. I would prefer a group with an odd number of sections and solving that problem. But once more make it one big group, you can do it. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 11 09:32:09 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:32:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Lawful theory of bridge ethics In-Reply-To: <200212110248.VAA09999@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021211102205.00ac2790@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:48 10/12/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > I couldn't agree less with UI, MI if these offenses are allowed to > > become habitual with new players then that simply perpetuates poor > > ethics. > >Huh?! Who said anything about failing to enforce the MI or UI Laws? >That would be crazy. > >The question is how often your judgment about LA's or "suggested over >another" will differ for players of different experience levels. AG : there is that classical case where a bid which is standard is nevertheless disallowed after partner's tempo, because the risk in doing it is reduced. The case that was given in a course is the 10-12 1NT reopening. If partner took some time over the opening bid, the probability that 1NT be a good contract is higher, thus you are not allowed to do it ("suggested over other LAs, one of which surely is pass"). However, if the player is still at the Walrus stage, I would allow 1NT, since when he holds a balanced 10-12 count there is no alternative to 1NT. >Novices simply won't think of calls or plays that would be obvious to >an expert, and you have to take different bridge abilities into account >in all sorts of judgment decisions. The result is that your decision >in particular cases may well differ, depending on the experience level >of the players. But that is very far indeed from failing to enforce >the Laws. > >What I'm asking about is the fraction of cases where experience levels >will affect the final ruling. Maybe my estimate was too high, but zero >is too low. AG : other rules that might be applied differently are "could have known" rules, because the novice couldn't have thought of it, and because the novice could have a " bridge reason" that others wouldn't have, eg no idea as what to discard ; and some MI rules (when somebody answers "I don't know what the deuce his bids mean", somehow he is more credible if a beginner). Best regards, Alain. >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk@ripe.net Wed Dec 11 09:26:15 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:26:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Those big pair games In-Reply-To: <00e401c2a0e9$9be9a540$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Marvin L. French wrote: > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with the > inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in the > different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for overall standings > in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. It is generally > agreed that matchpointing across the entire event is best, but hardly feasible > for, say, 14 sections (as in the first day of the recent Blue Ribbon). With > the current software there is a problem with entering all the data. If the problem is with the software, then fix the software. It is trivial to adapt the software such that results can be entered and shared on more machines. Hardware investments range from 0.10 $ if you exchange floppies to perhaps $50 for an ethernet hub and a few cables. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From ethemu@ixir.com Tue Dec 10 22:58:50 2002 From: ethemu@ixir.com (Ethem Urkac) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:58:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <010601c2a0a0$e5554f20$6ad8fdd4@ethemhome> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CE_01C2A0B0.7808DC10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Sir,=20 Site shows me i am registered to list. But i cant get mails. Will you = please deal with that problem? Ethem Urkac ------=_NextPart_000_00CE_01C2A0B0.7808DC10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Sir,
Site shows me i am registered to list. = But i cant=20 get mails. Will you please deal with that problem?
Ethem = Urkac
------=_NextPart_000_00CE_01C2A0B0.7808DC10-- From henk@ripe.net Wed Dec 11 09:41:54 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:41:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <010601c2a0a0$e5554f20$6ad8fdd4@ethemhome> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Ethem Urkac wrote: > Dear Sir, > Site shows me i am registered to list. But i cant get mails. You had the "no mails" option set, you either did this yourself (this is intended to switch off mails while being away from your computer for a long time) _or_ there was an excessive amount of bounces for your address. Henk > Will you please deal with that problem? Ethem Urkac > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 11:00:28 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:00:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses Message-ID: >1. The laws are not as bad as they seem. (Wagner's music is >not as bad as it sounds*). >*ascribed variously to Mark Twain and G.B. Shaw Try this: http://www.insultmonger.com/insults/insulting_quotes/classical_musical_insults_2.htm Also ascribed to someone called Bill Nye in a book of quotatios that I own. I don't know who this Nye is, but it's probably not the Bill Nye you get when you do a google search on the name... _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Dec 11 13:39:02 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:39:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: I just read two appeals on claims in Phoenix and gladly admit that my personal decision in both would have been different. Apparently Adam doesn't agree with me, otherwise he would have been keen to mention these cases as well. I hope this will support my idea about ACs. Let me add that in the first case the TD took the same decision as the AC, but not in the second. Both cases are similar as far as the issue is involved: drawing trumps. In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to the K and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. There really must be strong evidence to assume that declarer miscounted to deny such claim. Declarer (Chinese) explained that she thought that such claims are routinely accepted and that she was unaware that she needed to say more than she did with a rump out. Asked why she didn't draw the last trump or stted she was going to, she said she thought that to be obvious. So do I. In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, plays the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without any statement about further play of the trumps. This is really strange, it suggests that declarer didn't realise that his RHO still had a trump left after playing the ace. This time the AC allowed the claim. I wouldn't. Let me add some more: In the first case RHO said that he waited for 5-10 seconds to give declarer the chance to recover, which she didn't. This seems to be evidence that she forgot about the trump???? In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO therewith not being able to improve her statement. She still tried, in which she also talked about a 3-2 split in trumps. I agree, you need to be there, to feel the finesses about what happened. What surprises me most is that both cases are decided so differently, though I would have doen that too, reversed that is. My national AC has a meeting this evening, 9 cases of our own. I wil try to get a decision for these cases as well. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 11 13:39:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > Without looking at the auction, suppose that opener had shown a > > > minimum opening bid with 5S-4H > > > > But I'm not allowed to suppose that in this UI case. I *have* to > > assume that opener has shown a "full value" opening bid. > > Full value means a hand that would have opened in 1st/2nd seat, that > still covers a range from 12 to 20. Exactly - it denies a minimum. If you are *not* playing Drury the sequence P,P,1S,P; 2C,P,2H does *not* deny a minimum per se, it only denies a minimum with club tolerance. There is no doubt that bidding only 2S with a maximal Drury holding caters to partner holding a 5431 9/10 count *and* to him having a 15+ opening. Now I have no idea what this pair considers a minimum 3rd seat opener, maybe 8, maybe 11 - but whatever "Full Value" means it surely must mean at least a King better than minimum. And if the system is such that 2S is a reasonable systemic bid on the South hand and a pass of 2S is reasonable on the North it is, IMO, a damn stupid system. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 11 14:09:42 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:09:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <009101c2a11e$f395b240$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:39 PM Subject: [blml] phoenix claims > I just read two appeals on claims in Phoenix and gladly admit that my > personal decision in both would have been different. Apparently Adam doesn't > agree with me, otherwise he would have been keen to mention these cases as > well. > I hope this will support my idea about ACs. Let me add that in the first > case the TD took the same decision as the AC, but not in the second. > > Both cases are similar as far as the issue is involved: drawing trumps. > > In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to the K > and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is > common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. There really > must be strong evidence > to assume that declarer miscounted to deny such claim. Declarer (Chinese) > explained that she thought that such claims are routinely accepted and that > she was unaware that she needed to say more than she did with a rump out. > Asked why she didn't draw the last trump or stted she was going to, she said > she thought that to be obvious. So do I. > > In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, plays > the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without any > statement about further play of the trumps. This is really strange, it > suggests that declarer didn't > realise that his RHO still had a trump left after playing the ace. This time > the AC allowed the claim. I wouldn't. > > Let me add some more: > > In the first case RHO said that he waited for 5-10 seconds to give declarer > the chance to recover, which she didn't. This seems to be evidence that she > forgot about the trump???? > In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO therewith > not being able to improve her statement. She still tried, in which she also > talked about a 3-2 split in trumps. > > I agree, you need to be there, to feel the finesses about what happened. > What surprises me most is that both cases are decided so differently, though > I would have doen that too, reversed that is. > > My national AC has a meeting this evening, 9 cases of our own. I wil try to > get a decision for these cases as well. I am getting more and more astonished on claim rulings the more I hear. First of all, in this case we do not have sufficient facts to give any ruling. Generally the undisputed procedure we follow in Norway on claims is: If declarer says nothing about the final outstanding trump he is supposed to have miscounted unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. We do not accept "of course I knew" as such evidence, but we will usually accept some indication like showing another trump (without really playing it) together with the claim. Failing to utter those few words required to show that he is aware of the last outstanding trump is as negligent as playing his (assumed) all high cards in any (even a silly) sequence, if he fails on one such item, why not fail on the other? We never say "Trumps first" or "Trumps last". If there is a particular sequence which leads to a loss of trick(s) he has to present some overwhelming proof why he could not carelessly have played his cards in any order when he assumed that they were all high. (We do accept when playing a suit from the top and then claims when he sees that the suit has no losers that he continues playing from the top without having to explicitly having to state so with his claim). Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 11 14:19:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again In-Reply-To: <004101c2a067$bda6dc20$8c182850@pacific> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott > +=+ In my view, the Law 16 use of 'action' limits its application > use there, by inference, to 'call or play'. More widely I do not > think that a call or play are the only bridge actions to which the > word can refer when used in the Laws. I'm a little confused here. What "bridge actions" are there, apart from calls and plays? I know there are alerts and explanations but I believe that if partner's alert of my bid reminds me that I misexplained his call I am *supposed* to "act" on this UI and immediately call the TD and correct. Do we have an example of where "action" needs (or even benefits from) an interpretation other than call or play? Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 11 14:22:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:22:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <3DF74A28.6080204@skynet.be> I agree with Ton. Kooijman, A. wrote: > > In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to the K > and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is > common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. There really > must be strong evidence > to assume that declarer miscounted to deny such claim. Declarer (Chinese) > explained that she thought that such claims are routinely accepted and that > she was unaware that she needed to say more than she did with a rump out. > Asked why she didn't draw the last trump or stted she was going to, she said > she thought that to be obvious. So do I. > Indeed this should be obvious. As soon as the fourth trump appears, all problems are solved, and that is exactly the point at which you should claim. > In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, plays > the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without any > statement about further play of the trumps. This is really strange, it > suggests that declarer didn't > realise that his RHO still had a trump left after playing the ace. This time > the AC allowed the claim. I wouldn't. > This is the totally wrong moment to claim. If you believe you can handle the 4-1 break, you should claim after both sides followed to the first round. If you don't, you play on. If they now drop, and you know you can handle the 3-2, you claim. Or else you play on. I can even accept something like: noticing the drop, thinking for a few seconds about how to proceed, finding it, and then claiming. But claiming immediately after an opponent shows out is a strong indication you did not notice the showing out. > Let me add some more: > > In the first case RHO said that he waited for 5-10 seconds to give declarer > the chance to recover, which she didn't. This seems to be evidence that she > forgot about the trump???? To me it seems evidence that she thought it was obvious. > In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO therewith > not being able to improve her statement. She still tried, in which she also > talked about a 3-2 split in trumps. > The argument about opponents interrupting is a valid one - but if one know mentions 3-2, one is cooked. > I agree, you need to be there, to feel the finesses about what happened. > What surprises me most is that both cases are decided so differently, though > I would have doen that too, reversed that is. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 11 14:35:09 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:35:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] TD Code In-Reply-To: <003e01c2a09e$37fd0180$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <200212102020.PAA06530@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021211092439.02576bb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:48 PM 12/10/02, Marvin wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > > Some of us would like to see the Laws written with rather less, ... > > um..., flexibility. There will always be need for bridge judgment, but > > for the most part it ought to be possible to write Laws which pose > > specific bridge questions, and once those questions are answered, lead > > to unambiguous rulings. > >Yes, without regard to "the class of player involved," so that everyone is >treated equally. I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. We may never be able to rid the bridge community of the perception that individual TDs or AC members are biased in their rulings based on their personal relationships with individual players, but there is a far more serious and even more widespread perception that *the law itself* is biased in favor of the experts, and that is something we *can* do something about. As Steve says, we do need laws whose application requires making judgments about "specific bridge questions", but laws that require judgments of individual players' levels of competence only cause trouble. I does no good to argue that the general perception is wrong. That may be true, but the fact that it exists is indisputable. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Dec 11 14:35:44 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:35:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: Herman: > I agree with Ton. Don't exaggerate this, Belgian friend ton > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. > he plays to the K > > and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she > claims. This is > > common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you > claim. There really > > must be strong evidence > > to assume that declarer miscounted to deny such claim. > Declarer (Chinese) > > explained that she thought that such claims are routinely > accepted and that > > she was unaware that she needed to say more than she did > with a rump out. > > Asked why she didn't draw the last trump or stted she was > going to, she said > > she thought that to be obvious. So do I. > > > > > Indeed this should be obvious. As soon as the fourth trump appears, > all problems are solved, and that is exactly the point at which you > should claim. > > > > In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays > to the K, plays > > the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows > the A without any > > statement about further play of the trumps. This is really > strange, it > > suggests that declarer didn't > > realise that his RHO still had a trump left after playing > the ace. This time > > the AC allowed the claim. I wouldn't. > > > > > This is the totally wrong moment to claim. > If you believe you can handle the 4-1 break, you should claim after > both sides followed to the first round. If you don't, you play on. > If they now drop, and you know you can handle the 3-2, you claim. Or > else you play on. > I can even accept something like: noticing the drop, thinking for a > few seconds about how to proceed, finding it, and then claiming. > But claiming immediately after an opponent shows out is a strong > indication you did not notice the showing out. > > > > Let me add some more: > > > > In the first case RHO said that he waited for 5-10 seconds > to give declarer > > the chance to recover, which she didn't. This seems to be > evidence that she > > forgot about the trump???? > > > To me it seems evidence that she thought it was obvious. > > > > In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted > by RHO therewith > > not being able to improve her statement. She still tried, > in which she also > > talked about a 3-2 split in trumps. > > > > > The argument about opponents interrupting is a valid one - but if one > know mentions 3-2, one is cooked. > > > > I agree, you need to be there, to feel the finesses about > what happened. > > What surprises me most is that both cases are decided so > differently, though > > I would have doen that too, reversed that is. > > > > > -- > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 11 14:52:11 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:52:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021211094718.009ebec0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:00 AM 12/11/02, Norman wrote: >>1. The laws are not as bad as they seem. (Wagner's music is >>not as bad as it sounds*). > >>*ascribed variously to Mark Twain and G.B. Shaw > >Try this: > >http://www.insultmonger.com/insults/insulting_quotes/classical_musical_insults_2.htm > >Also ascribed to someone called Bill Nye in a book of quotatios that I >own. I don't know who this Nye is, but it's probably not the Bill Nye >you get when you do a google search on the name... From Bartlett's (16th edition): Bill [Edgar Wilson] Nye 1850-1896: "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." From Mark Twain's Autobiography (1924). 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 Dec 11 15:03:18 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games Message-ID: [Marvin French:] ... The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with the inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in the different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for overall standings in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. [JR:] The question to ask is how large the resulting error is, and this is not difficult to answer. For example, if 4 sections are combined, each board having been played 4x12 times, the expected deviation from an average score (this is where the error is maximal) is approximately 15%; if two section 23%; one section 31%. Averaging over the number of boards played during a session reduces the relative error (it is inversely proportion to the sqare root of the number of plays). If 24 boards are played the 'imperfect scale' errors, in the 3 cases above, become 3%, 4.7%, and 6.3% respectively. You need to decide how large an error is considered tolerable, do the calculation, and be done with it. If errors of this order of magnitude are a concern then attention should be paid to accurate seeding, i.e. rating methods are needed. [Marvin:] ..... With the current software there is a problem with entering all the data. [JR:] Really? Why is this not a triviality? From henk@ripe.net Wed Dec 11 15:04:47 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:04:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > > > Without looking at the auction, suppose that opener had shown a > > > > minimum opening bid with 5S-4H > > > > > > But I'm not allowed to suppose that in this UI case. I *have* to > > > assume that opener has shown a "full value" opening bid. > > > > Full value means a hand that would have opened in 1st/2nd seat, that > > still covers a range from 12 to 20. > > Exactly - it denies a minimum. No. Language confusion ;-) There is a "3rd seat opener" and "full value opener", the latter are all the hands that one would open in 1st/2nd seat (say 12-20 hcp), the former just the hand that one opens in 3rd seat (say, 8-11). In the "full value range", one can be minimum or maximum. > And if the system is such that 2S is a reasonable systemic bid on the > South hand and a pass of 2S is reasonable on the North it is, IMO, a damn > stupid system. 2S shows an invitational hand that did not particularly improve after opener shows a side suit of hearts, 3S shows the hand that did improve. Pass on 2S simply denies anything extra. 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 a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Dec 11 15:11:16 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:11:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: > > Both cases are similar as far as the issue is involved: Sven > I am getting more and more astonished on claim rulings the > more I hear. > > First of all, in this case we do not have sufficient facts to give any > ruling. > > Generally the undisputed procedure we follow in Norway on claims is: > If declarer says nothing about the final outstanding trump he > is supposed > to have miscounted unless there is strong evidence to the > contrary. We do > not accept "of course I knew" as such evidence, but we will > usually accept > some indication like showing another trump (without really playing it) > together > with the claim. > > Failing to utter those few words required to show that he is > aware of the > last > outstanding trump is as negligent as playing his (assumed) > all high cards in > any > (even a silly) sequence, if he fails on one such item, why > not fail on the > other? > > We never say "Trumps first" or "Trumps last". If there is a particular > sequence > which leads to a loss of trick(s) he has to present some > overwhelming proof > why he could not carelessly have played his cards in any order when he > assumed that they were all high. > > (We do accept when playing a suit from the top and then claims when he > sees that the suit has no losers that he continues playing > from the top > without having to explicitly having to state so with his claim). > > Sven I know a much respected and honorable member of this group who will be proud of you. Not me, I find this approach too punitive and dare to say that the common interpretation of our laws does support my opinion. ton From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 11 15:16:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] TD Code In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021211092439.02576bb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > At 05:48 PM 12/10/02, Marvin wrote: > > As Steve says, we do need laws whose application requires making > judgments about "specific bridge questions", but laws that require > judgments of individual players' levels of competence only cause > trouble. I am of the view that novices hesitate before most calls, and are generally incapable of working out what UI suggests (to be honest they are barely capable of working out what AI suggests - we were all that way once). Experts hesitate seldom but can often read even slight tempo breaks by their partners and deduce subtle inferences. I do not see how ignoring these differences when making a ruling can possibly be "better" for the game. Either novices will be ruled against every other auction or experts will get away with murder. BTW I have had no problem at all in educating novices about the "concept" of not using UI. One merely chooses an example that is sufficiently obvious. Tim From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 15:26:58 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:26:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:39 AM Subject: [blml] phoenix claims > I just read two appeals on claims in Phoenix and gladly admit that my > personal decision in both would have been different. Apparently Adam doesn't > agree with me, otherwise he would have been keen to mention these cases as > well. > I hope this will support my idea about ACs. Let me add that in the first > case the TD took the same decision as the AC, but not in the second. > > Both cases are similar as far as the issue is involved: drawing trumps. > > In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to the K > and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is > common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. There really > must be strong evidence > to assume that declarer miscounted to deny such claim. Declarer (Chinese) > explained that she thought that such claims are routinely accepted and that > she was unaware that she needed to say more than she did with a rump out. > Asked why she didn't draw the last trump or stted she was going to, she said > she thought that to be obvious. So do I. > > In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, plays > the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without any > statement about further play of the trumps. This is really strange, it > suggests that declarer didn't > realise that his RHO still had a trump left after playing the ace. This time > the AC allowed the claim. I wouldn't. > > Let me add some more: > > In the first case RHO said that he waited for 5-10 seconds to give declarer > the chance to recover, which she didn't. This seems to be evidence that she > forgot about the trump???? What this is evidence of is that declarer clearly did not intend to say anything about trump. The possible conclusion from this is...... Well, wouldn't a self respecting bridge player do something about an outstanding trump if there was the possibility of losing a critical trick to it? Yet, maybe he wouldn't but it would be dubious to call him a self respecting bridge player. > In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO therewith > not being able to improve her statement. She still tried, in which she also > talked about a 3-2 split in trumps. Who knows what thoughts claimer lost because of the unethical interruption by opponents? Just how did this incorrect statement [proven by play] about 3-2 trumps get created? regards roger pewick > I agree, you need to be there, to feel the finesses about what happened. > What surprises me most is that both cases are decided so differently, though > I would have doen that too, reversed that is. > > My national AC has a meeting this evening, 9 cases of our own. I wil try to > get a decision for these cases as well. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 11 16:27:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Congratulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > > > > > Without looking at the auction, suppose that opener had shown a > > > > > minimum opening bid with 5S-4H > > > > > > > > But I'm not allowed to suppose that in this UI case. I *have* to > > > > assume that opener has shown a "full value" opening bid. > > > > > > Full value means a hand that would have opened in 1st/2nd seat, that > > > still covers a range from 12 to 20. > > > > Exactly - it denies a minimum. > > No. Language confusion ;-) There is a "3rd seat opener" and "full > value opener", the latter are all the hands that one would open in > 1st/2nd seat (say 12-20 hcp), the former just the hand that one opens in > 3rd seat (say, 8-11). In the "full value range", one can be minimum or > maximum. OK but whatever we call 3rd seat openers in the 8-11/12 range (I'll stick with minimum) a recipient of UI is not allowed to make a call that caters to partner having such a hand when it has been systemically denied. 2S is just such a call. > > And if the system is such that 2S is a reasonable systemic bid on the > > South hand and a pass of 2S is reasonable on the North it is, IMO, a > > damn stupid system. > > 2S shows an invitational hand that did not particularly improve after > opener shows a side suit of hearts, 3S shows the hand that did improve. Well fine, but the given hand *did* improve - if opps lead trumps you know pard will have time to establish a minor, if they lead Hearts he gets his ruffs. What do 2N, 3C, 3D show - surely one of those must describe this hand type? > Pass on 2S simply denies anything extra. Of course. But if the system treats the responding hand as "non-improving" then one has to treat the opening hand as having extras. If you do neither you play easy games in part-score. Tim From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 11 16:42:21 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:42:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to the K > and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is > common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. Long ago, when I first started claiming, I had a claim denied in similar circumstances. The TD at that time told me that no matter what evidence there was or how obvious it was, I had to utter the words "drawing trumps" (or similar) in order to get the benefit of drawing them. Whether this is widespread practice in the ACBL, I don't know, but I have since never failed to state "drawing trumps" when necessary. I am not at all sure the above rule is best, and apparently there are places where it isn't applied. However, what I would like to see is clear guidelines for what does and does not have to be stated when claiming. Ideally those guidelines, whatever they are, would be the same worldwide. I suppose this will be part of the "approved jurisprudence" project, if that ever proceeds. Anybody know of progress on that front? > In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, plays > the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without any > statement about further play of the trumps. As to this claim, I'm as baffled as everyone else. If you are going to deny the first one, denying this one seems automatic... > In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO but perhaps this is the explanation? Perhaps a good rule would be that if an opponent interrupts a claim statement, the statement is deemed to have been full and complete. But whatever the rules are, they ought to be clear. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 11 17:05:19 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:05:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Those big pair games Message-ID: <200212111705.MAA14776@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin L. French" > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with the > inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in the > different groups. Once you have more than 20 or so scores, the differences between groups should be much smaller than other random variations. Yes, matchpointing across larger groups or the whole field is better, but only very slightly. > With 8 or more sections (forcing an even number if necessary)... > Forcing an even number of sections may lead to some 16-table sections playing > 32 boards, which means a given pair will play only 26 of the 32 or more boards available. This almost surely introduces more randomness than failing to matchpoint across the field. From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 11 17:09:28 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:09:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001e01c2a138$10b12300$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" > Long ago, when I first started claiming, I had a claim denied in > similar circumstances. The TD at that time told me that no matter what > evidence there was or how obvious it was, I had to utter the words > "drawing trumps" (or similar) in order to get the benefit of drawing > them. Whether this is widespread practice in the ACBL, I don't know, > but I have since never failed to state "drawing trumps" when > necessary. > > I am not at all sure the above rule is best, and apparently there are > places where it isn't applied. However, what I would like to see is > clear guidelines for what does and does not have to be stated when > claiming. Ideally those guidelines, whatever they are, would be the > same worldwide. I suppose this will be part of the "approved > jurisprudence" project, if that ever proceeds. Anybody know of > progress on that front? (Very) Long time ago the claim rules were that unless you had in detail specified exactly how you intended to play the remaining cards then you had to play them according to your opponents direction no matter how irrational that play would be (only it had to be legal!). And opponents had the privilege to see all remaining cards before instructing the claimer on how to play incompletely specified tricks. This rule obviously did not matter against sound claims, and it was equally obviously a wepon against doubtful claims. Frankly I have some sympathy for that rule, we would never have to try finding out whether the claimer "knew" or overlooked something, and the rule placed all the burden on proving his intended play on the player who interrupted the play with a claim. Today's rule invites players to come along with doubtful claims trusting that the Director or in worst case an AC will sustain them afterwards. And I am convinced that there has been cases where players intentionally have tried to gain from this principle. Does it take a claimer that much time to explain exactly why he can claim in terms so that it is obvious to everybody he has not overlooked anything? In that case he had better play it out rather than claim. regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 11 18:33:45 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:33:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] TD Code In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021211092439.02576bb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021211115113.028f1020@pop.starpower.net> At 10:16 AM 12/11/02, twm wrote: > > At 05:48 PM 12/10/02, Marvin wrote: Don't blame Marv; it was I who wrote... > > As Steve says, we do need laws whose application requires making > > judgments about "specific bridge questions", but laws that require > > judgments of individual players' levels of competence only cause > > trouble. > >I am of the view that novices hesitate before most calls, and are >generally incapable of working out what UI suggests (to be honest they >are barely capable of working out what AI suggests - we were all that way >once). Experts hesitate seldom but can often read even slight tempo >breaks by their partners and deduce subtle inferences. I do not see how >ignoring these differences when making a ruling can possibly be "better" >for the game. Either novices will be ruled against every other >auction or >experts will get away with murder. There is a difference between making judgments based on individual players' tendencies and making such judgments based on their presumed "class" of skill level. Obviously, what may be judged to be a tempo break for a player who almost always maintains an even tempo will differ from that for a player whose tempo is generally erratic. Equally obviously, most experts, but few novices, will fall into the former category rather than the latter. But when a player who almost always bids in under two seconds takes 15, there has been a hesitation, regardless of whether that player is a novice or an expert, and even the rankest novice will know that partner's hesitation before choosing a call suggests that he was uncertain about his choice of call. More subtly, but similarly, a player who has more, or better differentiated, alternatives available to him in his partnership's established methods versus one whose methods are crude and simple -- or undiscussed -- may have different actions "demonstrably suggested", or different "logical alternative actions" available, to him, and, again, it is obvious that most experts, but few novices, will fall into the former category rather than the latter. When the law requires us to ask questions of fact or bridge judgment, e.g. Was there a break in tempo? What were the player's logical alternatives to the chosen action? Did the tempo break demonstrably suggest the chosen action of any of the LAs? ...I do not suggest that the answers should always be the same. These are judgments that must be made in each individual case. But the law should not require or suggest, nor should practice allow, that we use the reputation for expertise, or masterpoint holding, of the player involved as a surrogate for making such judgments on a case by case basis. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 11 19:05:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Long ago, when I first started claiming, I had a claim denied in > similar circumstances. The TD at that time told me that no matter what > evidence there was or how obvious it was, I had to utter the words > "drawing trumps" (or similar) in order to get the benefit of drawing > them. Whether this is widespread practice in the ACBL, I don't know, > but I have since never failed to state "drawing trumps" when > necessary. Playing at the Wood the statement "drawing trumps" will likely get you a slightly sarcastic "you don't say" or "What all of them?". Playing on-line I tend not to say anything against European opps (adding a "drawing" if they are slow to accept). Against ACBLers I will always state "drawing" before claiming - they often seem to get upset if I don't. I regard the second case as different. Declarer didn't claim when the 5-0 break was eliminated and I can understand the TD/AC believing that a black on black discard went unnoticed on the second trump. Tim From shrike@surfbest.net Wed Dec 11 20:19:32 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:19:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] Drury sequences with a forgetful partner In-Reply-To: <20021211151203.27150.76547.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" [snip] >>> Full value means a hand that would have opened in 1st/2nd seat, that >>> still covers a range from 12 to 20. >> >> Exactly - it denies a minimum. > > No. Language confusion ;-) There is a "3rd seat opener" and "full value > opener", the latter are all the hands that one would open in 1st/2nd seat > (say 12-20 hcp), the former just the hand that one opens in 3rd seat (say, > 8-11). In the "full value range", one can be minimum or maximum. > >> And if the system is such that 2S is a reasonable systemic bid on the >> South hand and a pass of 2S is reasonable on the North it is, IMO, a damn >> stupid system. > > 2S shows an invitational hand that did not particularly improve after > opener shows a side suit of hearts, 3S shows the hand that did improve. > Pass on 2S simply denies anything extra. I hope the clarification is helpful; it seems Drury is played differently by many on this list. For this pair, Henk is probably right. But we should remember that, for many pairs playing it this way, 3C is also a possible call -- a hand that didn't improve after the 2H bid, but is maximum in HCP. To me 3C is not obvious, but is a LA, and since bidding some number of spades is suggested by the failure to alert, I think that should be the result. If not that, then 2S or 3S are each possible -- opener could still have a 12 count, and he is permitted to try again over a 2S rebid by repsonder. (This assumes that with genuine clubs, invitational values, and no spade support, responder would bid 3C immediately.) From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Dec 11 21:22:47 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:22:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Heading of Law9B2 In-Reply-To: <00e701c2a0b3$e3277800$5578bc3e@oemcomputer> References: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: The heading of Law 9B2 (in the US version of the Laws) reads, "Further bids or plays" The text says "No player shall take any action until ..." which I have always assumed means no calls or plays, not just further bids or plays. Is this a (minor) defect that needs to be fixed? REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 11 21:23:47 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:23:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <009101c2a15b$9d96d940$e79868d5@default> I agree with Ton that the decisions do seem to be the wrong way round or inconsistent. I would rule against declarer in both cases because my traditional understanding is that, after a claim that is inexplicit, declarer may not draw trumps or "finesse". In my widely ridiculed "Wish-list" thread, I argued that "defaults" for drawing trumps, cashing winners, unblocking suits, and so on be more comprehensively defined in the Laws when they have been inadequately specified in claims etc.. e.g when declarer says "run dummy's spades", assume that he is playing them from the top. [Kooijman, A] I just read two appeals on claims in Phoenix and gladly admit that my personal decision in both would have been different. Apparently Adam doesn't agree with me, otherwise he would have been keen to mention these cases as well. I hope this will support my idea about ACs. Let me add that in the first case the TD took the same decision as the AC, but not in the second. Both cases are similar as far as the issue is involved: drawing trumps. In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to the K and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. There really must be strong evidence to assume that declarer miscounted to deny such claim. Declarer (Chinese) explained that she thought that such claims are routinely accepted and that she was unaware that she needed to say more than she did with a rump out. Asked why she didn't draw the last trump or stted she was going to, she said she thought that to be obvious. So do I. In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, plays the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without any statement about further play of the trumps. This is really strange, it suggests that declarer didn't realise that his RHO still had a trump left after playing the ace. This time the AC allowed the claim. I wouldn't. Let me add some more: In the first case RHO said that he waited for 5-10 seconds to give declarer the chance to recover, which she didn't. This seems to be evidence that she forgot about the trump???? In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO therewith not being able to improve her statement. She still tried, in which she also talked about a 3-2 split in trumps. I agree, you need to be there, to feel the finesses about what happened. What surprises me most is that both cases are decided so differently, though I would have doen that too, reversed that is. My national AC has a meeting this evening, 9 cases of our own. I wil try to get a decision for these cases as well. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 11 21:26:53 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:26:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Heading of Law9B2 References: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006001c2a15c$06c0ff90$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Robert E. Harris" > The heading of Law 9B2 (in the US version of the Laws) reads, "Further bids > or plays" > > The text says "No player shall take any action until ..." which I have > always assumed means no calls or plays, not just further bids or plays. > > Is this a (minor) defect that needs to be fixed? In view of the ongoing discussion on what constitutes an "action" within the meaning of the laws i suppose the answer is yes. In Norway we have always enforced law 9B2 literally according to the law text (ignoring the heading) that no player at the table shall say or do anything that can be related to the reason for summoning the Director. That is: We interprete the term "action" in its widest sense. Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 11 21:25:11 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:25:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games References: Message-ID: <001601c2a15b$ef6ba3e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with the > > inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in the > > different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for overall standings > > in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. It is generally > > agreed that matchpointing across the entire event is best, but hardly feasible > > for, say, 14 sections (as in the first day of the recent Blue Ribbon). With > > the current software there is a problem with entering all the data. > > If the problem is with the software, then fix the software. It is trivial > to adapt the software such that results can be entered and shared on more > machines. Hardware investments range from 0.10 $ if you exchange > floppies to perhaps $50 for an ethernet hub and a few cables. > I'm afraid I oversimplified, as it isn't just a matter of software. These games are so large that they must usually be held in two or three sites, too far apart for cables to reach. Running floppies with partial game files to a main site for incorporation is too awkward and time-consuming. I think that is the main problem. There is also the problem of corrections/fouled boards, which require a reposting of results in every affected section. It's good to limit these effects to one room if possible. If for only that reason, I tend to agree with the TDs that accommodating up to 7 sections for ATF matchpointing is going far enough, maybe too far, and I'm an ATF advocate. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 11 21:43:08 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:43:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games References: Message-ID: <001d01c2a15e$bc1fe5c0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Kooijman, A." > > Marvin L. French > > > > The Competition and Conventions committee meeting in Phoenix had some > > interesting dicussions about scoring the qualification > > sessions of the big > > pair events. > > > > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five > > sections, with the > > inevitable result that the same score will get different > > matchpoints in the > > different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for > > overall standings > > in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. > > It is generally > > agreed that matchpointing across the entire event is best, > > but hardly feasible > > for, say, 14 sections (as in the first day of the recent Blue > > Ribbon). With > > the current software there is a problem with entering all the data. > > > It is interesting to read this. As usual we had quite a few complaints in > Montreal regarding late results, almost all of them from ACBL-side. Not > surprising since the Europeans are familiar with a waiting time of at least > half an hour after finishing a large > pairs session scored over the field. Where in Montreal we had the > complication of playing those events sharing two different hotels, causing > extra communication problems. > > Of course all these events should be scored over the field, though in > practise it seems not that important to me. Seeding probably gets more > weight when playing in groups with the same number of qualifiers in each > group. As with "twinned sections," yes. The ACBL is doing a very good seeding job at NABCs, especially since Nadine Wood came on board for that task. The need for "anti-seeding" has been discussed, since the even distribution of weaker pairs is also important. It seems to me that a separate entry-sales table for B/C level players would be an easy way to spread them around evenly. > > But I don't understand why the ACBL has a problem with the current software. > In 1994 Albuquerque we used ACBL-software scoring over the field, specially > made for that purpose. Sol Weinstein was in charge of the result room and > one thing there that didn't go wrong in ABQ was the scoring. Very fast even > since we followed the ACBL-procedure with TD's entering the scores in a > couple of sections and then merging the results. > Why not trying to find that software? "Merging the results" with floppies, I presume. I'm sure that software is available. Were all sections in one big room? I wasn't there in 1994, but one factor is perhaps that ACBL players expect to see the posting of results in each section very quickly at the end of play. In fact, they expect the "one-round-to-go" results to be posted even before the last round is completed. >From the standpoint of ignorance regarding such matters, I'd like to see a wireless LAN through which numerous input/printer locations have simultaneous access into the game's shared data file. That they don't have. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 11 23:01:35 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:01:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] There's a fraction too much action Message-ID: <4A256C8C.007CEB49.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "let me try again", Grattan wrote: >+=+ In my view, the Law 16 use of 'action' limits >its application use there, by inference, to 'call >or play'. More widely I do not think that a call >or play are the only bridge actions to which the >word can refer when used in the Laws. [snip] Agreed. In Law 16, "action" = call or play. In Law 9B2, "action" = undefined; the (non-Lawful) heading of Law 9B2 is "Further Bids or Plays", which suggests that "action" is again merely a call or play. However, it is logical that the Law 9B2 "action" should have a broader scope than the Law 16 "action". Examples of what a Law 9B2 "action" should include: * correction of an irregularity, and * agreement of score. In an earlier thread I wrote that using different words for the same meaning was the cardinal sin in instruction manuals. I was wrong. Using the same word with different meanings is the Cardinal Sin. Best wishes from Manila, Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 11 22:19:51 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:19:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games References: <200212111705.MAA14776@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002401c2a163$a9a089e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with the > > inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in the > > different groups. > > Once you have more than 20 or so scores, the differences between groups > should be much smaller than other random variations. Yes, > matchpointing across larger groups or the whole field is better, but > only very slightly. Those who are disqualified because they played in the wrong group don't consider it a slight matter. It doesn't affect the goal of having the best pairs place high in the event, true. But there should be another goal, which is to provide an enjoyable experience for all contestants in the fairest way possible. > > > With 8 or more sections (forcing an even number if necessary)... > > > Forcing an even number of sections may lead to some 16-table sections playing > > 32 boards, > > which means a given pair will play only 26 of the 32 or more boards > available. This almost surely introduces more randomness than failing > to matchpoint across the field. > Well, sure, but as of now (e.g., in the Blue Ribbon) the first day's sessions have 16-17-18 tables in each section. Scoring those ATF leaves more randomness than would occur in 15-16 table twinned sections. When not using twinned sections, it should be possible to set up and sell 14-table sections. Then, when the game starts, reassign pairs in a partial last section to the other sections, resulting in a number of 15-table sections. They should have been doing that all along. With twinned sections ,16-table sections would not be very frequent. I got the number by assuming that nine sections would have to be reduced to eight sections, moving perhaps 13-1/2 tables from section nine into the other eight. Now I see I made a mistake and I should have assumed *almost* 10 sections were sold, requiring the moving of perhaps 26-27 tables into eight sections, resulting in 17+ tables for each section!! That certainly won't do, if only 26 boards are to be played. Should we throw out this idea and bite the bullet with ATF matchpointing? Or maybe we could just do what we do now, except say that each group of sections matchpointed together produces a separate set of qualifiers. Of course extra-large sections can be run with a Web or appendix Mitchell movement, with only 28 boards in play. I doubt that the ACBL would want to do that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 11 22:22:58 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:22:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games References: Message-ID: <003301c2a164$5cfed000$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "J=FCrgen Rennenkampff" > [Marvin French:] > ... > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with = the > inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in= the > different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for overall stan= dings > in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. > > [JR:] > The question to ask is how large the resulting error is, > and this is not difficult to answer. For example, if 4 sections are > combined, > each board having been played 4x12 times, the expected deviation from a= n > average score (this is where the error is maximal) is approximately 15%= ; if > two section 23%; one section 31%. > > Averaging over the number of boards played during a session reduces the > relative error (it is inversely proportion to the sqare root of the > number of plays). If 24 boards are played the 'imperfect scale' errors,= in > the 3 cases above, become 3%, 4.7%, and 6.3% respectively. > > You need to decide how large an error is considered tolerable, do the > calculation, and be done with it. > For this marginal qualifier, no error is tolerable. :-)) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 11 22:32:57 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:32:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Those big pair games Message-ID: <200212112232.RAA15005@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin L. French" > Those who are disqualified because they played in the wrong group don't > consider it a slight matter. Fine. I'm all for fairness. But don't solve a tiny unfairness by creating instead a much bigger unfairness with your "solution." Once you have 20 or 25 comparisons, adding additional ones is only a tiny improvement. No harm in doing it if there's no cost, but it's silly to go very far out of your way for it. It is, however, worth some effort to matchpoint across at least two sections (>20 tables altogether) instead of just one. Much bigger improvements come from making sure players play all the boards (which needs dealing machines if done in large events) and from using a proper movement so all compare with all. (Marv certainly knows about these issues, but it's still worth mentioning them.) From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 11 22:49:16 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:49:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] There's a fraction too much action References: <4A256C8C.007CEB49.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <006a01c2a167$893090c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: > In the thread "let me try again", Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ In my view, the Law 16 use of 'action' limits > >its application use there, by inference, to 'call > >or play'. More widely I do not think that a call > >or play are the only bridge actions to which the > >word can refer when used in the Laws. > > [snip] > > Agreed. > > In Law 16, "action" = call or play. > > In Law 9B2, "action" = undefined; the (non-Lawful) > heading of Law 9B2 is "Further Bids or Plays", which > suggests that "action" is again merely a call or > play. However, it is logical that the Law 9B2 > "action" should have a broader scope than the Law 16 > "action". > > Examples of what a Law 9B2 "action" should include: > > * correction of an irregularity, and > * agreement of score. Frankly I fail to see any good reason why the word "action" in law 16 (as well as in Law 9B2) should not encompass absolutely any activity that can have any influence on the current board if such activity could somehow have been suggested by UI (in the case of Law 16) or while waiting for the Director (in the case of law 9B2). If we are unable to demonstrate anything but calls and plays that are relevant in L16 cases then fine - no problem. But I don't want anybody having any possibility to "hide" behind a limited interpretation of the word "action" and do something (other than making a call or a play) which could be "suggested by the UI" and which has some influence on the board, and then argue that their action was not illegal because it was no "action" in the meaning of that word in law 16. Sven From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 11 23:05:43 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:05:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games Message-ID: >> You need to decide how large an error is considered tolerable, do the >> calculation, and be done with it. >> >For this marginal qualifier, no error is tolerable. :-)) >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California "Und er kommt zu dem Ergebnis: Nur ein Traum war das Erlebnis. Weil, so schliesst er messerscharf, nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf." -Christian Morgenstern Well, in that case let us outlaw statistical errors. In fact, why don't we just outlaw statistics generally. And if that proves successful we could do away with the rest of mathematics. Jürgen From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 00:11:06 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:11:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner asked: >Long ago, when I first started claiming, I >had a claim denied in similar circumstances. >The TD at that time told me that no matter >what evidence there was or how obvious it >was, I had to utter the words "drawing >trumps" (or similar) in order to get the >benefit of drawing them. Whether this is >widespread practice in the ACBL, I don't >know, but I have since never failed to state >"drawing trumps" when necessary. I state likewise. >I am not at all sure the above rule is best, >and apparently there are places where it >isn't applied. The "There is an Outstanding Trump" rule, Law 70C, is universal. However, its application depends on the definition of the word "normal". >However, what I would like to see is clear >guidelines for what does and does not have to >be stated when claiming. Ideally those >guidelines, whatever they are, would be the >same worldwide. There is a worldwide footnote defining "normal": >>20 For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 >>"normal" includes play that would be careless >>or inferior for the class of player involved, >>but not irrational. >I suppose this will be part of the "approved >jurisprudence" project, if that ever proceeds. >Anybody know of progress on that front? There has been jurisprudential progress on the definition of "normal". After discussion on blml exposed an unintended ambiguity in the footnote, the WBF relocated one of the footnote's clauses, so that it now reads: >>>20 For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 >>>"normal" includes play that would be careless >>>or inferior, but not irrational, for the class >>>of player involved. Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 11 23:30:37 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:30:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] There's a fraction too much action Message-ID: <200212112330.SAA15036@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > But I don't want anybody having any possibility to "hide" > behind a limited interpretation of the word "action" and do > something (other than making a call or a play) which could > be "suggested by the UI" and which has some influence on the > board, and then argue that their action was not illegal because > it was no "action" in the meaning of that word in law 16. Last time I checked, L73C was still on the books. Sven is, however, making a good case for keeping 73C even though most "real life" UI situations are covered with L16A. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 11 23:34:13 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:34:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <200212112334.SAA15041@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > There is a worldwide footnote defining "normal": > > >>20 For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71... Yes, we all know the footnote, but unfortunately it does not _define_ normal. As we all see every time the issue of claims is mentioned on BLML... From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 11 23:49:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] TD Code In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021211115113.028f1020@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > At 10:16 AM 12/11/02, twm wrote: > > > > At 05:48 PM 12/10/02, Marvin wrote: > > Don't blame Marv; it was I who wrote... > > > > As Steve says, we do need laws whose application requires making > > > judgments about "specific bridge questions", but laws that require > > > judgments of individual players' levels of competence only cause > > > trouble. > > > >I am of the view that novices hesitate before most calls, and are > >generally incapable of working out what UI suggests (to be honest they > >are barely capable of working out what AI suggests - we were all that > way > >once). Experts hesitate seldom but can often read even slight tempo > >breaks by their partners and deduce subtle inferences. I do not see > how > >ignoring these differences when making a ruling can possibly be > "better" > >for the game. Either novices will be ruled against every other > >auction or > >experts will get away with murder. > > There is a difference between making judgments based on individual > players' tendencies and making such judgments based on their presumed > "class" of skill level. Obviously, what may be judged to be a tempo > break for a player who almost always maintains an even tempo will > differ from that for a player whose tempo is generally > erratic. Equally obviously, most experts, but few novices, will fall > into the former category rather than the latter. But when a player who > almost always bids in under two seconds takes 15, there has been a > hesitation, regardless of whether that player is a novice or an expert, > and even the rankest novice will know that partner's hesitation before > choosing a call suggests that he was uncertain about his choice of call. Yes the rankest novice knows his partner is uncertain. He also knows how it feels. Novices are uncertain because they don't have confidence in what calls mean. 1S-slownovice 3S is as likely to be a text book-limit raise as a marginal 2/4 bid. > More subtly, but similarly, a player who has more, or better > differentiated, alternatives available to him in his partnership's > established methods versus one whose methods are crude and simple -- or > undiscussed -- may have different actions "demonstrably suggested", or > different "logical alternative actions" available, to him, and, again, > it is obvious that most experts, but few novices, will fall into the > former category rather than the latter. Heh, while I wouldn't class myself as expert I'm no novice. Crude and simple is my favourite method. Sadly most novices I encounter play transfers, negative doubles and other hugely more complex methods - I blame the teachers! > When the law requires us to ask questions of fact or bridge judgment, > e.g. > Was there a break in tempo? Fact: The call was made after 4-5 seconds with obvious uncertainty. Then the judgement comes as to whether that represents a break in tempo. I will attempt to assess the competence of the player and if I conclude he is a novice my judgement will be no. You will attempt to assess whether this is the habitual style of the player. On a case by case basis our judgement would probably correlate very highly. > ...I do not suggest that the answers should always be the same. These > are judgments that must be made in each individual case. But the law > should not require or suggest, nor should practice allow, that we use > the reputation for expertise, or masterpoint holding, of the player > involved as a surrogate for making such judgments on a case by case > basis. Not as a surrogate, I agree. However I would take an awful lot of persuading if a National Master claimed that he habitually bid in "novice tempo". Tim From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 11 23:59:43 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:59:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again Message-ID: <200212112359.SAA15064@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "James Vickers" > My problem was that the laws define "action" as a bid or play, whereas you > all want to interpret it to mean choosing "bidding" over and above > "passing", where "bidding" could include several different bids (each of > which, according to the laws, are separate "actions"). Let me make sure I understand what you are worried about: partner gives UI to the effect of "You should double." Suppose there are three reasonable bids, each likely to be chosen by one player in six absent the UI, and the other half of players would pass. You are worried that it might somehow be legal to double instead of choosing one of the bids because no single bid is a LA under the "25% rule." Do I have that right? First of all, L73C applies. I think that's quite enough to rule out doubling. Second, in the ACBL there is no problem. All of the bids are LA's. Third, here is what I wrote on 2001 Apr. 9: > The question (outside the > ACBL) is not whether there is some one action other than the one taken > that 25-30% of players would choose. Rather, it is whether the action > taken would be chosen by 70-75% of players. Even if no single other > action has high probability, logical alternatives exist. The classic > case is the one cited by Alain: suppose 50% of players would double, > but the other 50% would bid. If double is suggested by UI, it is > illegal, even if no single bid would have much support. (If I have > misunderstood the rules in the RoW, I'm sure someone will correct me.) Now that I reread this, though, I am not certain it's true. That is, I am fairly sure that competent TD's and AC's would rule as stated, but I am not sure such a ruling is consistent with the written text of the actual definition of "logical alternative" where the "25-30% rules" are in effect. Perhaps the regulations need to be rephrased to define "No logical alternative exists when...," but I'm not sure if that is entirely correct either. Can it be that the ACBL has done something right for once? :-) From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 11 23:07:21 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:07:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Heading of Law9B2 References: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000601c2a173$aeca4e00$d983403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:22 PM Subject: [blml] Heading of Law9B2 > The heading of Law 9B2 (in the US version of the Laws) reads, "Further bids > or plays" > > The text says "No player shall take any action until ..." which I have > always assumed means no calls or plays, not just further bids or plays. > > Is this a (minor) defect that needs to be fixed? > +=+ I am sure we need to have a plain statement of what we mean when the Law is rewritten. Meanwhile, subject to context, I consider these to be amongst examples of 'actions': (a) to withdraw a card (b) to rectify a mistake (c) to select from options (d) to mix or rearrange cards ~G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 01:53:34 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:53:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <4A256C8D.0008D7D7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard Hills wrote: >>>>There is a worldwide footnote defining "normal": >>>>>20 For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71... Steve Willner replied: >>>Yes, we all know the footnote, but unfortunately >>>it does not _define_ normal. As we all see every >>>time the issue of claims is mentioned on BLML... Point of pedantry; IMHO the footnote *does* define "normal". However, part of the definition of the word "normal" is based on the *undefined* word "irrational". It is arguments about the variable definition of the word "irrational" which were the basis for lengthy threads on blml. At least one thing has been clarified due to those previous lengthy threads. The WBF LC has made it clear that the bridge meaning of "irrational" has no universal meaning. The WBF LC has instead ruled that "irrational" has a relative meaning, depending upon the class of the player involved. However, in my opinion, in the 2005 Laws the word "irrational" should be carefully and narrowly defined. My proposed 2005 definition of irrational: >>An irregularity, such as a revoke, is irrational. >>An action different to a player's incontrovertible >>intention is irrational. All other actions are >>rational, even if those actions are careless or >>inferior. If such a narrow definition of the word "irrational" is adopted in 2005, then the distinction between "irrational for an expert" and "irrational for a novice" will no longer be necessary. Put me in with Eric Landau, (from "TD Code" thread): >...laws that require judgments of individual >players' levels of competence only cause trouble... Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Dec 12 05:17:20 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:17:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games References: Message-ID: <005001c2a19d$c1f9b4a0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "J=FCrgen Rennenkampff" >> You need to decide how large an error is considered tolerable, do the >> calculation, and be done with it. >> >For this marginal qualifier, no error is tolerable. :-)) Well, in that case let us outlaw statistical errors. In fact, why don't we just outlaw statistics generally. And if that proves successful we could do away with the rest of mathematics. ####### I guess I should have made clear that I meant the kind of error that is e= asily avoided. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Dec 12 05:25:59 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:25:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <005c01c2a19f$287dcbc0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > There has been jurisprudential progress on the > definition of "normal". After discussion on > blml exposed an unintended ambiguity in the > footnote, the WBF relocated one of the footnote's > clauses, so that it now reads: > > >>>20 For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 > >>>"normal" includes play that would be careless > >>>or inferior, but not irrational, for the class > >>>of player involved. > I thought the comma belonged where it was. If a play is irrrational for one, it is irrational for all. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 12 06:15:17 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:15:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005c01c2a19f$287dcbc0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003f01c2a1a5$d7fbbbb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Marvin L. French" > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > There has been jurisprudential progress on the > > definition of "normal". After discussion on > > blml exposed an unintended ambiguity in the > > footnote, the WBF relocated one of the footnote's > > clauses, so that it now reads: > > > > >>>20 For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 > > >>>"normal" includes play that would be careless > > >>>or inferior, but not irrational, for the class > > >>>of player involved. > > > I thought the comma belonged where it was. If a play is irrrational for one, > it is irrational for all. That is what you think, and that is what I think, but I have the impression after seeing some decisions: That is not what WBF wants us to think? Sven From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Thu Dec 12 08:13:24 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:13:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005c01c2a19f$287dcbc0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <003f01c2a1a5$d7fbbbb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <004901c2a1b6$58278520$25b54351@noos.fr> >From previous posts: I thought the comma belonged where it was. If a play is irrrational for one, it is irrational for all. Sven: That is what you think, and that is what I think, but I have the impression after seeing some decisions: That is not what WBF wants us to think? Guessing what the WBF wants one to think is too abstract for me. But 'irrational for one = irrational for all' makes no sense to me. For someone who learned bridge yesterday almost any legal order of play is feasible so rational. Obviously this doesn't hold true for a good player. The solution to this problem lies IMO in changing the laws in a way that we need far less judgement in resolving claims. My idea is (leaving out details): 1. To give a lot or at least some leeway when it comes to stating ones claim. It is about one's intention, not about the exact wording. 2. But once the intention of the claim is established I want to be very strict. If there is a material error the claim should be considered as an infraction that caries automatic penalties (just like a revoke does). What is a material error. I have no good wording yet but I mean all those common problems like insufficient top tricks, claimer has miscounted something, claimer is not aware that a certain card is still out (or still in), the stated line of play is incorrect, etc. IMO in cases like that it is silly to give declarer a 'normal', 'rational' or 'irrational' continuation. Someone who cannot count his tricks, cannot play out a hand 'normally' whatever the interpretation of 'normal'. The penalty should be that claimer is deemed to cash his supposed winners in a random order (= the most disadvantageous one). No finesse can be taken, no outstanding 'card' can be dropped, no new information may be used. Cashing in random order (this applies when a suit doesn't break etc.) : Someone claims AKQ9xx opp xxx for 6 tricks (break 40). Of course he plays AKQ before the 9. But for resolving the claim the 9 is played at the worst possible moment in relation to the outside winners. No finesse, no drop, no info (this applies when the claim is short of tricks) : Declarer only gets his top tricks when he claims too many tricks. Someone who thinks his hand is good is not supposed to pay attention anymore so he is not supposed to see a side suit breaking 3-3 or whatever. As TD or AC we should not be playing the hand for him. This sometimes might be quite severe but so is the penalty for a revoke (which might make a grand slam off the ace of trumps). I don't see the problem. Nobody asks you to claim a hand before it is claimable. If you do then you have to pay a price. I have seen too many bitter opps after a claimer got away with a silly mistake. And on AC I have had to award claims that I personally thought were ridiculous. Obviously there will always be cases where the claim is neither correct nor materially wrong. Wonderful. You cannot make a rule for every possible lunacy bridge players are capable off. Those few cases we can still judge using the current methods. They are not that bad given a couple of improvements. From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Thu Dec 12 08:24:56 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:24:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005c01c2a19f$287dcbc0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <003f01c2a1a5$d7fbbbb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004901c2a1b6$58278520$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <008101c2a1b7$f7255020$25b54351@noos.fr> This is a first post so I hope I get the procedure right. I am a member of the Dutch National Appeal Committee but I won't be present at the meeting where Ton wants to discuss the Phoenix cases. But I already had a look at them. The problem with the first one (claim after AK of trumps) is the level of play and the culture. The culture aspect is mentioned already (don't forget to draw trumps in the ACBL, in Europe opps probably don't object to this kind of claim). The level is also relevant. If a good player plays the hand well and shows his hand at the 'correct' moment (after testing what has to be tested) against other good players nobody will even think of objecting to such a claim. But this is dangerous against lesser opps or opps from another culture (they have been thought by mummy, the TD and everybody else that you MUST mention trumps .....). Here I don't like the declarer play. According to my info declarer has played a low diamond from hand at trick four. I cannot see any sound reason for not drawing trumps at this stage. Also the local AC deemed it necessary to consult a lesser player to assess the case. So I tend to agree to the ruling. When in Rome ..... But to be honest as a player I don't like it. Not being American I probably wouldn't even have thought of contesting the claim. The second case is different IMHO. The facts are not really clear. To rule such a case you have to be there to feel it. I like the ruling (as a player I cannot imagine objecting to the claim) and the motivation of the ruling (the interruption came when declarer was still drawing trumps and nothing so far indicated she would miscount trumps....). But another AC might have easily decided otherwise. Lesson: it is very dangerous to claim without being very explicit about the trump situation. Question: are the relevant claim laws (about trumps) ok. For the moment I would see both yes and no. Yes because you are strongly encouraged to be clear about trumps but there is a little bit of room to prevent opps from contesting obvious claims with procedural arguments only. No because I would not object to stricter laws. I have had to judge to many claim problems already. Things would be simplified if failure to mention outstanding trumps is deemed to be an error. A simple rule with some kind of automatic penalty. I do think however that other claim laws (or current interpretations) are impractical or even wrong (dangerous statement I know). I hope to post some discussion material soon. Jaap van der Neut From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 12 07:55:58 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:55:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005c01c2a19f$287dcbc0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <003f01c2a1a5$d7fbbbb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004901c2a1b6$58278520$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <005701c2a1b3$e8184dc0$70d8fea9@WINXP> If I understand this post by Jaap correct then I am very much in favour: In short - whenever the line of play is not specified beyond doubt by the claimer any doubtful point shall be resolved by the opponents of the claimer (after they see all remaining cards). Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > From previous posts: > > I thought the comma belonged where it was. If a play is irrrational for one, > it is irrational for all. > > Sven: > That is what you think, and that is what I think, but I have the impression > after seeing some decisions: That is not what WBF wants us to think? > > Guessing what the WBF wants one to think is too abstract for me. But > 'irrational for one = irrational for all' makes no sense to me. For someone > who learned bridge yesterday almost any legal order of play is feasible so > rational. Obviously this doesn't hold true for a good player. > > The solution to this problem lies IMO in changing the laws in a way that we > need far less judgement in resolving claims. My idea is (leaving out > details): > > 1. To give a lot or at least some leeway when it comes to stating ones > claim. It is about one's intention, not about the exact wording. > 2. But once the intention of the claim is established I want to be very > strict. If there is a material error the claim should be considered as an > infraction that caries automatic penalties (just like a revoke does). > > What is a material error. I have no good wording yet but I mean all those > common problems like insufficient top tricks, claimer has miscounted > something, claimer is not aware that a certain card is still out (or still > in), the stated line of play is incorrect, etc. IMO in cases like that it is > silly to give declarer a 'normal', 'rational' or 'irrational' continuation. > Someone who cannot count his tricks, cannot play out a hand 'normally' > whatever the interpretation of 'normal'. The penalty should be that claimer > is deemed to cash his supposed winners in a random order (= the most > disadvantageous one). No finesse can be taken, no outstanding 'card' can be > dropped, no new information may be used. > > Cashing in random order (this applies when a suit doesn't break etc.) : > Someone claims AKQ9xx opp xxx for 6 tricks (break 40). Of course he plays > AKQ before the 9. But for resolving the claim the 9 is played at the worst > possible moment in relation to the outside winners. > > No finesse, no drop, no info (this applies when the claim is short of > tricks) : Declarer only gets his top tricks when he claims too many tricks. > Someone who thinks his hand is good is not supposed to pay attention anymore > so he is not supposed to see a side suit breaking 3-3 or whatever. As TD or > AC we should not be playing the hand for him. > > This sometimes might be quite severe but so is the penalty for a revoke > (which might make a grand slam off the ace of trumps). I don't see the > problem. Nobody asks you to claim a hand before it is claimable. If you do > then you have to pay a price. I have seen too many bitter opps after a > claimer got away with a silly mistake. And on AC I have had to award claims > that I personally thought were ridiculous. > > Obviously there will always be cases where the claim is neither correct nor > materially wrong. Wonderful. You cannot make a rule for every possible > lunacy bridge players are capable off. Those few cases we can still judge > using the current methods. They are not that bad given a couple of > improvements. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 12 07:56:31 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:56:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005c01c2a19f$287dcbc0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <003f01c2a1a5$d7fbbbb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001d01c2a1b4$170cdf60$3dba193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > > I thought the comma belonged where it was. If a > > play is irrrational for one, it is irrational for all. > > That is what you think, and that is what I think, but I > have the impression after seeing some decisions: > That is not what WBF wants us to think? > > Sven > +=+ The question was raised in the WBFLC because certain of its members ( a small minority, it appeared) shared the opinion that irrationality is an absolute condition, not variable amongst individuals. The WBFLC decided that the standard for what is 'irrational' varies according to the standard of the player, and this is currently the correct interpretation of the footnote. My personal opinion is that, if such is to be the case, 'irrational' is a poor word to adopt. The law should be referring to what is 'unthinkable' or 'inconceivable' in the player involved. As a matter of loyalty to the committee I promulgate the authorized interpretation, but in my private feelings I find it difficult to justify. If the word were altered as I suggest it would clarify the focus of the law and I could not then object to the interpretation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 12 08:48:28 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:48:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <200212112359.SAA15064@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000101c2a1bb$c54cdba0$5787403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: let me try again . > > Can it be that the ACBL has done something > right for once? :-) > +=+ I am glad the smiley is there. Without it the innuendo would be unfair. Like all orgs the ACBL does a few things that other people do not agree with, and many that the majority find acceptable. The same goes for appeals. To pick out a minority of appeals where, in the light of what we know about them, people disagree with the decision, and then to condemn the whole process for the 'failings' of the few, is not an objective argument. Furthermore remedies that are suggested offer no greater probability of justice, and in my view would offer less, than the present system. Again, the question of 'human rights' (and natural justice) is much to the fore in the world at present, and is even the subject of supra-national legislation in Europe; it calls for an appeals procedure that is independent of the 'court of first instance' and of the legislature; it is my belief that the purposes of the European Court of Human Rights are proper and that we should aim similarly in the bridge world. The right of appeal to the judgement of the appellant's peers is enshrined in British jurisprudence and the concept comes naturally to me. (For which reason I am unhappy with current moves in the British legislature to restrict it for the convenient administration of the Law, as also I find repugnant suggestions for facile summary justice in bridge.) ~ G ~ +=+ From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Thu Dec 12 09:53:14 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:53:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005c01c2a19f$287dcbc0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <003f01c2a1a5$d7fbbbb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004901c2a1b6$58278520$25b54351@noos.fr> <005701c2a1b3$e8184dc0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c2a1c4$4d64aa60$25b54351@noos.fr> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > If I understand this post by Jaap correct then I am very much > in favour: > In short - whenever the line of play is not specified beyond > doubt by the claimer any doubtful point shall be resolved by > the opponents of the claimer (after they see all remaining cards). > > Sven What I try to say: An erroneous claim should be treated different from a clumsy claim. An erroneous claim (insufficient number of tricks etc, claimer got some logic clearly wrong) should be treated as an infraction. Kind of automatic penalties / resolving. And in the common case of insufficient tricks a very simple rule : only the existing top tricks. I don't want to be bothered (and I don't want the opps to be bothered) to check if any line of play (legal/insane/normal/whatever) generates extra tricks. These type of 'rules to resolve' probably go even further than what Sven proposes. I don't want the opps to be bothered by claimers nonsense (I know from experience that average players hate this kind of situation). They only have to call the TD and the TD will take care of the case. But in most if not all cases Sven and I probably will arrive at the same final result (claimers opinion/level/whatever is not relevant anymore after his claim is judged to be erroneous). This is more a discussion about how to formulate the rules. A clumsy claim is more difficult. Example : someone claims the rest (which in itself is correct) but there is some unmentioned minor technical problem like a simple blockade (which doesn't pose any serious problem to the hand overall). At the top level this might be considered so futile that opps might not even notice or in any case don't even think of objecting. A beginner obviously cannot claim such a hand (but beginners never claim so no problem there). The problem of course arrives when an average player claims the hand. Now someone (TD or AC) has to judge whether the minor technical problem is minor (allow the claim) or serious (disallow the claim) enough in the context of the level of claimer. I really see no alternative without making claiming impossible. There is always some constraint to the communication between the hands (among other blips) and thus the order in which you can cash your winners. If someone claims 'the rest' you always have to assume some level of expertise of the claimer. The real solution is that we (bridge players) restrain ourselves to claim only obvious positions, obvious to all involved (which again depends very much on level). Then problems 'never' arise. Jaap From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 12 09:12:34 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:12:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> Steve has the answer right at his grasp. Take it completely, Steve: Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "Kooijman, A." >>In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to the K >>and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is >>common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. >> > > Long ago, when I first started claiming, I had a claim denied in > similar circumstances. The TD at that time told me that no matter what > evidence there was or how obvious it was, I had to utter the words > "drawing trumps" (or similar) in order to get the benefit of drawing > them. Whether this is widespread practice in the ACBL, I don't know, > but I have since never failed to state "drawing trumps" when > necessary. > So when you don't say "drawing trumps" next time, that is a strong indication that you forgot about them. But I never say "drawing trumps". Nor do many of my friends around here. And it is generally accepted that players can count a single suit. So if I claim without saying "drawing trumps", this is not an indication that I forgot the 13th one. In my case, you need to find other evidence to satisfy the condition of L70C2. Now I am not saying that this is a good situation, but it is true. So any kind of "clear guideline" will lead to unjust rulings, either at your table or at mine. Oh and don't think you can change the habits of all the bridge players around the world. I'd have a revolution on my hands if I started making claim rulings like this one in Antwerp. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From henk@ripe.net Thu Dec 12 09:24:10 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:24:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Those big pair games In-Reply-To: <001601c2a15b$ef6ba3e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Marvin L. French wrote: > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > The current method is to matchpoint across four or five sections, with the > > > inevitable result that the same score will get different matchpoints in > the > > > different groups. Since the groups are lumped together for overall > standings > > > in each qualifying Mitchell field, this doesn't seem right. It is > generally > > > agreed that matchpointing across the entire event is best, but hardly > feasible > > > for, say, 14 sections (as in the first day of the recent Blue Ribbon). > With > > > the current software there is a problem with entering all the data. > > > > If the problem is with the software, then fix the software. It is trivial > > to adapt the software such that results can be entered and shared on more > > machines. Hardware investments range from 0.10 $ if you exchange > > floppies to perhaps $50 for an ethernet hub and a few cables. > > > I'm afraid I oversimplified, as it isn't just a matter of software. These > games are so large that they must usually be held in two or three sites, too > far apart for cables to reach. Running floppies with partial game files to a > main site for incorporation is too awkward and time-consuming. I think that is > the main problem. Any modern convention center has Ethernet these days. Henk > > There is also the problem of corrections/fouled boards, which require a > reposting of results in every affected section. It's good to limit these > effects to one room if possible. If for only that reason, I tend to agree with > the TDs that accommodating up to 7 sections for ATF matchpointing is going > far enough, maybe too far, and I'm an ATF advocate. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Thu Dec 12 10:01:00 2002 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:01:00 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <00a901c2a1c5$60271b00$951afac1@olivier> > > > I agree with Ton. > > > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > > > In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he lays to > the K > > > and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This > is > > > common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. There > really > > > must be strong evidence > > > to assume that declarer miscounted to deny such claim. Declarer > (Chinese) > > > explained that she thought that such claims are routinely accepted and > that > > > she was unaware that she needed to say more than she did with a rump > out. > > > Asked why she didn't draw the last trump or stted she was going to, she > said > > > she thought that to be obvious. So do I. > > > > > > > > > Indeed this should be obvious. As soon as the fourth trump appears, > > all problems are solved, and that is exactly the point at which you > > should claim. > > > > > > > In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, > plays > > > the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without > any > > > statement about further play of the trumps. This is really strange, it > > > suggests that declarer didn't > > > realise that his RHO still had a trump left after playing the ace. This > time > > > the AC allowed the claim. I wouldn't. > > > > > > > > This is the totally wrong moment to claim. > If you believe you can handle the 4-1 break, you should claim after > both sides followed to the first round. If you don't, you play on. > If they now drop, and you know you can handle the 3-2, you claim. Or > else you play on. > I can even accept something like: noticing the drop, thinking for a > few seconds about how to proceed, finding it, and then claiming. > But claiming immediately after an opponent shows out is a strong > indication you did not notice the showing out. You should claim when RHO follows a trump after the 1st honnor from dummy, you can either handle a 5-0 onside! Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > > > > > Let me add some more: > > > > > > > > In the first case RHO said that he waited for 5-10 seconds to give > > declarer > > > > the chance to recover, which she didn't. This seems to be evidence > that > > she > > > > forgot about the trump???? > > > > > > > > > To me it seems evidence that she thought it was obvious. > > > > > > > > > > In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO > > therewith > > > > not being able to improve her statement. She still tried, in which she > > also > > > > talked about a 3-2 split in trumps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The argument about opponents interrupting is a valid one - but if one > > > know mentions 3-2, one is cooked. > > > > > > > > > > I agree, you need to be there, to feel the finesses about what > happened. > > > > What surprises me most is that both cases are decided so differently, > > though > > > > I would have doen that too, reversed that is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 13:20:37 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:20:37 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > Steve has the answer right at his grasp. Take it completely, Steve: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >>From: "Kooijman, A." > Oh and don't think you can change the habits of all the bridge players > around the world. I'd have a revolution on my hands if I started > making claim rulings like this one in Antwerp. If I remember my history there was an emperor Deocletin who several thousand years ago was noted for balancing the books by the decree that copper had the same worth as silver. An application of what is known today as Gresham's law. Gresham's Law of course is the principle that debased money forces good money out of circulation. As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What is to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not make good claims? regards roger pewick > 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 Thu Dec 12 13:54:13 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:54:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212144821.00ab8a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:42 11/12/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > In case 3 (the first one) declarer has AQ7653 opposite K8. he plays to > the K > > and then to the A, both defenders following suit. Now she claims. This is > > common practise, once you see that trumps split 3-2 you claim. AG : I have been taught to accept such claims. The tempo of the claim (not until one sees that trumps are 3-2) makes it clear that declarer knew there were 5 outstanding, thus one more. > > In case 4 the trumps are AJ962 opposite KQ3. Declarer plays to the K, plays > > the Q on which his LHO pitches a club and then she shows the A without any > > statement about further play of the trumps. AG : this is stranger. I am inclined to believe that declarer saw trumps as 32 (didn't see the discard), else why show one more high trump ? He could have said "two more rounds", or shown the AJ at once, or put them on the table in rapuid succession (my favorite way). The fact that he showed *one* high trump is a hint that he thought only one round was necessary ... never tried discarding black on black ? >As to this claim, I'm as baffled as everyone else. If you are going to >deny the first one, denying this one seems automatic... AG : not the other way, however. > > In the second case declarer said that she was interrupted by RHO > >but perhaps this is the explanation? > >Perhaps a good rule would be that if an opponent interrupts a claim >statement, the statement is deemed to have been full and complete. AG : agreed. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 14:00:10 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:00:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <009101c2a15b$9d96d940$e79868d5@default> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212145734.00ac72b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:23 11/12/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >I agree with Ton that the decisions do seem to >be the wrong way round or inconsistent. > >I would rule against declarer in both cases >because my traditional understanding is that, >after a claim that is inexplicit, declarer may >not draw trumps or "finesse". > >In my widely ridiculed "Wish-list" thread, I >argued that "defaults" for drawing trumps, >cashing winners, unblocking suits, and so on >be more comprehensively defined in the Laws >when they have been inadequately specified >in claims etc.. >e.g when declarer says "run dummy's spades", >assume that he is playing them from the top. AG : another important default in a frequent situation : when declarer says "you get one club trick", is he assumed to mean the last trick, or is he compelled to play a small club immediately ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 14:03:18 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <4A256C8C.0083482D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212150103.00ab1780@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:11 12/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >There has been jurisprudential progress on the >definition of "normal". After discussion on >blml exposed an unintended ambiguity in the >footnote, the WBF relocated one of the footnote's >clauses, so that it now reads: > > >>>20 For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 > >>>"normal" includes play that would be careless > >>>or inferior, but not irrational, for the class > >>>of player involved. AG : which seems wrong. "Irrational" can't be made to depend on the classe of the player. Irrational means "so absurd that even the weakest player wouldn't do it" (or at least it should mean this) The classical examples given (playing a solis suit from the bottom, ruffing from both hands) are irrational, independently of the class of the player. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 14:06:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:06:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <4A256C8D.0008D7D7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212150344.00ac6130@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:53 12/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >However, part of the definition of the word "normal" >is based on the *undefined* word "irrational". > >It is arguments about the variable definition of the >word "irrational" which were the basis for lengthy >threads on blml. > >At least one thing has been clarified due to those >previous lengthy threads. The WBF LC has made it >clear that the bridge meaning of "irrational" has no >universal meaning. The WBF LC has instead ruled >that "irrational" has a relative meaning, depending >upon the class of the player involved. > >However, in my opinion, in the 2005 Laws the word >"irrational" should be carefully and narrowly >defined. AG : "irrational : a thing that no sane mind would think of doing". >My proposed 2005 definition of irrational: > > >>An irregularity, such as a revoke, is irrational. > >>An action different to a player's incontrovertible > >>intention is irrational. All other actions are > >>rational, even if those actions are careless or > >>inferior. AG : only differing the problem. How do you define "incontrovertible intention" ? When declarer has engineered a throw-in and gets his ruff-and-sluff, is ruffing-and-sluffing his incontrovertible intention ? From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 12 13:55:22 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:55:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212145734.00ac72b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01c2a1e6$1d943f40$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > AG : another important default in a frequent situation : when declarer says > "you get one club trick", is he assumed to mean the last trick, or is he > compelled to play a small club immediately ? As a Director I accept that kind of claims if either: The claimer can obviously(!) cash all tricks but the last right away, or: There is no way the defence can get another trick regardless of when and how they get their conceeded trick. Sven From Martin@SPASE.NL Thu Dec 12 14:08:10 2002 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:08:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FD5F@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 14:21 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > If I remember my history there was an emperor Deocletin who several > thousand years ago was noted for balancing the books by the > decree that > copper had the same worth as silver. An application of what is known > today as Gresham's law. Gresham's Law of course is the principle that > debased money forces good money out of circulation. > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called > for. What is > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not > make good > claims? > I think Herman is simply stating that apparently opinions differ about what a good claim is and what a lousy claim. That first Phoenix claim seems to be a good claim according to most Europeans and a lousy one to most ACBL-members (who are taught from the very beginning to always say "Drawing trumps" when claiming). And if you start to treat claims which everyone locally thinks are good as lousy, I'm sure you will get complaints... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 14:28:11 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:28:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <000f01c2a1e6$1d943f40$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212145734.00ac72b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212152726.00ac7510@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:55 12/12/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > AG : another important default in a frequent situation : when declarer >says > > "you get one club trick", is he assumed to mean the last trick, or is he > > compelled to play a small club immediately ? > >As a Director I accept that kind of claims if either: >The claimer can obviously(!) cash all tricks but the last right away, or: >There is no way the defence can get another trick regardless of >when and how they get their conceeded trick. AG : agreed. It seems we can begin looking for a list of defaults. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 14:36:09 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:36:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FD5F@obelix.spase.nl.206 .168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212152918.00ac5a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:08 12/12/2002 +0100, Martin Sinot wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 14:21 > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > > > If I remember my history there was an emperor Deocletin who several > > thousand years ago was noted for balancing the books by the > > decree that > > copper had the same worth as silver. An application of what is known > > today as Gresham's law. Gresham's Law of course is the principle that > > debased money forces good money out of circulation. > > > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called > > for. What is > > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not > > make good > > claims? > > > >I think Herman is simply stating that apparently opinions differ >about what a good claim is and what a lousy claim. That first Phoenix >claim seems to be a good claim according to most Europeans and a lousy >one to most ACBL-members (who are taught from the very beginning to >always say "Drawing trumps" when claiming). AG : even at NT contracts ? Or is "always" not always ? I remember of the declarer in a 2NT contract, who played a heart from his hand and asked a 'small trump' from the table. He was lucky ; if he had asked for a 'small club', he wouldn't have been able to make his contract (he obviously thought clubs were trumps). But by asking for 'a small trump', he didn't call for any card (since no card from the table was a trump) for L45 purposes, so after being reminded of what the contract was, he played the card he wished, and managed to make 8 tricks (not a great feat, since many declarers made 10). One is left to wonder what the ruling would have been if he had said "small trump" while pointing to a club ? Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 12 15:12:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:12:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> No Roger, Roger Pewick wrote: > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What is > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not make good > claims? > This only depends on your definition of lousy claims. I know that an Antwerp player who claims immediately after drawing two rounds of trumps realizes that the 13th is still out there. So his claim is sound. If you rule against him, your ruling is lousy. So I can reverse the argument. I find the first appeal a lousy one, if it were a case in Europe. In America it is probably a good one, if this were an American player, of whom one could suspect that failure to mention to draw them is indication of forgetting them. And that difference will never go away. Your sentence above is completely true, by the way, if one interchanges the pejorative word "lousy" with some other adjective. (I've invented one to prove the point) As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that martian clams will [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What is to be expected of players except to make martian claims? Completely true, as I said. But your argument does not prove that martian claims should not be valid. > regards > roger pewick > > >>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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 15:22:30 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:22:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FD5F@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 8:08 AM Subject: RE: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 14:21 > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > > > If I remember my history there was an emperor Deocletin who several > > thousand years ago was noted for balancing the books by the > > decree that > > copper had the same worth as silver. An application of what is known > > today as Gresham's law. Gresham's Law of course is the principle that > > debased money forces good money out of circulation. > > > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called > > for. What is > > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not > > make good > > claims? > > > > I think Herman is simply stating that apparently opinions differ > about what a good claim is and what a lousy claim. That first Phoenix > claim seems to be a good claim according to most Europeans and a lousy > one to most ACBL-members (who are taught from the very beginning to > always say "Drawing trumps" when claiming). And if you start to treat > claims which everyone locally thinks are good as lousy, I'm sure you > will get complaints... > > -- > Martin Sinot Has anyone really thought to consider that it is imperative, not merely a good idea, that when a claim is made to exercise every bit as much care as when playing the cards one trick at a time? Well, apparently Herman, the WBF, and a host of others have. And their conclusion was that claimers are entitled to twice as many turns if they need them than non claimers. My point was that bridge players as a lot are not so dumb. They are told that bad claims will get the same result as if they took the effort to make a good one, and they see the officials with the guns make sure it is that way so they opt for less work. They are being sensible just as when taxpayers are told that a dollar minted of copper will purchase the same as one minted of the same weight of silver. They will make all of their purchases in copper, at least until such time that the government refuses to give copper in preference of paper, or offers to exchange unlimited numbers of copper for the silver variety. Much has been made of this concept of intent. Just what is the intent of someone who claims 'my hand is good'? The only conclusion is that all of the cards are equal. What about 'I will take the rest of the tricks'? In that instance it might even be inferred that the order of the cards may be important. But has that order been clarified? Not really. But if you are looking for a reason to support ruling the claim valid for case 3 at least it is not inconsistent with the taking of the rest of the tricks while the actual claim statement was inconsistent with taking the rest of the tricks as when the DA is led to the next trick. So, if claimer did not mean 'my hand is good' he should not have said it at all, but having said it he needed to correct it while he was clarifying. How can it be sufficient to utter a clarification that 'comes close' when on its face does not bear scrutiny? It can not be nor should it be. I notice that there is a call for 'default play'. I believe that it would be a grave error to do so. As it would call upon the novice to have expert knowledge as to what all these rules are at a time when he is learning so much else. Well, that goes for the bridge public in general. What I am saying is [a] that there are too many exceptions to make such rules [where the government decrees no exceptions] and [b] to suggest to players that the government wants them to be lazy when it comes to clarifying a claim is a disservice not only to players but to bridge. regards roger pewick From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Dec 12 15:31:41 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:31:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <7330336.1039707101799.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > Completely true, as I said. > But your argument does not prove that martian claims should not be valid. Martian claims should not be valid. If it is the case that claim X is allowed on Mars but not on Earth, and vice versa, then we have a game that cannot be played between Earth and Mars. We should not have such a game, because we would quite like to play our game against Mars. Why is claim X allowed on Earth but not on Mars? Because the rules relating to claims are "subject to interpretation". If we can make a rule that is not subject to interpretation - for example, that if a claim does not explicitly state a line of play, claimer loses all the tricks he could legally lose - then Earth can play bridge against Mars. But, you will tell me, people will stop playing bridge on Earth, because they do not know how to claim properly. They could learn, could they not? David Burn London, England From Martin@SPASE.NL Thu Dec 12 15:34:32 2002 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:34:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FD6C@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 15:36 > To: 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] phoenix claims > > > At 15:08 12/12/2002 +0100, Martin Sinot wrote: > > > > > >I think Herman is simply stating that apparently opinions differ > >about what a good claim is and what a lousy claim. That first Phoenix > >claim seems to be a good claim according to most Europeans > and a lousy > >one to most ACBL-members (who are taught from the very beginning to > >always say "Drawing trumps" when claiming). > > AG : even at NT contracts ? Or is "always" not always ? Well, I meant always in trump contracts, of course. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 12 16:20:53 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:20:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C8D.0008D7D7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004b01c2a1fa$8f780a60$729868d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] IMO Richard is right in principle. But I do not like the word "irrational" which in my view has connotations of "unthinking" or "against reason." i.e. most players play irrationally most of the time. Why not just substitute Richard's actual words i.e. Allow a successful choice of action only when it is in accord with declarer's incontrovertible intent. Better still - forget intent -- and give all benefit of the doubt to the non-claimers. Except at top level, claims rarely shorten the game because opponents do not understand them. Any time-saving is trivial compared with the time and trouble caused by TD and AC decisions arising from controversial claims. i.e. the law should discourage claims unless they are full and accurate. [Richard Hills] My proposed 2005 definition of irrational: " An irregularity, such as a revoke, is irrational. An action different to a player's incontrovertible intention is irrational. All other actions are rational, even if those actions are careless or inferior." If such a narrow definition of the word "irrational" is adopted in 2005, then the distinction between "irrational for an expert" and "irrational for a novice" will no longer be necessary. Put me in with Eric Landau, (from "TD Code" thread): " ...laws that require judgments of individual players' levels of competence only cause trouble... From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 12 16:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What is > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not make good > claims? What lousy claims? Herman (like most Europeans I believe) can make a good claim without having to say anything if he does so when a favourable trump split is revealed. Effectively we regard a failure to draw the remaining trumps as irrational. People in the US regard a failure to draw trumps as rational - bizarre to my mind, just as we are bizarre to theirs. Once players become aware of such cultural differences they can, and do, adapt. It is not a big problem - despite the occasional cross-cultural clash. Since the solution requires that we either teach ACBLers a modicum of respect for their fellows, or teach Europeans to show less respect for theirs I reckon the cure is way more complex than the problem. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 12 16:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212145734.00ac72b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > AG : another important default in a frequent situation : when declarer > says "you get one club trick", is he assumed to mean the last trick, or > is he compelled to play a small club immediately ? Neither. Spades trumps, and already drawn, lead in North. x KJx - xx x ATx - AQ There is no rational explanation of South's statement apart from intending to play CA, CQ to the next two tricks. Or, contract 6S, trump lead. AKxxx AK AK KQJT Qxxxx xx xx xxxx Again perfectly obvious (tho not to Americans) that declarer intends to draw trumps and concede a club. I wouldn't have a problem with a TD issuing a PP to a player making one of the above claims against players who couldn't be expected to understand it - nor with a TD issuing a PP to a pair that obviously understood the claim but called him just to quibble. Tim. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 16:53:41 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:53:41 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > No Roger, > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What is > > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not make good > > claims? > > > > > This only depends on your definition of lousy claims. > I know that an Antwerp player who claims immediately after drawing two > rounds of trumps realizes that the 13th is still out there. Herman, I challenge your assertion. If the player has not done anything overt except to pull two rounds [when there is an outstanding card] you do not know. You may use such basis [but in case 3 I would protest and feel my ground solid] to rule that he realizes it, and it is likely quite reasonable to so rule. But you do not know. > So his claim is sound. A claim that leaves anything to chance is not sound. It may live, but it is not sound. > If you rule against him, your ruling is lousy. > So I can reverse the argument. > I find the first appeal a lousy one, if it were a case in Europe. In > America it is probably a good one, if this were an American player, of > whom one could suspect that failure to mention to draw them is > indication of forgetting them. Herman, I just can't figure out what your antecedents are- if you are saying that the case 3 appeal does not have merit in Europe, or consider a premise that if case 3 doesn't have merit in Europe, or what. Apparently there is a European custom that disparages a player that contests a claim like case 3. At least make it law first, not that I would put myself willingly under such a law. > And that difference will never go away. > > Your sentence above is completely true, by the way, if one > interchanges the pejorative word "lousy" with some other adjective. > (I've invented one to prove the point) I had the feeling that it would take several hundred words to define what I meant by the word lousy. I was being lazy. It was astute of you to recognize that I used the wrong word and commendable that you apparently have translated it across not only the international barriers but the linguistic ones to arrive at the meaning I wanted but was to lazy to pen. > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that martian clams will > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What > is to be expected of players except to make martian claims? > > Completely true, as I said. > But your argument does not prove that martian claims should not be valid. regards roger pewick > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > > >>Herman DE WAEL From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 17:35:51 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:35:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <7330336.1039707101799.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212182434.00acd5a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:31 12/12/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > Completely true, as I said. > > But your argument does not prove that martian claims should not be valid. > >Martian claims should not be valid. If it is the case that claim X is >allowed on Mars but not on Earth, and vice versa, then we have a game that >cannot be played between Earth and Mars. We should not have such a game, >because we would quite like to play our game against Mars. > >Why is claim X allowed on Earth but not on Mars? Because the rules >relating to claims are "subject to interpretation". If we can make a rule >that is not subject to interpretation - for example, that if a claim does >not explicitly state a line of play, claimer loses all the tricks he could >legally lose - then Earth can play bridge against Mars. But, you will tell >me, people will stop playing bridge on Earth, because they do not know how >to claim properly. They could learn, could they not? AG : may I have a go at it ? There are American claims and European claims. The first set is part of (but not whole of) the second. In America, you are expected to make American claims. In Europa, you are expected to make European claims. Most of them will be American claims too. Claiming at the point where you learn that trumps are 3-2, not saying that you pull a 3rd round, is an European claim. Perhaps it is not an American claims. Let the Americans tell me. If an European plays in America, he will have to learn the American way of claiming ; else he could be disallowed some contracts. If an American plays in Europa, he will have to learn the European way of claiming ; else he could be stamped a bridge lawyer. No need to include Mars in your reasoning. All this means that different zones have different rules as to what constitutes a good claim, as they have different rules about alerting, registrating conventions, leading, bidding (boxes) etc. I prefer the European way, and YMMV. But any person who claims his way is the only one should at least explain why. My reasons for preferring the European way is that it seems to come closer to the ideal of "uncontrovertible intention", whatever it means. Sven's last post also illustrates the European way and its link to intention. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 12 17:30:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:30:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <7330336.1039707101799.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DF8C799.9080909@skynet.be> No David, you misunderstood. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Completely true, as I said. >>But your argument does not prove that martian claims should not be valid. >> > > Martian claims should not be valid. If it is the case that claim X is allowed on Mars but not on Earth, and vice versa, then we have a game that cannot be played between Earth and Mars. We should not have such a game, because we would quite like to play our game against Mars. > I never said that a Martian claim was not valid in the ACBL. I took a sentence and changed the word "lousy" into "martian". I then showed that the sentence became meaningless. As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that martian clams will [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What is to be expected of players except to make martian claims? There is a type of claim that is valid in Antwerp. Is that a bad thing? > Why is claim X allowed on Earth but not on Mars? Because the rules relating to claims are "subject to interpretation". If we can make a rule that is not subject to interpretation - for example, that if a claim does not explicitly state a line of play, claimer loses all the tricks he could legally lose - then Earth can play bridge against Mars. But, you will tell me, people will stop playing bridge on Earth, because they do not know how to claim properly. They could learn, could they not? > > 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 axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 17:41:28 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:41:28 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > Roger wrote: > > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What is > > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not make good > > claims? > > What lousy claims? Herman (like most Europeans I believe) can make a good > claim without having to say anything if he does so when a favourable trump > split is revealed. Effectively we regard a failure to draw the remaining > trumps as irrational. People in the US regard a failure to draw trumps as > rational - bizarre to my mind, just as we are bizarre to theirs. Once > players become aware of such cultural differences they can, and do, adapt. > It is not a big problem - despite the occasional cross-cultural clash. > > Since the solution requires that we either teach ACBLers a modicum of > respect for their fellows, or teach Europeans to show less respect for > theirs I reckon the cure is way more complex than the problem. > > Tim Dear Tim, I think that it would be reasonable to conclude from what you wrote that respect is being lazy in doing something that affects others when the task calls for extreme care and diligence. To my mind such an attitude would come from the land of George Orwell's 1984. I know people all over the world that share this attitude. But just because it is an attitude held by many, if not most, does not mean that it can not be seen for what it is- an excuse to get something without earning it. I believe that there are many ways to be respectful, and, conversely disrespectful. To assert that claimer has earned 10 tricks in case 3 is hardly a show of respect; acquiescence or submission to peer pressure perhaps, but not respect. It is a sign of respect to call an opponent on his faulty claim, and to continue in your words and deeds to hold him in good esteem. I had previously chosen to use the word 'lousy' because I was lazy. Certainly it shows that I had so little respect for what I was trying to communicate that I did not do what was necessary to find words that did not have pejorative connotations with which to substitute. For that I apologize and ask forgiveness. regards roger pewick From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Dec 12 17:57:23 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:57:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <6974379.1039715843571.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : may I have a go at it ? By all means. >There are American claims and European claims. That is a rather poor start. Here is a game which we assert is an international sport. Now, in what other international sport do players from different countries play by different rules? Is the height of the net different on American tennis courts and European ones? Does the offside rule vary from Japan to Madagascar? May you ground your club in a bunker in Spanish golf, but not in the Australian variety? If the rules of a game differ from nation to nation, the game is not an international sport; it is a sport of which there are a number of local variations. No organisation has any business calling itself the "World Federation" of such a sport. > If an European plays in America, he will have to learn the American way of claiming ; else he could be disallowed some contracts. > If an American plays in Europa, he will have to learn the European way of claiming ; else he could be stamped a bridge lawyer. If there were a World way of claiming, this would not happen. People would have to learn only one way to play the game. Admittedly, some people who have learned one way to play the game will have to unlearn it and learn another one. But why do we not want our grandchildren to play bridge? And why should we not try to make it easier for them to do so? > All this means that different zones have different rules as to what constitutes a good claim Yes, I know what it means. I do not think that what it means is a very good thing. To say: "it means this because this is what it means" is a trifle circular. >But any person who claims his way is the only one should at least explain why. This rule: "Any cards not explicitly covered by the statement made by a player who claims will be considered played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer" has these advantages: no one can fail to understand either its meaning or its consequences; it requires no subjective interpretation whatever, so can be consistently applied from the Four Mile Radius roughly to the plains of Hindustan; it means that players who claim tricks will receive those tricks and only those tricks to which their skill at bridge entitles them. I am told that it has this disadvantage: it would slow the game down. There is no evidence for this, but even if it were true, I would consider the gain worthwhile. It is not "the only way". You could get rid of claims altogether - that would be preferable to the current position. But to have "European claims" and "American claims" is utterly absurd; moreover, there are presumably Chinese claims and Ethiopian claims that will at some point need to be assimilated. > My reasons for preferring the European way is that it seems to come closer to the ideal of "uncontrovertible intention" It does not mean anything at all. Only facts are truly incontrovertible; in a complex environment such as a bridge table, no one's intention to do something can ever be known with a degree of certainty sufficient to be beyond question. Insofar as the rules require a referee to determine the intention of a player, those rules are foolish and the game is flawed. Here is a simple opportunity to remove such a requirement from the game of bridge, with almost no consequential loss and with a number of possible short, medium and above all long-term gains. It will not happen, of course. Tournament directors would have nothing to do if it did. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 18:32:07 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:32:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212192616.00ac66d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:41 12/12/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-Meads" >To: >Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:28 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > Roger wrote: > > > > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > > > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What >is > > > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not make >good > > > claims? > > > > What lousy claims? Herman (like most Europeans I believe) can make a >good > > claim without having to say anything if he does so when a favourable >trump > > split is revealed. Effectively we regard a failure to draw the >remaining > > trumps as irrational. People in the US regard a failure to draw >trumps as > > rational - bizarre to my mind, just as we are bizarre to theirs. Once > > players become aware of such cultural differences they can, and do, >adapt. > > It is not a big problem - despite the occasional cross-cultural clash. > > > > Since the solution requires that we either teach ACBLers a modicum of > > respect for their fellows, or teach Europeans to show less respect for > > theirs I reckon the cure is way more complex than the problem. > > > > Tim > > >Dear Tim, > >I think that it would be reasonable to conclude from what you wrote that >respect is being lazy in doing something that affects others when the >task calls for extreme care and diligence. AG : Dear Roger, What Tim and YT call respect is assuming that a player who holds 8 trumps, plays 2 rounds and discorves they are behaving knows he has to play a 3rd round to eliminate the last one. To pretend otherwise would indeed be discourteous. You are, however, allowed to think that the letter of the law is more important. > To my mind such an attitude >would come from the land of George Orwell's 1984. AG : toi my mind, pretending people are unable to think of such simple things is more Orwellian than anything else. >I know people all >over the world that share this attitude. But just because it is an >attitude held by many, if not most, does not mean that it can not be >seen for what it is- an excuse to get something without earning it. I >believe that there are many ways to be respectful, and, conversely >disrespectful. To assert that claimer has earned 10 tricks in case 3 >is hardly a show of respect; acquiescence or submission to peer pressure >perhaps, but not respect. It is a sign of respect to call an opponent on >his faulty claim AG : circular reasoning. You define "faulty claim" as being faulty. I consider the claim mentioned above as not faulty, because telling otherwise would be unrespectful. The whole Europa thinks the same. Do you pretend that the whole Europa is unable to define a simple notion ? Orwellian, I said Best regards, alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 12 18:26:59 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:26:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> Roger, you challenge me directly, so I am honour bound to answer. But I'd rather not. Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>This only depends on your definition of lousy claims. >>I know that an Antwerp player who claims immediately after drawing two >>rounds of trumps realizes that the 13th is still out there. >> > > Herman, I challenge your assertion. If the player has not done anything > overt except to pull two rounds [when there is an outstanding card] you > do not know. You may use such basis [but in case 3 I would protest and > feel my ground solid] to rule that he realizes it, and it is likely > quite reasonable to so rule. But you do not know. > Roger, do you question a player who claims 4 tricks with AQx opposite KJxx ? Do you "know" that he won't play the ace and king on the same trick ? Do you "know" that he won't cash KJ first ? Do you "know" that he won't ... All I am saying is that I "know" that a player who cashes A and K from AQxx opposite Kxxx, and sees opponents follow suit, knows that there still is a 13th out. > >>So his claim is sound. >> > > A claim that leaves anything to chance is not sound. It may live, but > it is not sound. > See my examples above. We just have different opinions about how much to trust a player. And different backgrounds. Your players know that they will be ruled against if they don't say "drawing trumps". Mine Know they won't. But they will claim at the exact same moment. > > Herman, I just can't figure out what your antecedents are- if you are > saying that the case 3 appeal does not have merit in Europe, or consider > a premise that if case 3 doesn't have merit in Europe, or what. > I am saying that a European player, in Europe, will not be ruled against automatically in this case. > Apparently there is a European custom that disparages a player that > contests a claim like case 3. At least make it law first, not that I > would put myself willingly under such a law. > But the law is the same - just the interpretation of the evidence. I can tell you, that if you, in Europe, claim without saying "drawing trumps", when this is something you always do, then this is evidence that you miscounted. Whereas I, in America, will forget to say so - without this being evidence that I miscounted. Now if I were to allow your claim in Europe, I would be just as wrong as you disallowing mine over there. The difference is one of habit, not of regulation or law. > >>And that difference will never go away. >> >>Your sentence above is completely true, by the way, if one >>interchanges the pejorative word "lousy" with some other adjective. >>(I've invented one to prove the point) >> > > I had the feeling that it would take several hundred words to define > what I meant by the word lousy. I was being lazy. It was astute of you > to recognize that I used the wrong word and commendable that you > apparently have translated it across not only the international barriers > but the linguistic ones to arrive at the meaning I wanted but was to > lazy to pen. > I don't mind the name. What I was reacting to was your circular reasoning. You call a particular type of claim "lousy" and you say it is accepted in Antwerp. The easy conclusion is that my ruling is wrong. But that conclusion depends on the fact that you called it lousy to begin with. By calling it "Martian", I have reduced your sentence to saying that Martian claims are accepted in Antwerp. So what ? David has picked up on this and said that it would be a bad thing if martian claims were not accepted in America. While I agree with that sentiment, I believe it is not the case. I believe a martian claim should also be accepted in America. But then please accept my definition of a martian claim: a claim made without saying the express words "drawing trumps", in obvious cases, by a player who is not used to saying "drawing trumps" in obvious cases. That ought to be a valid claim everywhere in the world and if it isn't somewhere, then they are wrong, not the Antwerp TDs. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 12 18:39:20 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:39:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <6974379.1039715843571.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212193218.00ac9160@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:57 12/12/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Alain wrote: > > > AG : may I have a go at it ? > >By all means. > > >There are American claims and European claims. > >That is a rather poor start. Here is a game which we assert is an >international sport. Now, in what other international sport do players >from different countries play by different rules? AG : many. Try basket-ball. Two periods in some European lands, four in US. The European lands that tried to switch to US rules have some difficulties with them. >Is the height of the net different on American tennis courts and European >ones? Does the offside rule vary from Japan to Madagascar? May you ground >your club in a bunker in Spanish golf, but not in the Australian variety? AG : in England, at soccer, tackles and challenges are less often penalized than in Sweden. So what ? >If the rules of a game differ from nation to nation, the game is not an >international sport; it is a sport of which there are a number of local >variations. No organisation has any business calling itself the "World >Federation" of such a sport. AG : the rules are the same. Their interpretation might be different. >Yes, I know what it means. I do not think that what it means is a very >good thing. To say: "it means this because this is what it means" is a >trifle circular. AG : OK, I'll put it another way. Europeans and Americans don't interpret some words the same way (no scoop !), and both stick to their own interpretation. This is true at bridge as in politics, court and several other instances where words are of great imoprtance. > >But any person who claims his way is the only one should at least > explain why. > >This rule: > >"Any cards not explicitly covered by the statement made by a player who >claims will be considered played in the legal order most disadvantageous >to the claimer" > >has these advantages: no one can fail to understand either its meaning or >its consequences; it requires no subjective interpretation whatever, so >can be consistently applied from the Four Mile Radius roughly to the >plains of Hindustan; it means that players who claim tricks will receive >those tricks and only those tricks to which their skill at bridge entitles >them. > >I am told that it has this disadvantage: it would slow the game down. >There is no evidence for this, but even if it were true, I would consider >the gain worthwhile. > >It is not "the only way". You could get rid of claims altogether - that >would be preferable to the current position. But to have "European claims" >and "American claims" is utterly absurd; moreover, there are presumably >Chinese claims and Ethiopian claims that will at some point need to be >assimilated. AG : what about American football ? I really didn't assimilate it at all. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 12 18:31:27 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:31:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FD5F@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: <3DF8D5FF.8050103@skynet.be> Roger, Roger, Roger Pewick wrote: > > Has anyone really thought to consider that it is imperative, not merely > a good idea, that when a claim is made to exercise every bit as much > care as when playing the cards one trick at a time? Well, apparently > Herman, the WBF, and a host of others have. And their conclusion was > that claimers are entitled to twice as many turns if they need them than > non claimers. My point was that bridge players as a lot are not so > dumb. They are told that bad claims will get the same result as if they > took the effort to make a good one, and they see the officials with the > guns make sure it is that way so they opt for less work. They are being > sensible just as when taxpayers are told that a dollar minted of copper > will purchase the same as one minted of the same weight of silver. They > will make all of their purchases in copper, at least until such time > that the government refuses to give copper in preference of paper, or > offers to exchange unlimited numbers of copper for the silver variety. > Roger, do you allow a claim for four tricks with AQx opp KJxx, without any further clarification? If so, then stop your bickering. This is a quantitative problem, not a qualitative one. And no (sensible) regulation can turn it into a qualitative one. Enough said, I think. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 12 18:30:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > I think that it would be reasonable to conclude from what you wrote that > respect is being lazy in doing something that affects others when the > task calls for extreme care and diligence. It is, I think, a cultural thing. Take the case of an American playing in Europe. He *says* "I draw the last trump, unblock the clubs and my hand is high". The European *hears* "You are obviously incompetent so I will explain this obvious play as I would to a child of 3". The European, playing in the US makes the same claim, saying nothing to avoid being patronising, and the American *hears* "I am too lazy to explain my claim and have no respect for you." The American (with full cultural justification) contests the claim and the European *hears* "I consider you a complete prat who can't count to five". Once one becomes aware of little cultural distinctions it is easy to adapt and there is no problem. If it helps consider the look you would get if you told an Englishman you had a sore fanny. Being European I prefer our approach. I have no real objection to the US one but I do believe that trying to impose a change on either community is far more bother than it's worth. Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 12 18:44:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:44:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <6974379.1039715843571.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DF8D910.2010504@skynet.be> Hello David, Alain, I did not want to answer to Alain when he's basically on the same side as I am, but David is right in saying that Alain's arguments are faulty. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Alain wrote: > > > > >>There are American claims and European claims. >> > > That is a rather poor start. Here is a game which we assert is an international sport. Now, in what other international sport do players from different countries play by different rules? Is the height of the net different on American tennis courts and European ones? Does the offside rule vary from Japan to Madagascar? May you ground your club in a bunker in Spanish golf, but not in the Australian variety? > > If the rules of a game differ from nation to nation, the game is not an international sport; it is a sport of which there are a number of local variations. No organisation has any business calling itself the "World Federation" of such a sport. > > I fully agree with David here, but I'd like to amend Alain's statement into "there is a European way of claiming and an American one". That is a true statement. >>If an European plays in America, he will have to learn the American way of claiming ; else he could be disallowed some contracts. >>If an American plays in Europa, he will have to learn the European way of claiming ; else he could be stamped a bridge lawyer. >> > > If there were a World way of claiming, this would not happen. People would have to learn only one way to play the game. Admittedly, some people who have learned one way to play the game will have to unlearn it and learn another one. But why do we not want our grandchildren to play bridge? And why should we not try to make it easier for them to do so? > But there is no World way. And David is right that it would take two generations to bring the two ways together. And the road would be hard. > >>All this means that different zones have different rules as to what constitutes a good claim >> > > Yes, I know what it means. I do not think that what it means is a very good thing. To say: "it means this because this is what it means" is a trifle circular. > I don't agree that this is what it means. It is just a different way of interpreting the same facts. If I claim in this situation without saying anything, that is no evidence that I cannot count to 13. If Steve forgets to say this, it may well be an indication that he forgot. Nothing European-American about it, just personal habits. > >>But any person who claims his way is the only one should at least explain why. >> > > This rule: > > "Any cards not explicitly covered by the statement made by a player who claims will be considered played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer" > > has these advantages: no one can fail to understand either its meaning or its consequences; it requires no subjective interpretation whatever, so can be consistently applied from the Four Mile Radius roughly to the plains of Hindustan; it means that players who claim tricks will receive those tricks and only those tricks to which their skill at bridge entitles them. > Yes David, We all know that Burnian claim law would solve all problems. But we don't believe that the disadvantages it brings are worth the small problem we face. > I am told that it has this disadvantage: it would slow the game down. There is no evidence for this, but even if it were true, I would consider the gain worthwhile. > > It is not "the only way". You could get rid of claims altogether - that would be preferable to the current position. But to have "European claims" and "American claims" is utterly absurd; moreover, there are presumably Chinese claims and Ethiopian claims that will at some point need to be assimilated. > Exactly. > >>My reasons for preferring the European way is that it seems to come closer to the ideal of "uncontrovertible intention" >> > > It does not mean anything at all. Only facts are truly incontrovertible; in a complex environment such as a bridge table, no one's intention to do something can ever be known with a degree of certainty sufficient to be beyond question. > > Insofar as the rules require a referee to determine the intention of a player, those rules are foolish and the game is flawed. Here is a simple opportunity to remove such a requirement from the game of bridge, with almost no consequential loss and with a number of possible short, medium and above all long-term gains. It will not happen, of course. Tournament directors would have nothing to do if it did. > Indeed. But an occasional bad TD decision may well be a price we should be willing to pay for a game that continues to be playable. I don't agree with the AC decision in case 3, but I prefer this to having to try and change the claiming habits of every single player in Europe. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Dec 12 19:29:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:29:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <7725156.1039721393135.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > I don't agree with the AC decision in case 3, but I prefer this to having to try and change the claiming habits of every single player in Europe. Oh, I expect they'll manage. There was a time when no player in Europe had to alert. A new procedure was introduced to make the game fairer, more playable (though admittedly slower). The players of Europe (and the rest of the world) adapted to it readily enough, despite the fact that it was a far more serious change to their habits than my proposed claim rule would be. There was a time when players spoke their bids. A new device was introduced to make the game fairer, more playable (though admittedly slower). The players of Europe (and the rest of the world) adapted to it readily enough, despite the fact that it was a far more serious change to their habits than my proposed claim rule would be. There was a time when players could see their partners. At international level, a new device was introduced to make the game fairer, more playable (though admittedly slower). The top-level players of Europe (and the rest of the world) adapted to it readily enough, despite the fact that it was a far more serious change to their habits than my proposed claim rule would be. There was a time when the bonus for a redoubled contract was 50 points. A change to the rules was introduced to make the game... but you have probably got the hang of this by now. Herman, many changes to the rules and procedures surrounding the game of bridge have occurred in the last thirty years. All of these have radically altered, almost beyond recognition, the playing habits of every player not only in Europe, but in the world. It really is no kind of objection to a proposed simplification of a difficult piece of legislation to say: players would have to change their habits to cope with it. What kind of Luddite are you? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Dec 12 19:32:30 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:32:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : the rules are the same. Their interpretation might be different. Then the rules are not the same. The rules exist only in terms of the effect they have on the play of a game. If that effect is different because the umpires of the game have different interpretations of the rules, then the game is not being played by the same rules. David Burn London, England From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 19:55:25 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:55:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > Roger, you challenge me directly, so I am honour bound to answer. > But I'd rather not. > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > >>This only depends on your definition of lousy claims. > >>I know that an Antwerp player who claims immediately after drawing two > >>rounds of trumps realizes that the 13th is still out there. > >> > > > > Herman, I challenge your assertion. If the player has not done anything > > overt except to pull two rounds [when there is an outstanding card] you > > do not know. You may use such basis [but in case 3 I would protest and > > feel my ground solid] to rule that he realizes it, and it is likely > > quite reasonable to so rule. But you do not know. > > > > Roger, do you question a player who claims 4 tricks with AQx opposite > KJxx ? Me? Well this is no where near the situation of case 3. > Do you "know" that he won't play the ace and king on the same > trick ? Do you "know" that he won't cash KJ first ? Do you "know" > that he won't ... > All I am saying is that I "know" that a player who cashes A and K from > AQxx opposite Kxxx, and sees opponents follow suit, knows that there > still is a 13th out. > > > > > >>So his claim is sound. > >> > > > > A claim that leaves anything to chance is not sound. It may live, but > > it is not sound. > See my examples above. We just have different opinions about how much > to trust a player. And different backgrounds. Your players know that > they will be ruled against if they don't say "drawing trumps". Mine > Know they won't. But they will claim at the exact same moment. I think this is an unfortunate viewpoint. There should be no difference in the certainty of outcome between 13 tricks played out and the certainty created by a statement of claim. iow, nothing is left to chance. and the attitude you portray results in claimers being entitled to free tricks just for claiming without thorough clarifications or even faulty ones [like case 3]. I will tell what I do in the instance where the player draws rounds 'proving' if you will that the fall of the last trump[s] will be imminent and the player claims without [a] any false statement and [b] any additional issues . If he is in the right hand then acquiesce, if not I check for issues like transportation and finding [a] none or [b] an unklikely one then acquiesce. And if partner wanted a ruling I would think a ruling of claim awarded would suit me just fine. When the claim statement contains false items as in case 3 then there issues to be weighed. > > Herman, I just can't figure out what your antecedents are- if you are > > saying that the case 3 appeal does not have merit in Europe, or consider > > a premise that if case 3 doesn't have merit in Europe, or what. > > > > > I am saying that a European player, in Europe, will not be ruled > against automatically in this case. > > > > Apparently there is a European custom that disparages a player that > > contests a claim like case 3. At least make it law first, not that I > > would put myself willingly under such a law. > > > > > But the law is the same - just the interpretation of the evidence. > I can tell you, that if you, in Europe, claim without saying "drawing > trumps", when this is something you always do, then this is evidence > that you miscounted. Whereas I, in America, will forget to say so - > without this being evidence that I miscounted. Now if I were to allow > your claim in Europe, I would be just as wrong as you disallowing mine > over there. > The difference is one of habit, not of regulation or law. Should not the only thing that matter be law? > >>And that difference will never go away. > >> > >>Your sentence above is completely true, by the way, if one > >>interchanges the pejorative word "lousy" with some other adjective. > >>(I've invented one to prove the point) > >> > > > > I had the feeling that it would take several hundred words to define > > what I meant by the word lousy. I was being lazy. It was astute of you > > to recognize that I used the wrong word and commendable that you > > apparently have translated it across not only the international barriers > > but the linguistic ones to arrive at the meaning I wanted but was to > > lazy to pen. > > > > I don't mind the name. What I was reacting to was your circular > reasoning. You call a particular type of claim "lousy" and you say it > is accepted in Antwerp. No, I said that it was a 'martian' claim of a faulty nature. You said that in Antwerp it was considered a sound claim and would be ruled as such. Saying that my reasons were circular does not make them so when they were not. Because I said: "the actual claim statement was inconsistent with taking the rest of the tricks as when the DA is led to the next trick." There is nothing circular presented. Since I was talking about mindset I was not thorough about the case. More specifically: The case 3 claim was faulty because [a] claimer said 'my hand is good' and [b] it was clear it was not good. The proof is this: at the next trick the DA, a card that was claimed to be a winner, is led and we see whether it wins the trick. Since the claim was in fact disputed, I have some confidence that an outstanding trump would find its way onto the trick and according to L44E a trick containing a trump is won by the player who contributed to it the highest trump. The player had not yet proven that the long trump hand held long diamonds [which it didn't] and claiming his hand was good suggests that he was unaware of the ramifications of the outstanding trump. The standard for awarding tricks to outstanding trump is 'at all likely to be unaware that a trump.' and imo that standard was met. regards roger pewick > The easy conclusion is that my ruling is > wrong. But that conclusion depends on the fact that you called it > lousy to begin with. > By calling it "Martian", I have reduced your sentence to saying that > Martian claims are accepted in Antwerp. So what ? > David has picked up on this and said that it would be a bad thing if > martian claims were not accepted in America. While I agree with that > sentiment, I believe it is not the case. I believe a martian claim > should also be accepted in America. > But then please accept my definition of a martian claim: a claim made > without saying the express words "drawing trumps", in obvious cases, > by a player who is not used to saying "drawing trumps" in obvious cases. > That ought to be a valid claim everywhere in the world and if it isn't > somewhere, then they are wrong, not the Antwerp TDs. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 12 20:03:33 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:03:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DF8EB95.4020500@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >>> >>Roger, do you question a player who claims 4 tricks with AQx opposite >>KJxx ? >> > > Me? Well this is no where near the situation of case 3. > Isn't it ? You are required to judge whether this person will know how to handle this situation. you may believe this one is easy (and I agree) but that is not the point. The point is that you need to judge. And no "simple" rule can tell you how to judge. We agree on this case. We agree on the double squeeze. At some point in between, we are certain to be facing a difference of opinion, and there is nothing either of us can do about it, except discussing it and trying to get to a common evaluation. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 20:03:14 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:03:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FD5F@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <3DF8D5FF.8050103@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > Roger, Roger, > > Roger Pewick wrote: > Roger, do you allow a claim for four tricks with AQx opp KJxx, without > any further clarification? Well, does my side have any trumps? > If so, then stop your bickering. > This is a quantitative problem, not a qualitative one. > And no (sensible) regulation can turn it into a qualitative one. > > Enough said, I think. I am sure there are many things to discuss. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > From Chris@Pisarra.com Thu Dec 12 20:14:41 2002 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:14:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212192616.00ac66d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1dd801c2a21b$1b1e9140$6501a8c0@attbi.com> Alain wrote > What Tim and YT call respect is assuming that a player who holds 8 trumps, > plays 2 rounds and discorves they are behaving knows he has to play a 3rd > round to eliminate the last one. To pretend otherwise would indeed be > discourteous. > You are, however, allowed to think that the letter of the law is more > important. In a lifetime of playing bridge at the local club, I have never, not once, had a session where I did not score at least one trick, and generally set the contract, with a trump that the opponent **should** have drawn, but forgot or erred in counting. To assume that the Sadie Kumquats of the world are consistently correct in counting to 13 flies in the face of experience. Respect for my fellow player does not require that I grant them more expertise than they consistently show. Chris From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 21:30:32 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:30:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <4A256C8D.00749352.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>My proposed 2005 definition of irrational: >> >> >>An irregularity, such as a revoke, is irrational. >> >>An action different to a player's incontrovertible >> >>intention is irrational. All other actions are >> >>rational, even if those actions are careless or >> >>inferior. >AG : only differing the problem. How do you define >"incontrovertible intention" ? I borrowed the words "incontrovertible intention" from Law 46B, which is (in my opinion) one of the Laws that is usually easy for a TD to apply, and usually easy for players to understand. Best wishes Richard From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 20:40:16 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:40:16 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021212192616.00ac66d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Roger Pewick" ; Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > At 11:41 12/12/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Tim West-Meads" > >To: > >Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:28 AM > >Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > > > > Roger wrote: > > > > > > > As Herman relates it is the policy in Antwerp that lousy clams will > > > > [usually] be treated as good claims if a ruling is called for. What > >is > > > > to be expected of players except to make lousy claims and not make > >good > > > > claims? > > > > > > What lousy claims? Herman (like most Europeans I believe) can make a > >good > > > claim without having to say anything if he does so when a favourable > >trump > > > split is revealed. Effectively we regard a failure to draw the > >remaining > > > trumps as irrational. People in the US regard a failure to draw > >trumps as > > > rational - bizarre to my mind, just as we are bizarre to theirs. Once > > > players become aware of such cultural differences they can, and do, > >adapt. > > > It is not a big problem - despite the occasional cross-cultural clash. > > > > > > Since the solution requires that we either teach ACBLers a modicum of > > > respect for their fellows, or teach Europeans to show less respect for > > > theirs I reckon the cure is way more complex than the problem. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > >Dear Tim, > > > >I think that it would be reasonable to conclude from what you wrote that > >respect is being lazy in doing something that affects others when the > >task calls for extreme care and diligence. > > AG : Dear Roger, > > What Tim and YT call respect is assuming that a player who holds 8 trumps, > plays 2 rounds and discorves they are behaving knows he has to play a 3rd > round to eliminate the last one. To pretend otherwise would indeed be > discourteous. > You are, however, allowed to think that the letter of the law is more > important. > > > To my mind such an attitude > >would come from the land of George Orwell's 1984. > > AG : toi my mind, pretending people are unable to think of such simple > things is more Orwellian than anything else. > > > >I know people all > >over the world that share this attitude. But just because it is an > >attitude held by many, if not most, does not mean that it can not be > >seen for what it is- an excuse to get something without earning it. I > >believe that there are many ways to be respectful, and, conversely > >disrespectful. To assert that claimer has earned 10 tricks in case 3 > >is hardly a show of respect; acquiescence or submission to peer pressure > >perhaps, but not respect. It is a sign of respect to call an opponent on > >his faulty claim > > AG : circular reasoning. You define "faulty claim" as being faulty. I > consider the claim mentioned above as not faulty, because telling otherwise > would be unrespectful. The whole Europa thinks the same. > Do you pretend that the whole Europa is unable to define a simple notion ? > Orwellian, I said I did not define faulty claim here. But I have said that a sound claim leaves nothing unsaid or to chance. If you are referring to case 3 it was faulty because [a] claimer said 'my hand is good' and it was clear it was not good. The proof is this: at the next trick the DA, a card that was claimed to be a winner, is led and we see whether it wins the trick. Since the claim was in fact disputed, I have some confidence that an outstanding trump would find its way onto the trick and according to L44E a trick containing a trump is won by the player who contributed to it the highest trump. Well, where you play tricks are won and lost by playing the game of respect. But in bridge it is what players do that wins and loses tricks. It does not bother me in the least that players acquiesce out of whatever belief they have. But the line is drawn where the player does not wish to acquiesce and his dispute is a valid one. I am sorry to have fallen into your trap. I have unwittingly accorded to you that you could see my reasoning upon only the slimmest of information. But it has fell upon deaf ears because apparently you have seen case 3 as open and shut in your particular way. And I have now insulted you by spelling out what I considered to be quite obvious. I could point out that it suggests that this respect thing is not working out so well but that would be showing disrespect. So I will apologize. David Burn is quite right. Forbidding claims is much better for the game than the attitude that exists about claims at present. And better still is having players make sound claims. Anyway, there are people who sit at the bridge table who have the brain of a Neanderthal. That is ok. It is what makes the game special- you do not have to understand why you do something. If you participate in the auction and play a card to every trick you get a result and the result is yours, it belongs to you, and no matter what result you get it does not make you good or bad as you have played the game. regards roger pewick > Best regards, > > alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 21:01:38 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:01:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> <3DF8EB95.4020500@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >>> > >>Roger, do you question a player who claims 4 tricks with AQx opposite > >>KJxx ? > >> > > > > Me? Well this is no where near the situation of case 3. > > > > > Isn't it ? No. It is not. Here you have one suit to play and it is clear how avoid blocking the suit. Excuse me, but there were only seven cards and there should have been eight and I don't know what the eighth is. in case 3 there are [a] two relevant suits and [b] there is a statement to the effect that any order of the cards will work. Which by definition [no claim statement] makes it different. > You are required to judge whether this person will know how to handle > this situation. you may believe this one is easy (and I agree) but > that is not the point. > The point is that you need to judge. Well, I am not so sure that is the point. I think that the point is that players, when they claim, should dot the i's and cross the t's. And when they do so there won't be much need for judgment and the world will be better for it. regards roger pewick > And no "simple" rule can tell you > how to judge. We agree on this case. We agree on the double squeeze. > At some point in between, we are certain to be facing a difference of > opinion, and there is nothing either of us can do about it, except > discussing it and trying to get to a common evaluation. > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 12 22:30:42 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:30:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Down in the dumps Message-ID: <4A256C8D.007A1606.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In part of a private email to Steve Willner, I wrote: >The big problem is that Team 1 plays a >quarter-final match despite being certain >to qualify for the semi-finals. Team 1's >chances of winning the overall event may >be enhanced if its immediate quarter-final >opponent, Team 6, is also a semi-finalist. In a subsequent exchange of correspondence with the Editor of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens, he pointed out another dumping possibility caused by the Australian Playoff CoC. A team may be performing poorly in the initial round-robin which ranks the six contesting teams from 1 to 6. Therefore, such a poorly performing team may dump their last round-robin match in order to be ranked as Team 6, instead of winning their last round-robin match and consequently being ranked as Team 5. Being ranked Team 6 instead of Team 5 enhances that particular team's chances of reaching the semi-finals, given that their Team 1 opponents in the quarter-final are certain semi-finalists. Even if Team 1 does not *deliberately* dump its quarter-final match against Team 6, Team 6 has the psychological advantage of playing against opponents who will find it difficult to desperately fight for every trick, since the match is relatively meaningless from Team 1's point of view. Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 12 21:34:48 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:34:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021212162824.026a3650@pop.starpower.net> At 02:32 PM 12/12/02, dalburn wrote: >Alain wrote: > > > AG : the rules are the same. Their interpretation might be different. > >Then the rules are not the same. The rules exist only in terms of the >effect they have on the play of a game. If that effect is different >because the umpires of the game have different interpretations of the >rules, then the game is not being played by the same rules. If that were true, then very few games would *ever* be "played by the same rules". In (American) football, where 16 NFL (major league professional) games are played each weekend, they are officiated by 16 different (pretty much fixed) crews of officials, each with its own unique notion of exactly what constitutes such violations of the rules as holding, interference, illegal blocking, roughing, etc. No two games will be called exactly the same way, but I have never before heard anyone suggest that there is not one set of rules in force at all 16 games. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Thu Dec 12 22:47:27 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:47:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005601c2a230$a305ee40$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Herman, dear David, and everybody else. Real fun this discussions. I still should get the hang of the rule of engagements between the regulars. About Case 3. I might play AK of trumps myself from this suit and table my hand without comment. I am from Europe. But I would only do so among peers (= playing top level bridge, this type of claims against weaker players cost too much time and energy). And I would have done so at trick 4. Do all the advocates of allowing this particular claim realise that declarer has played the hand like the proverbial idiot. Even in Europe I can imagine a statement by the defence that a declarer that plays a hand like that is more than capable of miscounting trumps. She didn't draw trumps when she should have at trick four so why on earth should she now? In my very first mail I said already that I probably would not have objected to the claim myself. But the culture in the States is different. And I think that an American AC in the States took the only decision they could take. Actually in Europe as AC I would also decide against declarer. Whatever the local customs are, when the case gets to court we have to rule by the laws. These laws say something about missing trumps. And a declarer that misplayed the hand before the claim has not exactly a strong case when she is telling me that it is 'obvious'. Jaap van der Neut From shrike@surfbest.net Thu Dec 12 22:00:35 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:00:35 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <20021212161902.17665.24578.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > From: Martin Sinot [snip] > > I think Herman is simply stating that apparently opinions differ > about what a good claim is and what a lousy claim. That first Phoenix > claim seems to be a good claim according to most Europeans and a lousy > one to most ACBL-members (who are taught from the very beginning to > always say "Drawing trumps" when claiming). And if you start to treat > claims which everyone locally thinks are good as lousy, I'm sure you > will get complaints... I do not accept that the first Phoenix claim was lousy in the ACBL. Yes, most ACBLers are taught to mention trumps, but the TD is still charged with determining whether there is any chance declarer was unaware of that last trump. On the hand in question, "no" seems clear to me, and I'd allow the claim; moreover, I think most ACBL players, though they might have stated that claim differently, would accept my ruling without much pause. My perception may be off, but I don't think so. Incidentally, I still don't see any justification for accepting the second claim. Doug From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Dec 12 23:03:51 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:03:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] Those big pair games References: Message-ID: <001001c2a232$c09a5700$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > Any modern convention center has Ethernet these days. > The majority of NABCs are not contained within a convention center, but if what you say is also true of large hotels, that may be something for the ACBL to consider. Frequently the large ACBL pair events are multi-site, however. As I remember, some first-day Blue Ribbon sections were put in the Phoenix convention center, after two big rooms in the Marriott could not accommodate them. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 13 01:05:00 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:05:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] TD Code Message-ID: <4A256C8E.0004605F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >This is a long-standing opinion in some >quarters. Edgar Kaplan was known to say >much the same. (Something to the effect >of "If you don't like the result a law >gives you, find another law.") [snip] Could this be one of the reasons that the current Laws (partially drafted by Kaplan) use polysyllabic periphrasis instead of simple and clear words? * If the Laws Drafter Edgar Kaplan _deliberately_ strove to make the Laws ambiguous, * Then the Appeals Committee Chair Edgar Kaplan could more easily find a Law permitting a particular predetermined Appeals Committee ruling, * That in the Personal Edgar Kaplan's idiosyncratic opinion was equitable. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 12 22:55:29 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:55:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c2a241$5a592200$b801e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > This only depends on your definition of lousy claims. > I know that an Antwerp player who claims immediately > after drawing two rounds of trumps realizes that the > 13th is still out there. > +=+ When there is a trump outstanding the trick is awarded against the claimer if 1. he makes no statement about the trump, AND 2. he is 'probably' unaware that opponent still has a trump, AND 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by a normal play. The argument seems to be that in Europe it is assumed players drawing trumps can probably count to thirteen whereas in ACBL-land it is assumed they probably can not. Evidently decisions made in such cases should take account not only the class of player involved but also his region of derivation. Perhaps future conditions of contest will provide for each player to furnish a Certificate of Origin? ~ G ~ +=+ From jvickers@fish.co.uk Fri Dec 13 00:32:46 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:32:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <00e701c2a0b3$e3277800$5578bc3e@oemcomputer> <3DF6F7BF.3060708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009001c2a242$900fefe0$1278bc3e@oemcomputer> > James Vickers wrote: > > > > My problem was that the laws define "action" as a bid or play, whereas you > > all want to interpret it to mean choosing "bidding" over and above > > "passing", where "bidding" could include several different bids (each of > > which, according to the laws, are separate "actions"). > > > > E.g. partner's UI suggests passing over bidding. Case 1, you have only one > > choice of bid, this is deemed to be an LA and so passing is not allowed. > > Case 2, you have a choice of several bids, all equally likely. This reduces > > the proportion of your peers who would choose any one of these to below > > percentage which your SO considers an LA. As making any one bid is not an LA > > you may pass with impunity. > > [Herman:] > > I remember the argument well. > Since "bidding" is considered an "action", and that action is now > again a LA, you may not pass. Considered by whom? Not by those who have been insisting that "action" refers to a call or play (as the law says). > I believe we have just rediscovered why L16 contains the words "calls > or plays" 3 times, but "actions" the fourth. This suggests to me that "action" refers to a call or play, and nothing else. > > Of course, I do not think such a law is very fair, but it is nonetheless > > what the law says. I even think when I catch you out like this that some of > > you agree with me (even though you don't admit it). I just wish the law > > could be changed to say what it means, so that simple folk such as me could > > understand it without recourse to such cryptic "interpretations", but we all > > know what a futile desire that is. > > > > You can rest assured, James, the interpretation that "bidding" is a LA > "action" is the majority one in this forum. I will rest assured only when the laws say this clearly and unambiguously. If the laws say one thing, it is no consolation to discover that it is interpreted to mean something else. > You can also rest assured, anyone, that "actions" of L16 does not > include alerting and explaining. That too is a majority opinion with > sufficient consensus. No problem with that. No law suggests otherwise. > > [Herman de Wael:] > > > >>Very nice James, but I do believe you know you are taking things a > >>little too literally. > >> > > > > You cannot interpret laws too literally. They should be unambiguous and say > > what they mean. > > > > > Please read again. I did not say that you were interpreting the laws > too literally, just the contributions of members of this list. That is > a very unwise thing to do, as I must be included in the list of people > who apparently say one thing in one message and the opposite in the > next. That just comes from uncareful snipping and disregard for context. > I know, I was quoting you out of context to labour my point that laws should be written in plain, unambiguous language that everyone can understand, and not be open to any "interpretation". This was unfair of me. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jvickers@fish.co.uk Fri Dec 13 00:50:32 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:50:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <200212112359.SAA15064@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <009101c2a242$9134e7e0$1278bc3e@oemcomputer> [Steve Willner:] > > From: "James Vickers" > > My problem was that the laws define "action" as a bid or play, whereas you > > all want to interpret it to mean choosing "bidding" over and above > > "passing", where "bidding" could include several different bids (each of > > which, according to the laws, are separate "actions"). > > Let me make sure I understand what you are worried about: partner gives > UI to the effect of "You should double." Suppose there are three > reasonable bids, each likely to be chosen by one player in six absent > the UI, and the other half of players would pass. You are worried that > it might somehow be legal to double instead of choosing one of the bids > because no single bid is a LA under the "25% rule." Do I have that > right? Yes. > First of all, L73C applies. I think that's quite enough to rule out > doubling. Good point, the thought of invoking some other law to get out of this mess didn't occur to me. This one seems to do the job. > Second, in the ACBL there is no problem. All of the bids are LA's. > > Third, here is what I wrote on 2001 Apr. 9: > > The question (outside the > > ACBL) is not whether there is some one action other than the one taken > > that 25-30% of players would choose. Rather, it is whether the action > > taken would be chosen by 70-75% of players. Even if no single other > > action has high probability, logical alternatives exist. The classic > > case is the one cited by Alain: suppose 50% of players would double, > > but the other 50% would bid. If double is suggested by UI, it is > > illegal, even if no single bid would have much support. (If I have > > misunderstood the rules in the RoW, I'm sure someone will correct me.) > > Now that I reread this, though, I am not certain it's true. That is, I > am fairly sure that competent TD's and AC's would rule as stated, but I > am not sure such a ruling is consistent with the written text of the > actual definition of "logical alternative" where the "25-30% rules" are > in effect. Perhaps the regulations need to be rephrased to define "No > logical alternative exists when...," but I'm not sure if that is > entirely correct either. I have never understood how anyone can justify ruling on L16 by looking at the action actually taken ("was it 70-75%?"). The law tells you to look at the alternatives, i.e. which actions were _not_ taken ("would they be 25-30%?"). This is certainly what we are taught to do in the EBU. The former interpretation may be more sensible, but if that's the case let's change the wording of the law (OK, I know!) and not hang on spurious "interpretations". I think you are beginning to understand what I've been banging on about. James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From jvickers@fish.co.uk Fri Dec 13 00:56:26 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:56:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Heading of Law9B2 References: <200212101942.OAA06481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000601c2a173$aeca4e00$d983403e@endicott> Message-ID: <009201c2a242$92523ec0$1278bc3e@oemcomputer> [Grattan:] > > The heading of Law 9B2 (in the US version of the Laws) reads, > "Further bids > > or plays" > > > > The text says "No player shall take any action until ..." which I > have > > always assumed means no calls or plays, not just further bids or > plays. > > > > Is this a (minor) defect that needs to be fixed? > > > +=+ I am sure we need to have a plain statement > of what we mean when the Law is rewritten. > Meanwhile, subject to context, I consider > these to be amongst examples of 'actions': > (a) to withdraw a card > (b) to rectify a mistake > (c) to select from options > (d) to mix or rearrange cards > ~G ~ +=+ And how about: (e) making any comment relating to the infraction. e.g. North: "2NT" East: "2D" North "Director" East: "Sorry, I didn't see the opening bid." James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 13 05:04:32 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:04:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <4A256C8E.001A4EE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >+=+ When there is a trump outstanding the trick is >awarded against the claimer if >1. he makes no statement about the trump, AND >2. he is 'probably' unaware that opponent still has a trump, >AND >3. a trick could be lost to that trump by a normal play. > >The argument seems to be that in Europe it is assumed >players drawing trumps can probably count to thirteen >whereas in ACBL-land it is assumed they probably can >not. Evidently decisions made in such cases should >take account not only the class of player involved but >also his region of derivation. Perhaps future conditions >of contest will provide for each player to furnish a >Certificate of Origin? ~ G ~ +=+ For TDs with a Certificate of Origin in Australia, the word "probably" plays no part in our assessment of awareness - we require a player to pass the stricter test of whether >>it is at all likely that the player was unaware of the outstanding trump. While it is true that the wimpy, wimpy, wimpy word "probably" appears in the heading of Law 70C2, headings are not considered to be part of the Laws. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Dec 13 05:57:45 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 05:57:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <6974379.1039715843571.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3DF8D910.2010504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <011201c2a26c$8edfe240$d74423d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > Yes David, We all know that Burnian claim law would solve all problems. > But we don't believe that the disadvantages it brings are worth the > small problem we face. Oh, go on then. Tell me what those disadvantages are, just so that I can be sure. And then tell me why the "small problem we face" (which is, presumably, that Americans and Europeans do not agree among themselves on how to resolve a claim) is as nothing compared to the disadvantages my position would involve. And do not tell me about players having to change the habits of a lifetime until you have replied in detail to my previous message suggesting that this is not actually a difficult thing for them to do. And, until these major philosophical questions have been resolved, can we have an end to the notion that "irrational" means "anything that I would not do?" David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 13 08:13:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:13:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DF996A4.5090802@skynet.be> Hello Roger, I wrote a first reply to this mail last night and now I am writing a second one. Roger Pewick wrote: > > > I think this is an unfortunate viewpoint. There should be no > difference in the certainty of outcome between 13 tricks played out and > the certainty created by a statement of claim. iow, nothing is left to > chance. and the attitude you portray results in claimers being entitled > to free tricks just for claiming without thorough clarifications or even > faulty ones [like case 3]. > You are right, but you forget one thing: the "certainty created by the statement of a claim" is a subjective thing. I am certain that the Antwerp declarer who cashes 2 rounds and notices they are 3-2 knows the 13th is out. So indeed, "nothing is left to chance". And don't say that you don't do the same. AQxx KJx without a statement - where's the certainty? You accept this because you are certain. > I will tell what I do in the instance where the player draws rounds > 'proving' if you will that the fall of the last trump[s] will be > imminent and the player claims without [a] any false statement and [b] > any additional issues . If he is in the right hand then acquiesce, if > not I check for issues like transportation and finding [a] none or [b] > an unklikely one then acquiesce. And if partner wanted a ruling I would > think a ruling of claim awarded would suit me just fine. When the claim > statement contains false items as in case 3 then there issues to be > weighed. > Indeed, and all we disagree upon is the weight of the absense of a statement by an Antwerp player. I know that weight, you don't. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 13 08:16:35 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:16:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DF99763.703@skynet.be> Roger, you may notice I take every point separately: Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>But the law is the same - just the interpretation of the evidence. >>I can tell you, that if you, in Europe, claim without saying "drawing >>trumps", when this is something you always do, then this is evidence >>that you miscounted. Whereas I, in America, will forget to say so - >>without this being evidence that I miscounted. Now if I were to allow >>your claim in Europe, I would be just as wrong as you disallowing mine >>over there. >>The difference is one of habit, not of regulation or law. >> > > Should not the only thing that matter be law? > Indeed - the law is the same, and the habit is the same, so I expect my martian claim to be awarded both in Antwerp and Arizona. And if they don't accept my martian claim in Arizona, I will put that down to them not knowing my habits (and me unable to prove them) but not to a difference in law. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 13 08:25:53 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:25:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DF99991.9030407@skynet.be> and another one: Roger Pewick wrote: > >>I don't mind the name. What I was reacting to was your circular >>reasoning. You call a particular type of claim "lousy" and you say it >>is accepted in Antwerp. >> > > No, I said that it was a 'martian' claim of a faulty nature. You said > that in Antwerp it was considered a sound claim and would be ruled as > such. Saying that my reasons were circular does not make them so when > they were not. What you said was twofold : "A lousy claim is considered a sound one in Antwerp". That is circular reasoning. If it is considered sound, then it is sound; if you call it lousy, that does not make it lousy. That just shows a difference of opinion and we knew that already. Your full second sentence was far more important, and forgive me for changing lousy to martian to make the point: "Since a martian claim is considered sound in Antwerp, Antwerp players will make martian claims." This is a very valid point. And it illustrates why they should be kept allowed. If I suddenly start disallowing martian claims, I have a revolution on my hands. But whereas statement is correct and valid, it tells us nothing about the legality or not of martian claims. > Because I said: "the actual claim statement was > inconsistent with taking the rest of the tricks as when the DA is led to > the next trick." > > There is nothing circular presented. Since I was talking about mindset > I was not thorough about the case. More specifically: > We are not talking about case 3 here. I have since read the actual write-up and I don't consider case 3 a martian claim. For one thing, there was a ruff some time before the cashing of trumps began. I can understand that there was some doubt remaining in that case. I am talking of cases where the only doubt that is left is the one contained in the absense of a statement whose absense is conspicuous to Americans. That absense is not conspicuous to Europeans and proves nothing. > The case 3 claim was faulty because [a] claimer said 'my hand is good' > and [b] it was clear it was not good. The proof is this: at the next > trick the DA, a card that was claimed to be a winner, is led and we see > whether it wins the trick. Since the claim was in fact disputed, I have > some confidence that an outstanding trump would find its way onto the > trick and according to L44E a trick containing a trump is won by the > player who contributed to it the highest trump. The player had not yet > proven that the long trump hand held long diamonds [which it didn't] and > claiming his hand was good suggests that he was unaware of the > ramifications of the outstanding trump. The standard for awarding > tricks to outstanding trump is 'at all likely to be unaware that a > trump.' and imo that standard was met. > I have no quarrels with the AC of Phoenix case 3. As long as they did not base their decision solely on the absense of the statement "drawing trumps". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Dec 13 08:32:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: > Alain wrote: > > > AG : the rules are the same. Their interpretation might be different. > > Then the rules are not the same. The rules exist only in terms of the > effect they have on the play of a game. If that effect is different > because the umpires of the game have different interpretations of the > rules, then the game is not being played by the same rules. In which case most sports fail to be "international". Rugby: Deceptive running (or whatever) southern/northern hemisphere Cricket: Chucking/bowling Indian subcontinent/rest of world Football: Diving UK/Italy etc, etc Why should bridge be any different? Tim From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Dec 13 08:34:27 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:34:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <6974379.1039715843571.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000c01c2a282$78e1fe40$873df0c3@LNV> > >There are American claims and European claims. The main reason to pubish my opinion about these claim decisions was to tear us away from L75. I succeeded. As far as my experience goes there are no collections that can be described as 'Amercan claims' and 'European claims' other than being related to the continent where they are made. Inconsistency is everywhere and that was the main reason for me to draw attention for. What I don't understand in David's approach is his resistence towards judgement being involved when a claim occurs. We have judgement as an elementary part of the game, so why not for claims? David's approach seems comparable with Hamman's idea about the bidding and play: 8 seconds per action (a call, or play of a card I mean) with any deviation resulting in a bad score (that should be the consequence of such an approach). That way we have removed all ethical and most judgement problems from the game. But then I agree with Herman: claims should not be a big problem in ruling, we good instruct TD's maintaining the present principles and realising more consistency. Bridge wouldn't not be the nice game I am playing and working for if we introduce such fundamental changes. And I doubt very much that we can find a majority of players liking such change if we present them some decisions with that new approach-ruling David is advocating. But we could ask. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 13 08:38:44 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:38:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> <3DF8EB95.4020500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DF99C94.8010003@skynet.be> Roger, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>>>Roger, do you question a player who claims 4 tricks with AQx >>>> > opposite > >>>>KJxx ? >>>> >>>> >>>Me? Well this is no where near the situation of case 3. >>> >>> >> >>Isn't it ? >> > > No. It is not. Here you have one suit to play and it is clear how > avoid blocking the suit. Excuse me, but there were only seven cards and > there should have been eight and I don't know what the eighth is. in > case 3 there are [a] two relevant suits and [b] there is a statement to > the effect that any order of the cards will work. Which by definition > [no claim statement] makes it different. > You say it is clear - and you are right. But you have made a ruling about this. Our rulings in this case will be the same. Our rulings in the Antwerp case might not be the same. But in a sense, the cases are similar. The player did not make a statement and we have to rule. You cannot use the absense of a statement in the Antwerp case as an argument for disallowing it. Because you will accept the hypothetical I gave above. > >>You are required to judge whether this person will know how to handle >>this situation. you may believe this one is easy (and I agree) but >>that is not the point. >>The point is that you need to judge. >> > > Well, I am not so sure that is the point. I think that the point is > that players, when they claim, should dot the i's and cross the t's. > And when they do so there won't be much need for judgment and the world > will be better for it. > But the player who claims four tricks from AQxx KJx does not dot the i's and cross the t's. he just says "four tricks" and you accept that. By all means rule against people who make statements that you believe are unclear. But don't say that every card has to be mentioned precisely in order for things to be clear. > regards > roger pewick > > >>And no "simple" rule can tell you >>how to judge. We agree on this case. We agree on the double squeeze. >>At some point in between, we are certain to be facing a difference of >>opinion, and there is nothing either of us can do about it, except >>discussing it and trying to get to a common evaluation. >> > >> >>-- >>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 henk@ripe.net Fri Dec 13 09:25:53 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:25:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Those big pair games In-Reply-To: <001001c2a232$c09a5700$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Marvin L. French wrote: > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > > > Any modern convention center has Ethernet these days. > > > The majority of NABCs are not contained within a convention center, but if > what you say is also true of large hotels, that may be something for the ACBL > to consider. It is. A lot of hotels even have ethernet to the individual rooms these days. > Frequently the large ACBL pair events are multi-site, however. As I > remember, some first-day Blue Ribbon sections were put in the Phoenix > convention center, after two big rooms in the Marriott could not > accommodate them. Again, this is not a problem, simply use the Internet. 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 13 09:28:27 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:28:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <6974379.1039715843571.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3DF8D910.2010504@skynet.be> <011201c2a26c$8edfe240$d74423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001d01c2a28a$55aa35c0$1386403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > And, until these major philosophical questions have > been resolved, can we have an end to the notion that > "irrational" means "anything that I would not do?" > +=+ 1. Noted that anything DB would not do is rational. 2. I am gently coming to a conclusion that in an unclarified situation, if we exclude barmy ('unthinkable') actions a player's choice amongst available suits to play is no less likely to be one than another. The choice of card to play in a selected suit is not equal; players with no reason to do other should be expected to play from the top down. 3. This leads me to think about weighted solutions and whether such adjudications would seem more equitable. ( As for example when a score adjustment depends on choice amongst equals of opening lead.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 13 09:01:33 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:01:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: <200212112359.SAA15064@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <009101c2a242$9134e7e0$1278bc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <001c01c2a28a$5471dcd0$1386403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" ; "Steve Willner" Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: let me try again . > > I have never understood how anyone can justify > ruling on L16 by looking at the action actually > taken ("was it 70-75%?"). The law tells you to > look at the alternatives, i.e. which actions were > _not_ taken ("would they be > 25-30%?"). This > is certainly what we are taught to do in the EBU. > The former interpretation may be more sensible, > but if that's the case let's change the wording of > the law (OK, I know!) and not hang on spurious > "interpretations". > +=+ Edgar Kaplan and I are on record with a joint opinion that the Director should assess the calls not made as to whether each qualifies as a 'logical alternative' (and we urged Directors not to think in terms of a percentage probability in making the assessment, but whether a significant number of players of like standard would make them). More recently the WBF Code of Practice has this : " A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." In my opinion this last condition has some importance when the 'probability' of the action taken is not convincingly high; - if the number of players choosing some other call than the one actually made reaches a level where it demands consideration then the call actually made is not what Harold Franklin would term 'evident' even if, viewed in isolation, any one of the possible alternatives would not be selected all that often. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Dec 13 10:07:05 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:07:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <7970662.1039774025726.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > What I don't understand in David's approach is his resistence towards judgement being involved when a claim occurs. We have judgement as an elementary part of the game, so why not for claims? If you don't understand that, you have not understood a single word I have said in this forum all the time I have been here. I maintain, and I will continue to maintain, that insofar as the arbiters of a game are called upon to exercise judgement, that game is flawed. Full stop. No argument. End of discussion. Now, no one actually disagrees with this. Suppose you have a 12-board match where the TD is called to the table three times to rule on: a claim, a case of unauthorised information, and a case of mistaken explanation. And suppose you have a 12-board match where the TD is not called to the table at all. Suppose also that both matches are won by 5 IMPs. Now, which team do you expect will be cursing and swearing the most? Not the team that lost in the match where the TD was not called, that is for sure. But the team that lost the match where the TD was called three times - they disagree with all of his rulings, each of which cost them at least 6 IMPs, and one of which was wrong. Bridge players do not want the TD at their tables. If he has to arrive, the players want him to read from a book of rules in such a fashion that everyone knows what to do after he had gone, and everyone can be sure that he will not need to come back. Does this happen? It does not. You are right that we have judgement as an elementary part of the game. But the judgement that we have is the player's judgement of what to do with his cards. What we do not want to have is someone else's judgement of what the player might have done with his cards if the bidding or play had developed in some fashion other than the actual one. I don't want Herman to tell me what I might or might not rationally do. I don't even want Rodwell to tell me what I might or might not rationally do. I want to play my own cards. If I misplay them, or misbid with them, or misclaim with them, I do not want to sit in front of a bunch of Hermans (or even Rodwells) and tell them that of course I didn't mean to... I would never have... it was obvious that... I want to suffer for myself the consequences of my own error, and get on with the game. But this is the age of the Cult of the Director. Here we have a thread called "Phoenix Claims", and here we have Herman and Alain and Japp and Tim and Roger and Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and All telling us what splendid players they all are, and what fine judges of the rationality of their fellow human beings they all are. And it makes me sick. I do not want to listen to someone telling me that when I've cashed a couple of trumps and seen both opponents follow, I know that someone has still got one, whereas when I have cashed three trumps and perhaps not noticed that someone has shown out, I might not know that someone else has still got one. Nor, for pity's sake, do I want to listen to people telling me that if I were an American I would not know in the former case, whereas if I were a European I might know in the latter case... And nor does anybody else, except members of the Cult of the Director and other mad people. When you move a piece at chess, can you move it back again if your intention not to move it there was incontrovertible? If you hit a tennis ball into the net, can you claim that you wouldn't have done if you'd had a proper explanation of the weather forecast? Bridge is the only serious game played anywhere in the world at which the players and the officials have not got the faintest idea what the rules are. This is not something to be proud of. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 13 11:29:59 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:29:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <7725156.1039721393135.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021213122339.00ab9550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:29 12/12/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > I don't agree with the AC decision in case 3, but I prefer this to > having to try and change the claiming habits of every single player in Europe. > >Oh, I expect they'll manage. There was a time when no player in Europe had >to alert. A new procedure was introduced to make the game fairer, more >playable (though admittedly slower). AG : indeed. Bridge players are for the majority intelligent beings, and when a reform is introduced that makes the game fairer and more playable at a limited cost, they won't need more incentives, only some time, to adopt it. However, changing the claim rules to the American ones does not meet those criteria. >The players of Europe (and the rest of the world) adapted to it readily >enough, despite the fact that it was a far more serious change to their >habits than my proposed claim rule would be. > >There was a time when players spoke their bids. A new device was >introduced to make the game fairer, more playable (though admittedly >slower). The players of Europe (and the rest of the world) adapted to it >readily enough, despite the fact that it was a far more serious change to >their habits than my proposed claim rule would be. > >There was a time when players could see their partners. At international >level, a new device was introduced to make the game fairer, more playable >(though admittedly slower). The top-level players of Europe (and the rest >of the world) adapted to it readily enough, despite the fact that it was a >far more serious change to their habits than my proposed claim rule would be. AG : please note that screens, bidding boxes and the Rule of 18 (formerly 19) were all born in Europe (France, Sweden and Netherlands respectively), and that it is the Americans that roused against them and had some difficulties in integrating them. >It really is no kind of objection to a proposed simplification of a >difficult piece of legislation to say: players would have to change their >habits to cope with it. What kind of Luddite are you? AG : the kind who think that people are able to distinguish between clever, useful reforms and other ones. BTW, I would rather disallow all claims, or adopt the Burn rule, than use the American way. It seems so insulting. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 13 11:34:16 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:34:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021213123018.024410d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:32 12/12/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Alain wrote: > > > AG : the rules are the same. Their interpretation might be different. > >Then the rules are not the same. The rules exist only in terms of the >effect they have on the play of a game. If that effect is different >because the umpires of the game have different interpretations of the >rules, then the game is not being played by the same rules. AG : let me paraphrase this. The fact that different judges might give different judgments on the same case means that they use different laws. Perhaps this is logical in the Anglo-Saxon right, where judgements become laws by the way of jurisprudency ; it does not fit the French way, where the laws are untangible but subject tot interpretation. Another cultural difference ... From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Dec 13 11:40:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <7970662.1039774025726.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: David wrote: > Bridge players do not want the TD at their tables. I agree. I also believe that opening the door to bridge lawyer objections to marginally imperfect claim statements would lead to many more TD calls and a much higher level of dissatisfaction with the rulings. As far as I can tell disputed claims currently cause very very few problems at the moment. Even the Phoenix case 3 was decided, in the US, the same way as Herman would have ruled in Antwerp. Case 4 was decided on the finding of fact that declarer was interrupted in the process of making a claim statement - I imagine that even in a Burnian claim world the declarer would receive the benefit of the doubt if interrupted. If the game can survive widely divergent interpretations of what an LA is between jurisdictions it can certainly survive minor differences in claiming practice. If the WBFLC does give consideration to more rigorous claim rules I hope they will take into account the importance of claims to on-line bridge. In that environment it is almost always the case that opponents will see the validity of a claim on seeing the hand - long before a detailed claim statement can be typed. Tim From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Dec 13 14:38:34 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:38:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: David reacts: > > Ton wrote: > > > What I don't understand in David's approach is his > resistence towards judgement being involved when a claim > occurs. We have judgement as an elementary part of the game, > > so why not for claims? > > If you don't understand that, you have not understood a > single word I have said in this forum all the time I have been here. You mean about this subject or just anyone? You should know that I had the impression to understand you quite well in most cases. I am happy I put the matter that clear that I gave you the opportunity to make a statement this clear. Is it only the ball played in the net you are noticing when looking at tennis? I remember some diputable calls made concerning the ball being just out or not at the base line and John M. illustrating your view that umpires don't know anything about the game, but not offering another solution than to accept his opinion. What I am saying is that judgement other than by the players is part of the game of bridge as it is in many other sports (I estimate that 60% or more of off side situations in soccer are judged wrongly). And don't try to suggest that my view is biased because I belong to the bunch of directors protecting themselves and making their life more important than it should be. That I consider to be ridiculous. The real question is whether it is widely considered to be an improvement when we adopt your way of dealing with claims. Why not asking the bridge community as a whole, offering them the two positions with some examples showing the consequences. If you win we do it your way (if I get the committee willing). Just something that happened yesterday: I had K5 in spades as LHO of declarer and declarer being in hand without an entry to dummy had to loose a trick to that K. The reason he didn't was that he started thinking and didn't play anymore. Am I allowed to put down the K5 telling that I will keep those two cards till the end? Or are you now saying that I have to play the K under the ace? Of course you are not (?). Should I not have claimed (and conceded. Did I need to say that depending on the play of the ace of spades or some other spade by declarer I was going to play my 5 in case of the play of the ace and the K in case of another spade? Declarer accepted my claim, but then he probably was not aware of your vision. Judgement is involved and can only be taken away if we do not allow claims anymore. ton From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Dec 13 15:03:30 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:03:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212111642.LAA14753@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DF85302.2050508@skynet.be> <3DF8A76E.4070606@skynet.be> <3DF8D4F3.7020404@skynet.be> <3DF99991.9030407@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims -s- On the force of Herman's words I said that a martian claim is considered sound in Antwerp. I did not say that a martian claim was a sound claim anywhere in the world. This is because being sound and being considered sound need not be the same. The rest of the world wants unsound [but not necessarily all unsound] claims to be ruled sound claims. Well, I don't think that universal opinion makes it right. Some have said in different words that it is unethical to provide a claim statement that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's because to do so would insult the opponents and thereby violate law 74. I think that the euphemisms used to say all this were 'custom and discourtesy'. I don't buy it. And contrary to and in spite of the rest of the world saying that it is unacceptable to them to lose tricks in sloppy claims or being told to avoid multi-meaning euphemisms I continue to stand firm. But why? To quote David Burn: "I don't even want Rodwell to tell me what I might or might not rationally do. I want to play my own cards. If I misplay them, or misbid with them, or misclaim with them, I do not want to sit in front of a bunch of Hermans (or even Rodwells) and tell them that of course I didn't mean to... I would never have... it was obvious that... I want to suffer for myself the consequences of my own error, and get on with the game." Bridge is about what players do given the limitation on communication. Well, from reading these discussions, and accounts of rulings, and what we are told the laws say I just do not see any of it supporting the previous sentence. Except what I quoted from David Burn. Now, David has said something disparaging about me because of what I have said in this thread. I haven't been able to work out what it is. No, my feelings aren't hurt, but it is a signal to read some other thread. regards roger pewick From gester@lineone.net Fri Dec 13 15:51:54 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:51:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <6974379.1039715843571.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3DF8D910.2010504@skynet.be> <011201c2a26c$8edfe240$d74423d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2a28a$55aa35c0$1386403e@endicott> Message-ID: <001a01c2a2bf$b52eed80$6e1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > 3. This leads me to think about weighted solutions > and whether such adjudications would seem more > equitable. ( As for example when a score adjustment > depends on choice amongst equals of opening lead.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ I did not say that clearly. I was envisaging adjudication of a claim on a weighted basis in similar fashion to the weighting used by some in the case of an irregularity where the choice of opening lead (for example) would affect the outcome of the board once the irregularity is removed. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Dec 13 19:30:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:25 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > -s- > > On the force of Herman's words I said that a martian claim is considered > sound in Antwerp. I did not say that a martian claim was a sound claim > anywhere in the world. This is because being sound and being considered > sound need not be the same. Custom and practice dictates the format for making "sound" claims. A claim is "sound" if it would be universally upheld by anyone in the club giving a ruling. > Some have said in different words that it is unethical to provide a > claim statement that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's because to > do so would insult the opponents and thereby violate law 74. Not me. It is obviously discourteous (and unethical) to make a patronising claim with the intent of belittling opponents. It is not unethical for an American to make a US style claim in good faith against Antwerp opponents - even if they are offended. > I think > that the euphemisms used to say all this were 'custom and discourtesy'. > I don't buy it. And contrary to and in spite of the rest of the world > saying that it is unacceptable to them to lose tricks in sloppy claims > or being told to avoid multi-meaning euphemisms I continue to stand > firm. Really? AKxx AKx QJx QJx QJxx QJx AKx AKx A player claims against you in 7NT saying "They are all there." If you stand firm you must object. In "Burnworld" the play goes DJ,DA; DK,DQ; small diamond, discard CAKQJ on the next two diamonds, discard heart tops on the clubs, then spade tops on the H. Result 11 off. Clever you, well done. And if you don't object to this claim you can join the rest of the world in the murky swamp of sound/unsound being a matter of custom. Somewhere between the position where any legal play of the cards and only a specifically ordered play of the cards is necessary you have drawn a border. To my mind the whole world (would even David Burn state an unambiguous line at the table?) actually uses a "border" - the fact that it is in a marginally different place from one area to another should not be a big issue. Tim From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Dec 13 19:59:22 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:59:22 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > If the WBFLC does give consideration to more rigorous claim rules I hope > they will take into account the importance of claims to on-line bridge. > In that environment it is almost always the case that opponents will see > the validity of a claim on seeing the hand - long before a detailed claim > statement can be typed. I hope they take that into account too. In particular, I hope they realize that this is one arena in which the quality of claim statements is most lacking, and desperately in need of stricter enforcement! Probably half the people in online bridge NEVER make a claim statement, "knowing" that if it's rejected they will just finish playing hands out (and thinking their opps are stupid for not seeing it.) The current tendency is online bridge is to claim anytime you are planning to take all the rest, expecting the opps to accept the claim if they can see any line that will succeed --- NOT expecting them to reject if they can see any line that will fail. This, frankly, is a disaster. Even in online tournaments with directors, it's like pulling teeth to get people to make statements OR to get opps to call directors after bad claims. GRB From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Dec 13 20:36:44 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:36:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <000701c2a2e7$5a1b9f60$c24e27d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > AKxx > AKx > QJx > QJx > > QJxx > QJx > AKx > AKx > To my mind the whole world (would even David Burn state an > unambiguous line at the table?) Of course I would. "They are all there" is pretty close to the height of discourtesy when you have a large number of winners divided among two hands. Why should your opponents have to count your tricks? In practice, I would probably play dummy's six highest cards, then table my remaining seven with a statement to the effect that "these are all winners", unless I judged my opponents capable of understanding "I have four spade tricks, three hearts, three diamonds and three clubs." There is a practice among rubber bridge players and tournament players alike of claiming while making some such fatuous comment as "I will state a line if required", or worse, of stating no line at all but looking expectantly at the opponents to see if either will have the temerity to challenge the endplay that has just been set up. It is partly because of this deplorable tendency that there is so much resistance on this list to the notion that claim statements should be unambiguous and should be made in all cases. As players, we like to show off. As directors, we like complicated rulings, of which claims are a never-ending source of examples. The fact that the rest of the bridge world hates the perverse and inconsistent processes we have in place for handling claims does not worry us in the slightest. We know what we're doing, and everyone else can take a running jump. Join the Cult of the Director today! David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Dec 13 21:01:20 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:01:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <000e01c2a2ea$c9ea07c0$c24e27d9@pbncomputer> Ton wrote: > > If you don't understand that, you have not understood a > > single word I have said in this forum all the time I have been here. > You mean about this subject or just anyone? About this subject - I think we generally get on OK with most other things. > What I am saying is that judgement other than by the players is part of the > game of bridge as it is in many other sports (I estimate that 60% or more of > off side situations in soccer are judged wrongly). And don't try to suggest > that my view is biased because I belong to the bunch of directors protecting > themselves and making their life more important than it should be. That I > consider to be ridiculous. Oh, I agree that judgement other than by the players *is* part of other sports - of course it is. What I say is that this should be regarded as a necessary evil, and that the use of fallible human judgements should be obviated as far as possible. There are many ways to do this - use technology, provided that it can be trusted; but above all make a set or rules that minimises the need to use judgement. What seems to happen when some claim case causes a problem is that the debate always concerns the kind of judgement displayed by the officials; here are some Belgian people saying that the European judgement is wonderful while the American judgement is worse than no judgement at all; and here are some Americans quite correctly pointing out that in an Americn tournament, American officials can judge the situation as their regulations and their training require, and Europeans can take a long walk off a short pier. This is not very helpful. All it means is that the next contested claim case will cause just as much discord as the previous one, and as the one after that, and the one after that... It is really time that we stopped this "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" school of argument. Neither the European way nor the American way is the "right" way to judge claims, for claims should not be judged at all as they currently are. Instead, a claim should be examined to see what cards are covered by it, and how many tricks will accrue to the claimer if those cards are played as specified; the rest of the tricks go to the opponents unless the claimer simply cannot lose them. > The real question is whether it is widely considered to be an improvement > when we adopt your way of dealing with claims. Why not asking the bridge > community as a whole, offering them the two positions with some examples > showing the consequences. If you win we do it your way (if I get the > committee willing). I have done. I get the impression that people think I sit in some kind of ivory tower, dispensing fantastical notions of a Utopia in which people don't get given tricks by officials that they wouldn't have made at the table. I don't. I listen to bridge players all the time - it's part of what I do for this country's laws commission. And the ordinary players in England think, by and large, that when you make a claim, you should say what you're claiming, and if you don't say you're claiming something, you don't get it. Most players do not like claims being made agains them anyway; if claims were forbidden tomorrow, you would find more satisfied customers than dissatisfied ones. You see, we do not really know very much at all about nine tenths of the iceberg. But if you mean a wider exercise, a set of questions in a magazine, or on the Internet, or somewhere, I think that is a good idea and I will see what can be done about it. > Just something that happened yesterday: I had K5 in spades as LHO of > declarer and declarer being in hand without an entry to dummy had to loose a > trick to that K. The reason he didn't was that he started thinking and > didn't play anymore. Am I allowed to put down the K5 telling that I will > keep those two cards till the end? Of course - assuming that declarer has the rest, or that you can make only one trick whenever he decides to concede that spade. You have said what trick you will win; you have said enough about how you will play your cards to win that trick. Myself, I tend not to claim on behalf of my opponent - even though I may know we're only going to get one trick whatever happens, he may not know, and he's paid good money to have the fun of sitting there and working it out. Besides, I may be wrong - he may find a way to lose more tricks. > Should I not have claimed (and conceded). If you knew the position for certain, it was OK to claim your trick. > Did I need to say that depending on the play of the ace of > spades or some other spade by declarer I was going to play my 5 in case of > the play of the ace and the K in case of another spade? Depending on declarer's intelligence, you might want to say something like that (but if declarer is a complete novice, it is easier just to let him play). "Whenever you lead a spade lower than the king, I will play the king" is enough for most practical purposes, or just "I will take a trick with the king of spades". > Declarer accepted my claim, but then he probably was not aware of your > vision. It's not that bad. Most Burn claims are actually quicker than current ones anyway. > Judgement is involved and can only be taken away if we do not allow claims > anymore. Taken away entirely, yes. But we should take away as much as we can while continuing to allow only incontrovertible claims. David Burn London, England From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Fri Dec 13 21:59:45 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:59:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <000901c2a2f2$f8a148a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton, David, A lot of the discussion about this case is just noise but now we are getting somewhere. I don't know yet exactly what are Burnian claim rules but what I have seen so far to me it is the right idea but a tad too extreme. I agree with David that there should be far less judgement. I agree with Tom that some judgement is unavoidable. What I have always considered ridiculous in the current claim laws and current interpretations is that there is no difference between an 'erroneous' claim (= claimer makes a logic error) and a 'dubious' claim (= between correct and erroneous). In the first case the claimer should be penalized and the claim should be resolved with some claimer unfriendly algorithms (no judgement here). In the second case you need to apply judgement one way or another, and that should be done by the TD, who else. Ton's example (Kx). Of course this kind of claims should be possible. This is for me a perfect claim. But in my claim laws defensive claims are dangerous because they cannot be contested by partner. If partner is right my claim was wrong and I don't do judgement on 'erroneous' claims. My claim laws are very simple, you get what you claim, never more. If you revoke, bad luck, if you misbid, bad luck, if you misguess a suit, bad luck, if you claim the wrong number of tricks, bad luck (and no AC to help you out). Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; ; Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] phoenix claims > David reacts: > > > > Ton wrote: > > > > > What I don't understand in David's approach is his > > resistence towards judgement being involved when a claim > > occurs. We have judgement as an elementary part of the game, > > > so why not for claims? > > > > If you don't understand that, you have not understood a > > single word I have said in this forum all the time I have been here. > > > You mean about this subject or just anyone? You should know that I had the > impression to > understand you quite well in most cases. I am happy I put the matter that > clear that I gave you the opportunity to make a statement this clear. > Is it only the ball played in the net you are noticing when looking at > tennis? I remember some diputable calls made concerning the ball being just > out or not at the base line and John M. illustrating your view that umpires > don't know anything about the game, but not offering another solution than > to accept his opinion. > What I am saying is that judgement other than by the players is part of the > game of bridge as it is in many other sports (I estimate that 60% or more of > off side situations in soccer are judged wrongly). And don't try to suggest > that my view is biased because I belong to the bunch of directors protecting > themselves and making their life more important than it should be. That I > consider to be ridiculous. > > The real question is whether it is widely considered to be an improvement > when we adopt your way of dealing with claims. Why not asking the bridge > community as a whole, offering them the two positions with some examples > showing the consequences. If you win we do it your way (if I get the > committee willing). > > Just something that happened yesterday: I had K5 in spades as LHO of > declarer and declarer being in hand without an entry to dummy had to loose a > trick to that K. The reason he didn't was that he started thinking and > didn't play anymore. Am I allowed to put down the K5 telling that I will > keep those two cards till the end? Or are you now saying that I have to play > the K under the ace? Of course you are not (?). Should I not have claimed > (and conceded. Did I need to say that depending on the play of the ace of > spades or some other spade by declarer I was going to play my 5 in case of > the play of the ace and the K in case of another spade? > Declarer accepted my claim, but then he probably was not aware of your > vision. > > Judgement is involved and can only be taken away if we do not allow claims > anymore. > > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 13 21:55:54 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <200212132155.QAA25221@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > In practice, > I would probably play dummy's six highest cards, then table my remaining > seven with a statement to the effect that "these are all winners", > unless I judged my opponents capable of understanding "I have four spade > tricks, three hearts, three diamonds and three clubs." I'm curious how you would claim in the classic throwin position: trump in each hand (and none out), two matching voids, AJx opposite KTx in the fourth suit, and an opponent on lead. I am fairly sure even I could win all the tricks from there, but I don't see a quick way to explain it. I desperately want people to claim in this position rather than make an opponent think for ten minutes about whether there is some hope of winning a trick. > Most players do not like claims being made agains them anyway; if > claims were forbidden tomorrow, you would find more satisfied customers > than dissatisfied ones. I find this quite astonishing; I am delighted when claims are made against me and unhappy when they are not. But I have been in small minorities before. I am reminded, though, of a knockout team event I played. After our team had won our semi-final match and enjoyed a leisurely dinner, we returned to the venue to find the opponents only just finishing up their match! They raced out for a quick bite of food, and when they returned, we got some idea what had taken so long. They never claimed! At least for the first few deals. Eventually we conceded on a couple of deals when it was obvious they had the rest, and things settled back to a more normal pace. I don't know whether this team had suffered (I am tempted to write "been burned.") by an adverse claim ruling or what their problem was, but those first several hands were not the way I like to play bridge. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 13 22:08:57 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:08:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <200212132208.RAA25238@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > The solution to this problem lies IMO in changing the laws in a way that we > need far less judgement in resolving claims. My idea is (leaving out > details): > > 1. To give a lot or at least some leeway when it comes to stating ones > claim. It is about one's intention, not about the exact wording. Something along these lines has been mentioned before. The formulation was distinguishing a "bad claim" on the one hand from a "bad claim statement" on the other. I think this approach would get us some distance away from judging the player's state of mind or intentions. > 2. But once the intention of the claim is established I want to be very > strict. If there is a material error the claim should be considered as an > infraction that caries automatic penalties (just like a revoke does). I don't think we need to make it an infraction. Claimer already gets the worst of all non-irrational lines of play. David B. wants to make it the worst of all legal lines, but that seems too severe. > A clumsy claim is more difficult. Example : someone claims the rest (which > in itself is correct) but there is some unmentioned minor technical problem Some agreed guidelines and "approved jurisprudence" would help a lot. There is some question whether the guidelines have to be the same worldwide or whether they can be local or regional. The ACBL gives a few examples, but more would be better. > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > IMO Richard is right in principle. But I do > not like the word "irrational" which in my view > has connotations of "unthinking" or "against > reason." I would be quite happy with "irrational," which suggests an absolute standard rather than a state of mind or something dependent on bridge ability. > Better still - forget intent -- and give all > benefit of the doubt to the non-claimers. I'm all for getting rid of intent, which we can never know. > Except at top level, claims rarely shorten the > game because opponents do not understand them. This is certainly not my experience, and I don't think there is any basis for calling my games "top-level" (sad to say). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Dec 14 00:56:34 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:56:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> David Burn is obviously right -- claims should be full and explicit. The majority of players would agree. And it would save masses of TD & AC time. If the WBFLC had a well-publicised web-site and such a rule were officially published there tomorrow, all clubs in the world (and most on Mars) would be delighted to conform to the new law within weeks. To save time, TFLB can still define "defaults" for playing suits (from the top down?), drawing trumps, unblocking, and so on and these could depend on the official class of an *event* but not -- please not -- on a TDs assessment of the skill or intent of an individual player. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Dec 14 06:04:26 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:04:26 -0800 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> Message-ID: <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > David Burn is obviously right -- claims should > be full and explicit. The majority of players > would agree. And it would save masses of TD & AC > time. If the WBFLC had a well-publicised web-site > and such a rule were officially published there > tomorrow, all clubs in the world (and most on > Mars) would be delighted to conform to the new > law within weeks. > > To save time, TFLB can still define "defaults" > for playing suits (from the top down?), drawing > trumps, unblocking, and so on and these could > depend on the official class of an *event* but > not -- please not -- on a TDs assessment of the > skill or intent of an individual player. > Neither of which is objectively measurable. Nigel has the right outlook: All players in an event must be considered as being in the same "class of player." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Dec 14 12:41:28 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:41:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212132155.QAA25221@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006a01c2a36e$1f4d87e0$714827d9@pbncomputer> Steve wrote: > I'm curious how you would claim in the classic throwin position: trump > in each hand (and none out), two matching voids, AJx opposite KTx in > the fourth suit, and an opponent on lead. I am fairly sure even I > could win all the tricks from there, but I don't see a quick way to > explain it. Pretty much as I do at the moment. I wait for a little while to see if the defender is going to lead a card and save me the trouble of explaining - but if the defender starts to think, I will face my cards and start to explain: "if you lead a club, I will be able to win three club tricks and a trump; if you do not lead a club, I will be able to ruff what you do lead in dummy and throw a club from my hand, then I will make the last three tricks with two top clubs and a ruff..." By the time I am a quarter of the way through this, there has usually been a concession in any case. Provided that people indicate clearly enough what tricks they will win, with what cards, and in what order, I don't mind if they use the phrases that are in common use anyway - someone with AQx and a loser facing KJxx can say "I have four club tricks" without my wanting to take any tricks away from them. But in more complex positions such as: KJ xxx AQxx A "four spade tricks and a heart" would lead to the loss of the last two tricks; "king jack of spades, ace of hearts, two spade tricks" is required. It takes about a tenth of a second longer to say and no longer to formulate - but you need to say it so that next time your opponent makes a claim when he obviously has not noticed a blockage, some idiot Bel.. er, some highly qualififed tournament director doesn't tell you that of course, he would have noticed the blockage had he played the hand out... > > Most players do not like claims being made agains them anyway; if > > claims were forbidden tomorrow, you would find more satisfied customers > > than dissatisfied ones. > > I find this quite astonishing; I am delighted when claims are made > against me and unhappy when they are not. But I have been in small > minorities before. Oh, you're not in a minority *among the people on this list*, and I have no doubt that your preference, like most expert players, is to have opponents claim. But the people on this list are in the vanishingly small minority among bridge players in general (a fact which a lot of them, myself included, forget far more often than we should). David Burn London, England From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sat Dec 14 14:50:11 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:50:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> Message-ID: <001301c2a380$1d3be0c0$25b54351@noos.fr> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > David Burn is obviously right -- claims should > be full and explicit. The majority of players > would agree. And it would save masses of TD & AC > time. If the WBFLC had a well-publicised web-site > and such a rule were officially published there > tomorrow, all clubs in the world (and most on > Mars) would be delighted to conform to the new > law within weeks. Absolutely right. Although we can still haggle a little bit about what is 'full and explicit'. > To save time, TFLB can still define "defaults" > for playing suits (from the top down?), drawing > trumps, unblocking, and so on and these could > depend on the official class of an *event* but > not -- please not -- on a TDs assessment of the > skill or intent of an individual player. > Absolutely right (depending on event but not ....). Claims should be clear to opps (otherwise they don't achieve their goal of winning some time) so the level of the opps is in a way more important than the level of the claimer. Playing top-level I claim like they/we all do (= showing your hand after the last issue of the hand is resolved). Playing at the club level I claim like a Burn (well almost I guess), I claim only completely obvious positions like 'the rest without any complications'. Burn said that most people don't like claims against them. My experience is that they don't like claims they don't understand immediately (plus claims where you still had to do some work). Some understand much more than others. So you have to adapt a little. Always keep in mind that for every time opps get upset (let alone call for the TD) you need a (couple of) dozen successful claims to compensate for the wasted time and effort. Jaap van der Neut > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 14 15:37:22 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:37:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Horses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/10/02, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >In the entire interchange the only issue worthy of >discussion is the cause of the poor quality of the >laws. Only if one accepts "the poor quality of the laws" as a given. I, for one, do not. Yes, there are problems in some laws, but on balance I think the evolution of them over the past what, three quarters of a century?, has been pretty well done, and I think the WBFLC deserves kudos rather more than opprobrium. From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Dec 14 19:56:24 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:56:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <200212132155.QAA25221@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021214143245.026b4e40@pop.starpower.net> At 04:55 PM 12/13/02, Steve wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > In practice, > > I would probably play dummy's six highest cards, then table my > remaining > > seven with a statement to the effect that "these are all winners", > > unless I judged my opponents capable of understanding "I have four > spade > > tricks, three hearts, three diamonds and three clubs." > >I'm curious how you would claim in the classic throwin position: trump >in each hand (and none out), two matching voids, AJx opposite KTx in >the fourth suit, and an opponent on lead. I am fairly sure even I >could win all the tricks from there, but I don't see a quick way to >explain it. "You have to either lead into my clubs or give me a ruff-sluff." >I desperately want people to claim in this position rather than make an >opponent think for ten minutes about whether there is some hope of >winning a trick. Steve is not alone. > > Most players do not like claims being made agains them anyway; if > > claims were forbidden tomorrow, you would find more satisfied customers > > than dissatisfied ones. > >I find this quite astonishing; I am delighted when claims are made >against me and unhappy when they are not. But I have been in small >minorities before. In the circles I play (and direct) in, Steve would find himself in the overwhelming majority. I don't know who David's customers are, but they are certainly not mine. Anyone who consistently played as David would -- cashing six of his thirteen obvious sure winners before claiming -- would be informed of L74B4, asked not to do this in the future, and might well find himself before a conduct and ethics committee if he continued. >I am reminded, though, of a knockout team event I played. After our >team had won our semi-final match and enjoyed a leisurely dinner, we >returned to the venue to find the opponents only just finishing up >their match! They raced out for a quick bite of food, and when they >returned, we got some idea what had taken so long. They never >claimed! At least for the first few deals. Eventually we conceded on >a couple of deals when it was obvious they had the rest, and things >settled back to a more normal pace. I don't know whether this team had >suffered (I am tempted to write "been burned.") by an adverse claim >ruling or what their problem was, but those first several hands were >not the way I like to play bridge. Exactly. In real life, the vast majority of tournament goers are far more concerned with having enough time for dinner than with the possibility that someone who made a claim without specifying the exact order of play of every card might, if left to their own devices, have revoked, thrown their kings away under their aces, or tried to run their not-quite-solid suits from the bottom up (and some of us would think it a boon if the minority who aren't stopped coming). 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 Sat Dec 14 20:28:10 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:28:10 -0800 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <001301c2a380$1d3be0c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001a01c2a3af$6c4ec0e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Burn said that most people don't like claims against them. My experience is > that they don't like claims they don't understand immediately (plus claims > where you still had to do some work). Some understand much more than others. > So you have to adapt a little. Always keep in mind that for every time opps > get upset (let alone call for the TD) you need a (couple of) dozen > successful claims to compensate for the wasted time and effort. > I like to make either my hand or dummy's hand contain all the tricks that are claimed. Opponents are quicker to accept such a claim, as they don't have to look back and forth between two hands, counting tricks and looking for blockage. "These are all good, playing top-down." "After cashing these top-down, trumps first, you get the last three tricks." That takes very little trouble, and I'd like to see it required by regulation. When required to lead into K10x opposite AJx or give a sluff-ruff, the opponent on lead can be shown declarer's hand, thereby suggesting a concession rather than making a claim. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 14 08:08:24 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:08:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <000901c2a2f2$f8a148a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001901c2a3b9$2051bc60$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Kooijman, A." ; ; ; Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > What I have always considered ridiculous in the current > claim laws and current interpretations is that there is no > difference between an 'erroneous' claim (= claimer makes > a logic error) and a 'dubious' claim (= between correct > and erroneous). In the first case the claimer should be > penalized and the claim should be resolved with some > claimer unfriendly algorithms (no judgement here). In the > second case you need to apply judgement one way or > another, and that should be done by the TD, who else. > +=+ And the TD is to judge which of the two categories the claim falls into? +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 14 21:37:06 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:37:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > David Burn is obviously right > > +=+ Having observed this lengthy pursuit of an ultimate truth I now wonder whether we are near a result? Let me offer, tentatively, the following propositions 1. What 'we' want is a method of resolving contested claims that is as nearly mechanical as possible. 2. The quality of player should not enter into it - one for all and all for one. 3. What the player states should be the first consideration, if legal. 4. What the player fails to state is adjudicated by a set of rules of procedure. 5. Where under these rules of procedure the Director must choose an option he follows the path least favourable to the claimer. 6. It is up to claimer to say what he is doing about trumps. If he does not speak to the point the TD will not draw any outstanding trump for him until he is forced to play the suit*. 7. All* suits are played from the top down unless claimer says differently. Is this the general idea, pace a couple of subscribers, and all we need is words? Or? ~ G ~ +=+ p.s. I/we can not guarantee the opinions of those who will decide! Including, come to think about it, our own :-) ! From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 14 21:52:53 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:52:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <001301c2a380$1d3be0c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001301c2a3bb$4114f6e0$a05687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > David Burn is obviously right -- claims should > > be full and explicit. The majority of players > > would agree. And it would save masses of TD & AC > > time. If the WBFLC had a well-publicised web-site > > and such a rule were officially published there > > tomorrow, all clubs in the world (and most on > > Mars) would be delighted to conform to the new > > law within weeks. > > Absolutely right. Although we can still haggle a little > bit about what is 'full and explicit'. > +=+ Not practical as things stand. We need time to consider in committee where agreement amongst members of the same zone is no certainty, agreement between members of one Zone and another still to be negotiated often enough. What is more, the committee distrusts any arrangement that makes decisions 'on the hoof'. The committee experienced more than its fill of that in the ways of Edgar. In the present era they want time to mull things over and to discuss face-to-face. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 23:35:58 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 17:35:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > "Ask me no more if east or west > The Phoenix builds her spicy nest" > - Thomas Carew > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin L. French" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:04 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > > > David Burn is obviously right > > > > +=+ Having observed this lengthy pursuit of an > ultimate truth I now wonder whether we are near > a result? Let me offer, tentatively, the following > propositions > 5. Where under these rules of procedure the Director > must choose an option he follows the path least > favourable to the claimer. I am not sure that there is a better tack than focus on the validity of the claim. What about the validity of the objection? [a] the indestructibility of a claim resides in how bullet proof the clarification is. [b] the suggestion of what about the claim is invalid resides in what objections are raised by those entitled to raise an objection. [c] it resides in the authority to rule the validity of the objection or objections, or the claimer to acquiesce to the dispute. [d] there be an standard for the validity objections. But I have thrown caution to the wind having here committed an act of recklessness. regards roger pewick > Is this the general idea, pace a couple of > subscribers, and all we need is words? Or? > ~ G ~ +=+ > p.s. I/we can not guarantee the opinions of those > who will decide! Including, come to think about it, > our own :-) ! From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Dec 14 23:31:58 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:31:58 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, grandeval wrote: > 1. What 'we' want is a method of resolving contested > claims that is as nearly mechanical as possible. > 2. The quality of player should not enter into it - one > for all and all for one. > 3. What the player states should be the first consideration, > if legal. > 4. What the player fails to state is adjudicated by a set > of rules of procedure. > 5. Where under these rules of procedure the Director > must choose an option he follows the path least > favourable to the claimer. > 6. It is up to claimer to say what he is doing about > trumps. If he does not speak to the point the TD > will not draw any outstanding trump for him until > he is forced to play the suit*. > 7. All* suits are played from the top down unless > claimer says differently. A fine summary, I think, of the hundreds of posts on claims we have had in the past year or two. I agree with 1-6, and am OK with #7 in suits in which no alternative exists: but if you have AKJ opposite xxx I expect a trick to be lost to a singleton queen offside AND to a tripleton queen onside unless claimer says differently. (If only 2 cards are outstanding, of course, the Q will fall.) GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 14 23:23:01 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:23:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FD6C@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Message-ID: On 12/12/02, Martin Sinot wrote: >Well, I meant always in trump contracts, of course. Seems to me "well, I meant , of course" is a common statement from claimers who are about to be ruled against. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 14 23:17:16 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:17:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/12/02, Roger Pewick wrote: >f I remember my history there was an emperor Deocletin who several >thousand years ago was noted for balancing the books by the decree that >copper had the same worth as silver. >From http://www.st.carnet.hr/split/car.html: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletanius (c 243-316) is the Latinized name of an ordinary soldier with a Greek name - Diokles - born in the nearest vicinity of the then capital of the Roman province of Dalmatia Salona. He was pronounced emperor on November 20, 284 AD. From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 15 10:37:59 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3DFC5B87.8050209@skynet.be> personal opinion: grandeval wrote: > > 1. What 'we' want is a method of resolving contested > claims that is as nearly mechanical as possible. agreed, but unattainable (well, in the sense that I believe "as nearly as mechanical" will be far less near than you may well wish) > 2. The quality of player should not enter into it - one > for all and all for one. not agreed. What is "obvious" for David Burn is not obvious to me. I can live with a law that says that "obvious" things are accepted. > 3. What the player states should be the first consideration, > if legal. Not agreed. If legal AND normal. > 4. What the player fails to state is adjudicated by a set > of rules of procedure. Not agreed. If he fails to state something "obvious" that should not count against him. AQxx - KJx is obvious. > 5. Where under these rules of procedure the Director > must choose an option he follows the path least > favourable to the claimer. Agreed. > 6. It is up to claimer to say what he is doing about > trumps. If he does not speak to the point the TD > will not draw any outstanding trump for him until > he is forced to play the suit*. Not agreed. > 7. All* suits are played from the top down unless > claimer says differently. > Agreed. Up to the point where it becomes "obvious" not to do so. > Is this the general idea, pace a couple of > subscribers, and all we need is words? Or? No it is not, unless you want to consider me a worthless minority. You have fallen into the blml-claims trap. Just because we drone on about claims for hundreds of messages does not mean that the claims laws are in need of improvement. It ain't broke, don't fix it! > ~ G ~ +=+ > p.s. I/we can not guarantee the opinions of those > who will decide! Including, come to think about it, > our own :-) ! > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Dec 15 10:52:31 2002 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:52:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <3DFC5B87.8050209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c2a428$119c53a0$c83d81d9@netvisao.pt> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: domingo, 15 de Dezembro de 2002 10:38 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims (...) > 7. All* suits are played from the top down unless=20 > claimer says differently. >=20 Agreed. Up to the point where it becomes "obvious" not to do so. ----------------------------- Rui Marques says: ?? I=B4ve noticed the long thread. FWIW, my basic approach is Ton=B4s = approach (maybe we have the "frontier" in a slightly different place). While reading "the 9452th" to the original phoenix claims post, point 7 striked me: "All suits from the top down?" Not agreed... AKxx Qxx xx J10xx or AKxx xxx Qx J10xx Should be both one trick to defender (at least, depending on if this is trumps, other suits, etc...) From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Dec 15 11:26:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again In-Reply-To: <009101c2a242$9134e7e0$1278bc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: "James Vickers" > I have never understood how anyone can justify ruling on L16 by looking > at the action actually taken ("was it 70-75%?"). The law tells you to > look at the alternatives, i.e. which actions were _not_ taken ("would > they be 25-30%?"). The law (16a2) anyway 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 by such information.." It is silent on what we are supposed to examine (or how to judge whether something is an LA). The reason (good or bad) for this silence is that the WBFLC decided that establishing LAs was within the remit of their members. The EBU uses "If 70%+ of the player's peers would make the chosen call there is no LA". If the 70% threshold is not met the player is deemed to have at least one LA available. Perhaps a single LA that would be chosen by the other 30+%, perhaps three LAs which might be chosen by 10%+ of the others. In multiple LA situations even 2-3% might be enough to make something an LA (providing the sum of all LAs exceeds 30%). Maybe the 70 should be 75, or 80. Maybe the whole process of working out who a players peers are and what they might do is fraught with difficulty but I do not see the specific difficulty you stated as being part of the problem. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Dec 15 11:26:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > If the WBFLC does give consideration to more rigorous claim rules I > > hope they will take into account the importance of claims to on-line > > bridge. In that environment it is almost always the case that > > opponents will see the validity of a claim on seeing the hand - long > > before a detailed claim statement can be typed. > > I hope they take that into account too. In particular, I hope they > realize that this is one arena in which the quality of claim statements > is most lacking, and desperately in need of stricter enforcement! I can't speak for OKB but in the EBUOnline club the practice seems to be. 1. Claim (displays your hand+the number of tricks claimed) 2. Start typing your statement 3. Send the statement if the claim has been declined/not yet accepted On the whole this process works very well (point 3 is seldom reached). Of the few cases that get to point 3 about 25% are somewhat complex and resolved by the statement. 70%+ are obviously flawed claims against which Burn and de Wael would award the same number of tricks. Lacking a director the hand is played out to achieve the same result. Perhaps a compromise would work (on-line and face to face) if the claim process said that one should display ones hand, allow 3-5 seconds for the oppostion to absorb it, and then make a comprehensive statement starting with the key actions. e.g. "Drawing, elimination throw-in." "After two more rounds of trumps I will cash the top diamonds and A,K of hearts, ruff a diamond and play a third heart. Whoever wins will be end-played and...etc". Whether a claim of the above complexity is suitable against your current opponents remains a matter for player judgement. I know that in my club a few players will concede within the 3-5 seconds, a few more on the words elimination throw-in, while a few would still be giving me blank looks at the end of explanation. Against these latter players I would like to be allowed to play several tricks before claiming while retaining the freedom to make a quick 2 second claim against the former. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Dec 15 11:26:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <006a01c2a36e$1f4d87e0$714827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > Provided that people indicate clearly enough what tricks they will win, > with what cards, and in what order, I don't mind if they use the phrases > that are in common use anyway - someone with AQx and a loser facing KJxx > can say "I have four club tricks" without my wanting to take any tricks > away from them. But in more complex positions such as: > > KJ > xxx > > AQxx > A > > "four spade tricks and a heart" would lead to the loss of the last two > tricks; "king jack of spades, ace of hearts, two spade tricks" is > required. Why is the latter adequate? You did not state that you were playing low spades on the KJ. For all I know you might play the queen under the king and then overtake the jack. Either you want claims to be precise or you are prepared to tolerate a degree of ambiguity. I had previously thought that you were arguing for precision. If, as it seems, you are merely saying that we currently tolerate a bit too much ambiguity then it is merely a discussion on where we draw the line. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Dec 15 12:09:41 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:09:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <00b501c2a432$d94e42a0$714827d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > Why is the latter adequate? You did not state that you were playing low > spades on the KJ. For all I know you might play the queen under the king > and then overtake the jack. Either you want claims to be precise or you > are prepared to tolerate a degree of ambiguity. I do want claims to be precise. To that end, when you make a Burn claim and say that you will play card x in a suit, then unless you say otherwise, it is given that you will follow with the lowest card in that suit from the other hand. Similarly, if you say that you will lead an x to a high card in a suit, it is given that you will lead the lowest x. But if you are going to overtake something, or unblock something, you need to say so. One can be concise without being imprecise. David Burn London, England From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Dec 15 12:25:05 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 07:25:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00sovu8mri17t0uoa16cg2kvpnvdobtjoa@4ax.com> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim West-Meads wrote: > >I can't speak for OKB but in the EBUOnline club the practice seems to be. >1. Claim (displays your hand+the number of tricks claimed) >2. Start typing your statement >3. Send the statement if the claim has been declined/not yet accepted > >On the whole this process works very well (point 3 is seldom reached). Of >the few cases that get to point 3 about 25% are somewhat complex and >resolved by the statement. 70%+ are obviously flawed claims against which >Burn and de Wael would award the same number of tricks. Lacking a director >the hand is played out to achieve the same result. > At least in my experience on OKB, the way claims work are as follows. 1) You are given the chance to type a short explanation which is displayed at the same time as the claim. In practice, this is used occasionally - my guesstimate from personal experience is about 1 claim in 5 at most. 2) Make your claim, wait to see whether opponents accept or reject (or ask for clarification, but that's very rare). 3) If the claim is rejected, type a full explanation, send it, claim again 4) If the second claim is rejected, play it out Bad typists will frequently omit 3). In addition, I'm not aware of the makeup of the membership of EBU Online, but OKBridge has a substantial number of members whose English is at best limited, and if I know I"m playing against such a player, I'll omit 3) above, or reduce it to (e.g.) "2H, 3C, 1D, 6 tricks". Other than that, if they can't see the claim first time, play it out. My experience, perhaps not too surprisingly, is the better your opponents, the less likely you are to have to explain a claim. Any further ideas for online laws are (IMHO, of course) going to have to take into account that there are quite a number of online players who are terrible typists. Trying to squeeze a basic system agreement out of them at the start of play is hard enough, suggesting that they should accompany each claim with a full explanation is to ignore reality. It simply won't happen, at least not until everyone has voice capabilities built into their bridge client. In many cases on OKBridge, I suspect that players with poor English are using the 'OKBScript' utility to store up key phrases, probably with the buttons in their own language and the phrases in English. They're VERY fast with the stock phrases, but anything else is either in fragmented English or ignored. 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 15 12:29:05 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:29:05 -0000 Subject: From the ashes (was Re: [blml] phoenix claims) References: Message-ID: <001101c2a435$c1b19d60$2d04e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, grandeval wrote: > > > 1. What 'we' want is a method of resolving contested > > claims that is as nearly mechanical as possible. --------------------------- etc --------------------------- > > A fine summary, I think, of the hundreds of posts on > claims we have had in the past year or two. > > I agree with 1-6, and am OK with #7 in suits in which > no alternative exists: but if you have AKJ opposite xxx > I expect a trick to be lost to a singleton queen offside > AND to a tripleton queen onside unless claimer says > differently. (If only 2 cards are outstanding, of course, > the Q will fall.) > > GRB > +=+ So, er, that's settled then..... ? And yet, personally, I have lingering sentiments. Our traditional Kaplanesque (? Kaplanic :-) thinking is to punish the claimer for any shortcoming in his clarification. Yet I do not believe that to make an incomplete statement of claim is an infraction, nor that it should be considered so. Nor do I think it right that for want of accuracy in a claim the opponents are given the best of all worlds. Consequently, in an ideal state where the computer will explore all matters in a flash, I would want to produce a rough balance of equity between the sides. I would want the resolution of the board to be assessed in a clinically objective manner. I would set the standard of the common man, the moderately competent player, considering it mete to reduce experts who should know better, and compassionate to promote the least talents, to this level. I am hesitant for anxiety that such an aim could produce a nightmare world for Directors - but am not wholly deterred from contemplating the question, being surrounded by Directors who will tell me frankly what is beyond expectation of them, Davids who will tell me to ask nothing of TDs, and conservationists who have problems with uprooting the old oak tree. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 15 12:50:23 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:50:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <3DFC5B87.8050209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c2a438$a1bae860$163387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > Is this the general idea, pace a couple of > > subscribers, and all we need is words? Or? > > > No it is not, unless you want to consider me a worthless > minority. > +=+ I regard your opinion, like Burn's solution, a minority position; not worthless but not mainstream. In any event, it is not here that decisions will be made. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 15 15:07:47 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:07:47 +0100 Subject: From the ashes (was Re: [blml] phoenix claims) References: <001101c2a435$c1b19d60$2d04e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DFC9AC3.9040803@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > equity between the sides. I would want the resolution > of the board to be assessed in a clinically objective > manner. I would set the standard of the common man, > the moderately competent player, considering it mete > to reduce experts who should know better, and > compassionate to promote the least talents, to this > level. And have you thought, Grattan, of how to define this common man? I believe such to be even harder than trying to determine the standard of tha player claiming, something which, even if hard to determine, is clearly defined. > I am hesitant for anxiety that such an aim > could produce a nightmare world for Directors - but am > not wholly deterred from contemplating the question, > being surrounded by Directors who will tell me frankly > what is beyond expectation of them, Davids who will > tell me to ask nothing of TDs, and conservationists > who have problems with uprooting the old oak tree. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sun Dec 15 16:04:12 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:04:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <000901c2a2f2$f8a148a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001901c2a3b9$2051bc60$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002f01c2a454$10629720$25b54351@noos.fr> Grattan, Good question. I don't pretend to have all the solutions. 1. The point I want to make is that claims where the claimer gives evidence he has gone bananas (like he thinks the S10 is still in when not, claiming for an incorrect number of tricks, not realizing a suit is not breaking) should be treated different from claims where the claim leaves something to be desired. For me this is not the same thing. If we end up treating the second case like the first case I can easily live with that. But at the moment we treat the first case like the second case. 2. Whatever the rules (even if we let Burn write them) there will always be borderline cases and cases not anticipated by the laws. As few as possible please but at that moment you need a TD to apply some judgement. Like it or not. If only to decide wheter the claim is right or wrong but I have no hard feelings about possible alternate rulings as long as it doesn't happen to often. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > Phoenix: a mythical bird that goes on for hundreds of > years, then dies and is immediately resurrected to go > on again for hundreds of years. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Kooijman, A." ; > ; > ; > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:59 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > What I have always considered ridiculous in the current > > claim laws and current interpretations is that there is no > > difference between an 'erroneous' claim (= claimer makes > > a logic error) and a 'dubious' claim (= between correct > > and erroneous). In the first case the claimer should be > > penalized and the claim should be resolved with some > > claimer unfriendly algorithms (no judgement here). In the > > second case you need to apply judgement one way or > > another, and that should be done by the TD, who else. > > > +=+ And the TD is to judge which of the two categories > the claim falls into? +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 15 22:21:06 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:21:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <4A256C90.007931D2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] Grattan wrote: >>7. All* suits are played from the top down unless >>claimer says differently. Herman replied: >Agreed. Up to the point where it becomes "obvious" >not to do so. [snip] I support Herman's idea of a limitation on point 7. Ideally, I would go even further than Herman. I would rather state "up to the point where bottom-up is careless or inferior". I would permit "bottom-up" in this sort of situation: Declarer holds the nondescript pips 8 and 6, and assumes that they are both losers. Declarer carelessly leads the 6, and loses an unnecessary trick to the 7, as the 8 is the master card. This is the sort of carelessness that I have frequently perpetrated myself. I have qualms about the Grattan's Seven claim decision procedure which automatically give me a bonus trick if I claim, that I would have a 50% chance of losing in actual play. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 16 03:49:01 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:49:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <4A256C91.00136185.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >Actually in the ACBL, this might be correct! Over >here, a PP does not accrue to the other team's >score, so it might be the case that after the PP's, >both teams have lost a KO match. If that happens, >whatever tie-break procedure the CoC prescribe goes >into effect. [snip] Disagree. Firstly the TD should apply Law 86B (Non- balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play). If, and only if, the score is actually tied *after* the application of Law 86B, should tie-break procedures then be used. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 16 04:09:06 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:09:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fire extinguishers Message-ID: <4A256C91.0015CF18.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: >Might I suggest that blmlers should thoughtfully >avoid instantly responding to any actual or >perceived breaches of netiquette, by the posting of >retalitory breaches of netiquette. [snip] I believe that my above suggestion verged on the hypocritical. In some of my postings critical of the De Wael School, I overstepped the mark by making ad hominem attacks on Herman De Wael. Herman, I sincerely apologise. I will take meticulous care to avoid future ad hominem attacks on Herman (or indeed any blmler). Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 16 07:14:56 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:14:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing Message-ID: <006a01c2a4d3$548ee1e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> It has been asserted on blml that matchpointing across more than two sections is marginally significant in regard to results. Henry Bethe used ACBLScore to come up with the following results for four pairs in two sessions of an NABC+ event. Pair 1 would have scored between 59.3% and 63.3% on a 25 top, depending on which section they compared with. Scored across the field of 17 sections they would have scored 60.3% Pair 2 would have scored between 59% and 62.2% on a 25 top, depending on which section they compared with. Their ATF score would have been 61.1% Pair 3 had a score of 57.9% in their section, 12 top. Pairing with all other sections would have hurt them more often than not. ATF they would have had 56.5%. Pair 4 had a score of 52.6% in their section, 12 top. Pairing with almost all other sections would have helped them. ATF they would have had 54.3%. His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it should be used as often as possible. No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 16 07:28:44 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:28:44 -0000 Subject: From the ashes (was Re: [blml] phoenix claims) References: <001101c2a435$c1b19d60$2d04e150@endicott> <3DFC9AC3.9040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c2a4d4$e57cd260$964de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 3:07 PM Subject: Re: From the ashes (was Re: [blml] phoenix claims) > > And have you thought, Grattan, of how to define > this common man? I believe such to be even harder > than trying to determine the standard of the player > claiming, something which, even if hard to determine, > is clearly defined. > +=+ In these times no-one needs draw my attention to the difficulty in finding words to express concepts in the laws. However, the current laws require the Director to evaluate each player for his class. If we call upon the Director to identify a single class of player and to make referable to that class all judgements of what would or would not be conceivable actions, I think the problem for the Director is not increased and it may be reduced. There are moments when I wonder whether today what we actually do, by circular motion, is to judge what class of player is involved by what we would think for him to be irrational. However, the 'common man' that I have in mind has, amongst players in the tournament, median ranking as to his expertise - there are as many more skilful as there are less skilful playing in the event. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 16 07:49:59 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:49:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing References: <006a01c2a4d3$548ee1e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002301c2a4d7$d3d598f0$964de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:14 AM Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing > It has been asserted on blml that matchpointing > across more than two sections is marginally > significant in regard to results. Henry Bethe used > ACBLScore to come up with the following results > for four pairs in two sessions of an NABC+ event. > > Pair 1 would have scored between 59.3% and > 63.3% on a 25 top, depending on which section > they compared with. Scored across the field of 17 > sections they would have scored 60.3% > > Pair 2 would have scored between 59% and > 62.2% on a 25 top, depending on which section > they compared with. Their ATF score would have > been 61.1% > > Pair 3 had a score of 57.9% in their section, > 12 top. Pairing with all other sections would have > hurt them more often than not. ATF they would have > had 56.5%. > > Pair 4 had a score of 52.6% in their section, > 12 top. Pairing with almost all other sections would > have helped them. ATF they would have had 54.3%. > > His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest > method, and that it should be used as often as possible. > > No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ Amazing that anyone should think it requires proof. But well done, Henry, to demonstrate the merits of score comparison with the scores of all contestants against whom a contestant is competing. What proportion of SOs, worldwide, do not use ATF comparisons? ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 16 08:12:40 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:12:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fire extinguishers References: <4A256C91.0015CF18.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DFD8AF8.8060303@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > In some of my postings critical of the De Wael > School, I overstepped the mark by making ad > hominem attacks on Herman De Wael. Herman, I > sincerely apologise. > I have never thought the attacks were 'ad hominem'. I may however have ascribed some of the points of view as those of a ****, and I apologise in return for any impression that may have given that I called Richard ****. I don't think anyone overstepped any marks, but it is good to remember that others might place the marks at other places. > I will take meticulous care to avoid future ad > hominem attacks on Herman (or indeed any blmler). > As long as the attacks are directed at the ideas, not at the person, or if they are intended as funny (and are), I don't mind being the target for your attacks, Richard. I may believe you are wrong, but you have always tried to argue your case admirably. > Best wishes > I do believe the time has come to begin extending season's wishes to our friends all accross the globe. > 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 Mon Dec 16 08:18:40 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:18:40 +0100 Subject: From the ashes (was Re: [blml] phoenix claims) References: <001101c2a435$c1b19d60$2d04e150@endicott> <3DFC9AC3.9040803@skynet.be> <001301c2a4d4$e57cd260$964de150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DFD8C60.9080305@skynet.be> Hello Grattan, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>And have you thought, Grattan, of how to define >>this common man? I believe such to be even harder >>than trying to determine the standard of the player >>claiming, something which, even if hard to determine, >>is clearly defined. >> >> > +=+ In these times no-one needs draw my attention > to the difficulty in finding words to express concepts > in the laws. However, the current laws require the > Director to evaluate each player for his class. If we > call upon the Director to identify a single class of > player and to make referable to that class all > judgements of what would or would not be conceivable > actions, I think the problem for the Director is not > increased and it may be reduced. That would be true if we could arrive by some means at the definition of an average player, valid all over the world. But you go on: > There are moments when I wonder whether today > what we actually do, by circular motion, is to judge > what class of player is involved by what we would > think for him to be irrational. However, the 'common > man' that I have in mind has, amongst players in the > tournament, median ranking as to his expertise - > there are as many more skilful as there are less > skilful playing in the event. ~ G ~ +=+ > And it turns out that you mean the 'average man' of the tournament. In contrast to the 'average player all over the world', this is something the TD must determine for every tournament separately, and I believe that counters your previous argument that it might be simpler than determining the class of player involved. Moreover, it demands also that the player himself determines what the average player of a tournament is worth, before he can start making claims. A top player needs to take care, not only that his claim is understood by the opponents, not only that the TD recognise his class, but also that his claim is checked against an average player whom he has never met. I really don't think that this is better than the current set of laws. Really, they aint broke! > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Dec 16 08:57:21 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:57:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: From the ashes (was Re: [blml] phoenix claims) Message-ID: <7909853.1040029041979.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > Really, they aint broke! If claim rulings are being got wrong in more or less every major tournament from which rulings are reported (as seems to be the case at the moment), then - well, it is the time of year for a resounding "Oh yes they are!" David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 16 08:49:15 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:49:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <4A256C90.007931D2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001b01c2a4e1$da49ed30$4f27e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > I would permit "bottom-up" in this sort of situation: > > Declarer holds the nondescript pips 8 and 6, and > assumes that they are both losers. Declarer > carelessly leads the 6, and loses an unnecessary > trick to the 7, as the 8 is the master card. > > This is the sort of carelessness that I have > frequently perpetrated myself. I have qualms about > the Grattan's Seven claim decision procedure which > automatically give me a bonus trick if I claim, that > I would have a 50% chance of losing in actual play. > +=+ :-) But isn't the six higher than the eight in Aussie-land? Seriously, you put your finger on the point of my discussion of weighted adjudications. Objectively, is it not fairer to allow that the eight and the six would each be played some of the time - a rough 50% each would be accepted, I think. As I understand it, Bavin, Schoder, Riccardi share an opinion that "oversimplification of the TD's role in adjudicating claims is not the way to go" (I quote one of them), In other words we should not be put off from asking the TD to do what we think is needed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 16 09:19:41 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:19:41 +0100 Subject: From the ashes (was Re: [blml] phoenix claims) References: <7909853.1040029041979.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DFD9AAD.7090608@skynet.be> David, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Really, they aint broke! >> > > If claim rulings are being got wrong in more or less every major tournament from which rulings are reported (as seems to be the case at the moment), then - well, it is the time of year for a resounding "Oh yes they are!" > By that argument, all laws are broken, specifically the ones about MI and UI. As I recall, three of the appeals from Phoenix were discussed on this list. I saw the reports of 5 appeals. Many more must have been made, and I eagerly await the number of claims among them. Salso? I don't recall any claims. And as I seem to recall, there was no discussion in these cases about what the claims law was, only about what it meant when a Chinese player in ACBLland said nothing about a 13th trump. Oh no they're not! > 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 Mon Dec 16 13:04:56 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:04:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fire extinguishers In-Reply-To: <3DFD8AF8.8060303@skynet.be> References: <4A256C91.0015CF18.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021216135151.02686e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:12 16/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> >>In some of my postings critical of the De Wael >>School, I overstepped the mark by making ad >>hominem attacks on Herman De Wael. Herman, I >>sincerely apologise. > > >I have never thought the attacks were 'ad hominem'. >I may however have ascribed some of the points of view as those of a ****, >and I apologise in return for any impression that may have given that I >called Richard ****. I don't think anyone overstepped any marks, but it is >good to remember that others might place the marks at other places. AG : thaks to Richard for reminding us of our elementary duties. [ please note the following paragraph is not an attack ad any hominem ] We see, day after day, perfectly sane people making perfectly insane remarks. This happens even more frequently when a polemic is raging. It won't be very kind to let it remark to the culprit by any other means than rational argumentation. However, if one wants other contributors to argue reasonably, one should take steps to use rational argumentation oneself, rather than dogmatic assertions. Remember the Talmud, which said thet "whatever is asserted without proof may be gainsaid without proof". And, yes, previous paragraph is somewhat ad several homines. To cut it short, blml would be much more useful if one decided : 1) to avoid needless fires, that is, nearly all of them (and this goes also ad ipsem hominem) 2) to avoid authoritative statements Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 16 13:19:56 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:19:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <3DFC5B87.8050209@skynet.be> References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> At 05:37 AM 12/15/02, Herman wrote: >grandeval wrote: > >>2. The quality of player should not enter into it - one >>for all and all for one. > >not agreed. What is "obvious" for David Burn is not obvious to me. I >can live with a law that says that "obvious" things are accepted. What is obvious to David on a good day may not be obvious to Herman on a good day, but what might *not* be obvious to David when he's having a bad day is pretty much the same as what might not be obvious to Herman, or anyone else, when they're off their feed. The problem with taking "class of player" into account is that we all have seen plenty of evidence that even the very best *do* sometimes play like the rest of us. Who's to say that Herman might be having a bad day, but Jeff Meckstroth cannot possibly be? I have much more sympathy with the notion that if an expert is on top of his game, and thus can be presumed to find all those plays that would be "normal" for his usual "class", he should be enough on top of his game to avoid making dubious claims. Perhaps Mr. Meckstroth will almost always find that progressive squeeze, but so too will he almost always remember to use the words "progressive squeeze" when claiming one, and if he fails in the latter it's not at all unreasonable to presume that he might equally well have failed in the former. >>3. What the player states should be the first consideration, >>if legal. > >Not agreed. If legal AND normal. I think Herman has misread this one. I think we all agree that if a claimer clearly states an abnormal line he should be held to it. >>4. What the player fails to state is adjudicated by a set of rules of >>procedure. > >Not agreed. If he fails to state something "obvious" that should not >count against him. AQxx - KJx is obvious. I'm sure Grattan is not saying that such "obvious" things should be stated, but rather that they should be specified by the "rules of procedure". The ACBL has already done this, specifying that running suits bottom up or throwing winners under winners are to be considered "irrational". >>6. It is up to claimer to say what he is doing about >>trumps. If he does not speak to the point the TD >>will not draw any outstanding trump for him until >>he is forced to play the suit*. > >Not agreed. This isn't a key issue. I see no problem with incorporating into the rules of procedure that a player who claims immediately after drawing only enough of the outstanding trumps to confirm that he can now draw the remainder with no losers may be presumed to be intending to do so. With a holding of AKQJx opposite xx, for example, we can distinguish between claiming after both opponents follow to two rounds and claiming after drawing a third round on which one opponent shows out. It is far more likely that the player in the latter case is not aware of the outstanding trump than that the player in the former case is. >>7. All* suits are played from the top down unless claimer says >>differently. Perhaps Grattan's intent would have been clearer if this had been #4a. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Dec 16 14:02:59 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:02:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes Message-ID: > +=+ So, er, that's settled then..... ? > And yet, personally, I have lingering sentiments. > Our traditional Kaplanesque (? Kaplanic :-) thinking is > to punish the claimer for any shortcoming in his > clarification. > > Interesting statement which surprises me, though only with some interpretation of what shortcomings are in the opinion of Kaplan we can understand completely what he (or Grattan)meant (means) with it. Kaplan has written a series of articles trying to educate appeal comittees and those are published in two nice booklets, but already that long ago that hardly anybody knows about it. And it is in one of the articles about claims that he gives the next example: declarer has AKJ107 in trumps and three small in dummy. He plays the ace and at his left the queen drops. He now claims the rest without spending any words. Claim allowed. He plays the ace both opponents following low, crosses to dummy in a side suit and finesses, both opponents following low. Now he claims without saying anything. Claim allowed. He plays the ace, left hand following with the Q and he continues with the K and the J. Now he claims (let me add that LHO had the queen singleton to avoid some clever reactions). Kaplan now says that this claim is a strange one, and it is. Thereis no relation between the moment declarer could have known what is going on and the moment of the claim. The momentof the claim gives the impression that he has forgotten about one outstanding trump. Why continuing drawing trumps (for nothing) without finishing that job? I consider that criterion rather strong: there should be a clear relation between discovering what is going on and the moment of the claim. I am not saying that a later claim is not allowed, of course not. But doubt should be translated in not allowing the claim. had the appeal comittees in Phoenix known about those articles they would have allowed the claim in case 3 and not in case 4. But everybody always wants to start from zero, knowing better than even Kaplan. Good luck. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 16 14:17:14 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:17:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fire extinguishers References: <4A256C91.0015CF18.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021216135151.02686e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DFDE06A.6090209@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > To cut it short, blml would be much more useful if one decided : > 1) to avoid needless fires, that is, nearly all of them (and this goes > also ad ipsem hominem) > 2) to avoid authoritative statements > except by those in authority ! (which is not me) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 16 14:23:25 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:23:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DFDE1DD.1030106@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > >>> 3. What the player states should be the first consideration, >>> if legal. >> >> >> Not agreed. If legal AND normal. > > > I think Herman has misread this one. I think we all agree that if a > claimer clearly states an abnormal line he should be held to it. > I think Eric has misread this one. I don't agree that if a claimer states an abnormal line he should be held to it. For if he states it in his right mind, it is a normal line. So he can only "state" it in some abnormal mind. "you get one trick". "what with?" "your high trump" "there are no trumps left" "then I get all tricks" "no, you said we got one trick, and you're not allowed to change your statement, and there is a legal way for us to get one trick, if you carefully unblock all those diamonds, so we get one trick" Surely not. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 16 14:52:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <00b501c2a432$d94e42a0$714827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > Tim wrote: > > > Why is the latter adequate? You did not state that you were playing > low spades on the KJ. For all I know you might play the queen under the > king > > and then overtake the jack. Either you want claims to be precise or > you > > are prepared to tolerate a degree of ambiguity. > > I do want claims to be precise. To that end, when you make a Burn claim > and say that you will play card x in a suit, then unless you say > otherwise, it is given that you will follow with the lowest card in that > suit from the other hand. Similarly, if you say that you will lead an x > to a high card in a suit, it is given that you will lead the lowest x. OK that makes this Claim precise. But that precision is gained because there are at least two "rules" on claims that provide shortcuts. Are those the only rules - or do we need others? There is probably one about playing from the top, perhaps more (eg claiming "3 heart tricks" with HAQx opposite HKxx is permitted, although if entries are at issue declarer will be assumed to finish in the least favourable hand). Such rules are, of course, arbitrary (presumably based on making life easier for all) but perhaps we should have a nice simple one to deal with trumps "If a claims is made immediately a favourable trump split is revealed claimer will be assumed to finish drawing trumps unless otherwise stated." Of course the more rules one knows the easier it is as a claimer to be both precise and concise. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 16 14:52:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Roger Pewick" ; > > I did not define faulty claim here. But I have said that a sound claim > leaves nothing unsaid or to chance. If you are referring to case 3 it > was faulty because [a] claimer said 'my hand is good' and it was clear > it was not good. Clear how? "My hand is good" does not (at least where I play) mean "My hand is good regardless of the order in which I play my cards". It means "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand". > The proof is this: at the next trick the DA, a card > that was claimed to be a winner, is led and we see whether it wins the > trick. The DA was not claimed to be an immediate winner. It was claimed to be part of a "good" hand by a player the AC deemed to be aware of an outstanding low trump. Given such awareness the play of DA before drawing trumps is certainly irrational (even for a novice). > Well, where you play tricks are won and lost by playing the game of > respect. Respect is not a game. > But in bridge it is what players do that wins and loses > tricks. It does not bother me in the least that players acquiesce out > of whatever belief they have. I do not believe that I ever concede claims when declarer would not have made the contract had it been played out without a claim. However, I *really* don't want people playing 7 extra tricks against me and making me waste my energy because they think I will quibble with every obvious claim. > But the line is drawn where the player > does not wish to acquiesce and his dispute is a valid one. Of course the dispute is valid. We had a Chinese person speaking English to an American. In these circumstances occasional misunderstandings are inevitable. It is reasonable to always reasonable to dispute a claim that has been misunderstood. > I am sorry to have fallen into your trap. I have unwittingly accorded > to you that you could see my reasoning upon only the slimmest of > information. I understood your point. I would like you to understand that I believe the case was more a linguistic issue than a bridge one. The ruling equates to the AC finding that the Chinese player *thought* she was saying "I can draw the last trump and make the rest." but something got lost in translation. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 16 15:09:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:09 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton wrote: > had the appeal comittees in Phoenix known about those articles they > would have allowed the claim in case 3 and not in case 4. Agree in case 3. Not so sure about case 4. The AC ruled that the claim statement had been interrupted. I believe that we have to give declarer the benefit of the doubt in statement interruption cases or the defenders will be able to derail many valid claims. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Dec 16 16:13:50 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:13:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <7116742.1040055230150.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Tim wrote: > Clear how? "My hand is good" does not (at least where I play) mean "My hand is good regardless of the order in which I play my cards". It means "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand." A rapid straw poll among 15 of my immediate circle reveals 100% support for the notion that "My hand is good" means "All the rest of the cards in my hand are high, and I can play them in any order to take the rest of the tricks". I am not surprised at this - after all, "this card is good" means "this card will win the trick if I play it now", and "my hand [i.e. my collection of cards] is good" means "each card in this collection of cards is good". If someone is making a claim on the basis that his hand *will be* good once certain conditions have been fulfilled (like drawing trumps, or cashing enough high cards in a suit to turn the lower ones into winners), then he should say so. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 16 16:56:26 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:56:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <7116742.1040055230150.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021216174142.02695ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:13 16/12/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Tim wrote: > > > Clear how? "My hand is good" does not (at least where I play) mean "My > hand is good regardless of the order in which I play my cards". It means > "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand." > >A rapid straw poll among 15 of my immediate circle reveals 100% support >for the notion that "My hand is good" means "All the rest of the cards in >my hand are high, and I can play them in any order to take the rest of the >tricks". I am not surprised at this - after all, "this card is good" means >"this card will win the trick if I play it now", and "my hand [i.e. my >collection of cards] is good" means "each card in this collection of cards >is good". > >If someone is making a claim on the basis that his hand *will be* good >once certain conditions have been fulfilled (like drawing trumps, or >cashing enough high cards in a suit to turn the lower ones into winners), >then he should say so. AG : in the latter case, I would consider as sufficient a statement of "the plums will drop" ; it means that the player intends to play them from the top. Even when not so, I think you're a little too restrictive. Say that declarer's and dummy's last cards are : A x AK x --- xx AKQJx xxxx and there are no diamonds outstanding, the contract being NT. Do you really demand that declarer specify he will play clubs from the top, else he will be deemed to play the small one ? Il he tables without a word, or says "only good cards" or "my hand is high" or whatever, I give him his contract. The irrationality criterion for playing a small club is met. Perhaps the claim is very slightly flawed (although everyone should recognize that the clubs can't break badly), but I would not want to agree -even as a TD- with the bridge-lawyer that asks for a small club to be played. Okay, perhaps we should have a list of the irrational actions. They should include at least : - playing low from a top-high suit - ruffing from both hands when presented a ruff-and-discard* - refusing an automatical tenace position* - clashing one's honors with dummy's - not taking a marked finesse - ruffing an Ace It is debatable whether they should include : - discarding a card that is now high - ruffing a card that is now high * this means that declarer should be allowed his contract when exiting after having engineered an end-play with (spades as trumps, no outstanding spade) x x -- -- A10x KJx x x Declarer plays a small club from both hands and tables. OK for me. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 16 17:22:26 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:22:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <200212161722.MAA11414@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "grandeval" > 1. What 'we' want is a method of resolving contested > claims that is as nearly mechanical as possible. > 2. The quality of player should not enter into it - one > for all and all for one. > 3. What the player states should be the first consideration, > if legal. > 4. What the player fails to state is adjudicated by a set > of rules of procedure. > 5. Where under these rules of procedure the Director > must choose an option he follows the path least > favourable to the claimer. The above all look fine to me. I think Herman has misunderstood the intent of 4. As I understand it, 4 refers to a line of play, not to a result. If claimer says "playing the K under the ace," that's what he gets. But if he says "losing to your trump," and there isn't such a trump, we use the rules of procedure and the rest of the statement to figure out what happens. I was wondering about clarifying the text, but L68C seems about as explicit as one can get about what a claim statement is. Nothing there about results, only about order of play! > 6. It is up to claimer to say what he is doing about > trumps. If he does not speak to the point the TD > will not draw any outstanding trump for him until > he is forced to play the suit*. > 7. All* suits are played from the top down unless > claimer says differently. These two look like elements of the rules of procedure. They look fine to me, but I wouldn't expect unanimous agreement. I am wondering whether the rules of procedure can initially be made the same worldwide or whether there will necessarily be regional and perhaps other variations. In the long term, worldwide harmony seems a worthy goal, but it's not obvious it can be achieved overnight, given the disparate practices in effect now. It might be worth noting that, if we accept Grattan's 2, there is no reason to _define_ the level of player. The rules of procedure themselves do that. If anyone -- Mr. Meckstroth or Mrs. Guggenheim -- wants to claim under a line of play that the rules of procedure don't cover, the claimer needs to spell out the details. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I would permit "bottom-up" in this sort of situation: > > Declarer holds the nondescript pips 8 and 6, and > assumes that they are both losers. Declarer > carelessly leads the 6, and loses an unnecessary > trick to the 7, as the 8 is the master card. I personally prefer top down even in this case because there is no room for judgment. Despite that, Richard's preferred rule would be all right if there is some way to know when it applies. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Okay, perhaps we should have a list of the irrational actions. They should > include at least : > - playing low from a top-high suit > - ruffing from both hands when presented a ruff-and-discard* > - refusing an automatical tenace position* > - clashing one's honors with dummy's > - not taking a marked finesse > - ruffing an Ace This is yet another way to define the rules of procedure. From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 16 17:47:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again In-Reply-To: <200212161608.LAA10344@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > > The EBU uses "If 70%+ of the player's peers would make the chosen > > call there is no LA". > > Thanks, Tim. That looks like the right way 'round. I should have > looked at the OB before posting. If it's in the OB I haven't found it. It is however what I always been taught. It also seems to make sense in the context of clear-cut actions being permitted. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 16 17:47:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <7116742.1040055230150.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: > Tim wrote: > > > Clear how? "My hand is good" does not (at least where I play) mean > > "My hand is good regardless of the order in which I play my cards". > It means "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in > hand." > > A rapid straw poll among 15 of my immediate circle reveals 100% support > for the notion that "My hand is good" means "All the rest of the cards > in my hand are high, and I can play them in any order to take the rest > of the tricks". Apparently we move in different circles. AKQJxx opposite xxx in dummy is not uncommon IMO. Perhaps it is slightly more commonly used in cases where dummy has the runnable suit as in "SAK, CA throwing H, then dummy is good." "The diamonds are good" is, again IMO, very common in cases where the condition is that they are run from the top. "My hand is high" is, I feel, a slightly better usage for the "I can play my cards in any order" scenario. A claim of "The rest are mine" should, generally, indicate that both dummy and hand will be taking tricks although I am aware that some people use this one when all the tricks are in a single hand. I am genuinely surprised that you found such unanimity in your circle (particularly as a number of TGR players also frequent the Wood). Indeed knowing that 15 (presumed competent) players/TDs (in London?) would object to, and rule against, a claim of "My hand is good" when AKQJxx is indeed opposite xxx has, for the first time in this thread, got me worried. Tim From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Dec 16 17:57:18 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:57:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > "Roger Pewick" ; > > > > > I did not define faulty claim here. But I have said that a sound claim > > leaves nothing unsaid or to chance. If you are referring to case 3 it > > was faulty because [a] claimer said 'my hand is good' and it was clear > > it was not good. > > Clear how? "My hand is good" does not (at least where I play) mean "My > hand is good regardless of the order in which I play my cards". It means > "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand". I have suggested that if that is what was meant then that is what should have been said. I can imagine the AC hearing: Why did you claim your hand was good? It means You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand. Just where did you say that? Well, I guess it was a mistake. Then why are you here? > > The proof is this: at the next trick the DA, a card > > that was claimed to be a winner, is led and we see whether it wins the > > trick. > > The DA was not claimed to be an immediate winner. It most certainly was claimed to be a winner, of any trick including the next one. > > Well, where you play tricks are won and lost by playing the game of > > respect. > > Respect is not a game. It most certainly is a game, at least for some. > > But in bridge it is what players do that wins and loses > > tricks. It does not bother me in the least that players acquiesce out > > of whatever belief they have. > > I do not believe that I ever concede claims when declarer would not have > made the contract had it been played out without a claim. However, I > *really* don't want people playing 7 extra tricks against me and making me > waste my energy because they think I will quibble with every obvious > claim. Interesting. You are entitled to know when an opponent has a true problem and when he doesn't have a true problem. Hmmmmm. But if the sob was delaying the game unnecessarily, then seek out the TD. > Of course the dispute is valid. Then there is nothing to quibble over case 3. > > I am sorry to have fallen into your trap. I have unwittingly accorded > > to you that you could see my reasoning upon only the slimmest of > > information. > I understood your point. A sign of a person very sensitive to the undercurrents. > I would like you to understand that I believe > the case was more a linguistic issue than a bridge one. I am inclined to believe that this is in the bullseye. Which is to say that the ruling being focussed on the rudiments of L70C was not focused on what was claimed. If the ruling had focussed on the clarification, how the clarification was invalid, and then pointed to L70C which makes clear that the defense is entitled to its outstanding trump, all the matters of language would have been handled. But I am puzzled by your claim that 'my hand is good' is a euphemism for "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand". ???? This is only part of the danger of the use of euphesisms, the speaker does not know what they mean; or does not know what they do not mean. Or that they exist at all. So, when a claim is made why should a player say something unless he means it? Just as when tricks are played out who wins a trick is evident on its face, I contend that it is imperative that everything must be taken only on its face. Maybe you do not see that what can be done with the cards does not entitle a player the score that is possible, it is what the four players together do that determines the score. It is the physical action, the public things, of bidding and taking tricks that are of importance and the monstrous things that go on in the mind are things private. A little bit of mental telepathy among friends and even enemies is acceptable and even sometimes de rigueur, but as a standard of conduct for deciding bridge contests it is best avoided, and if there be lapses it is better to be the exception than the norm. if hands are to be resolved by some automatic formula then why show up at all? I do think that the reason for playing a hand in the first place is to see what is done to resolve it, and therefore the nature of the claim must be to resolve the hand every bit as much as if the 13 tricks were played. rgards roger pewick > Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 16 18:37:22 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:37:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing References: <10c.1c3d3d79.2b2f3081@aol.com> Message-ID: <000b01c2a532$44370700$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Kojak writes: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it > > should > > be used as often as possible. > > > > No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement. > > > > > > There IS a light at the end of the tunnel! > A very dim light, illuminating only the high-level games at NABCs. Unbelievably, *all* the regionally-rated two-session NABC pair events at NABCs (e.g., the Mixed Pairs) are matchpointed intra-section, 12 top. Even our lowly Sunday unit single-session game is matchpointed across two sections, to the satisfaction of all. There seems to be a common belief among ACBL TDs that ATF matchpointing means that session awards must be ATF also. They say players don't like that, so no ATF. The solution is easy: Use the ACBLScor option of intra-section session awards along with ATF for overall ranking. This is not as illogical as it may seem, as players within a section have faced the same opponents, making their results a mini-contest deserving of recognition. Besides, when players have the highest score in a section, they like to see a "1" by their names, and they want that mug. Also, the total number of masterpoints awarded is on average slightly higher, and is distributed among more pairs. The main reason for TDs' reluctance to matchpoint ATF is that it creates more work for them. A score adjustment or fouled board affects all sections instead of just one, requiring the reposting of results in every section. At the very least games should be matchpointed across two sections, which should not cause much more work. One high-level TD had what seemed like a reasonable argument, which is that players like to go to dinner knowing where they rank. With ATF it too often happens that they find their scores changed by the time the second session starts. If the preliminary scores were to include a big caveat that they are indeed preliminary, subject to probable minor changes, players would accept that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 16 18:51:50 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:51:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021216134715.026b6ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:02 AM 12/16/02, Kooijman wrote: >Interesting statement which surprises me, though only with some >interpretation of what shortcomings are in the opinion of Kaplan we can >understand completely what he (or Grattan)meant (means) with it. >Kaplan has written a series of articles trying to educate appeal comittees >and those are published in two nice booklets, but already that long >ago that >hardly anybody knows about it. And it is in one of the articles about >claims >that he gives the next example: > >declarer has AKJ107 in trumps and three small in dummy. > >He plays the ace and at his left the queen drops. He now claims the rest >without spending any words. Claim allowed. >He plays the ace both opponents following low, crosses to dummy in a side >suit and finesses, both opponents following low. Now he claims without >saying anything. Claim allowed. >He plays the ace, left hand following with the Q and he continues with >the K >and the J. Now he claims (let me add that LHO had the queen singleton to >avoid some clever reactions). >Kaplan now says that this claim is a strange one, and it is. Thereis no >relation between the moment declarer could have known what is going on and >the moment of the claim. The momentof the claim gives the impression >that he >has forgotten about one outstanding trump. Why continuing drawing trumps >(for nothing) without finishing that job? > >I consider that criterion rather strong: there should be a clear relation >between discovering what is going on and the moment of the claim. I am not >saying that a later claim is not allowed, of course not. But doubt >should be >translated in not allowing the claim. > >had the appeal comittees in Phoenix known about those articles they would >have allowed the claim in case 3 and not in case 4. But everybody always >wants to start from zero, knowing better than even Kaplan. Good luck. Earlier today I wrote, "With a holding of AKQJx opposite xx, for example, we can distinguish between claiming after both opponents follow to two rounds and claiming after drawing a third round on which one opponent shows out. It is far more likely that the player in the latter case is not aware of the outstanding trump than that the player in the former case is." I was not aware of Mr. Kaplan's booklets, but it's nice to know that my thoughts were not entirely orginal, and do have some weight of presumed authority behind them. While I doubt that this is the sort of thing that should be enshrined in TFLB, it would certainly make a most sensible guideline for claims adjudication. 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 Dec 16 18:59:22 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:59:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <3DFDE1DD.1030106@skynet.be> References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021216135347.026b9740@pop.starpower.net> At 09:23 AM 12/16/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>>>3. What the player states should be the first consideration, >>>>if legal. >>> >>>Not agreed. If legal AND normal. >> >>I think Herman has misread this one. I think we all agree that if a >>claimer clearly states an abnormal line he should be held to it. >I think Eric has misread this one. >I don't agree that if a claimer states an abnormal line he should be >held to it. >For if he states it in his right mind, it is a normal line. >So he can only "state" it in some abnormal mind. > >"you get one trick". >"what with?" >"your high trump" >"there are no trumps left" >"then I get all tricks" >"no, you said we got one trick, and you're not allowed to change your >statement, and there is a legal way for us to get one trick, if you >carefully unblock all those diamonds, so we get one trick" > >Surely not. Surely not indeed, but this is merely quibbling about semantics; "You get one trick" is not a "line". Contrast this with: "I will cash my winners; you can take your high trump whenever you like." "My trump isn't high." "Then I will draw it and take the rest." One imagines a scenario in which it would be abnormal to fail to draw the opponent's non-high trump, but perfectly normal to fail to knock out a high trump. I don't think we would give this claimer all of the tricks, but would rather hold him to his originally stated line. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From shrike@surfbest.net Mon Dec 16 19:26:41 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:26:41 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <20021216175116.30168.19035.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > 4. What the player fails to state is adjudicated by a set > of rules of procedure. This is not a trivial problem. Consider this suit, say clubs: AKQ543 in an entryless dummy opposite 8762 in hand. Say declarer claims six tricks from this suit. Case 1: No further clarification. I would be inclined to rule that the clubs will block, with whatever ensuing consequence the hand produces. But if Meckstroth makes the claim, I seriously consider accepting it. If Mrs. Guggenheim does it, it's clear to reject. (If someone claims this way against me I object only if in my judgment there is a reasonable likelihood the claimer would have blocked the suit.) Case 2: Burnian clarification; declarer explicitly states that he will play dummy's clubs from the top, playing the 8, 7, and 6 from hand on those tricks. Claim accepted, obviously, though even here let's note that by claiming declarer may have gotten more tricks than he would have if the hand were played out. (i.e., if Mrs. Guggenheim makes such a claim and understands the problem right now, do you really know that she won't mess up the play a couple of tricks from now? [8 to the A; K, forgetfully playing 2 from hand; pause; "Oh, dear!"] Still, that's an inevitable problem with allowing claims.) If someone claims this way against me, I wonder what the heck his problem is. Case 3: Imperfect clarification; declarer says, "I'll take six club tricks; I won't block them." It doesn't satisfy the Burn criterion as I understand it (expressing an intent to unblock does not equal actually unblocking on each of three rounds), so I think some of you would disallow the claim. But I would tend to allow it (under 70a as it stands, this seems appropriate because equitable and in my opinion not doubtful); frankly, I _would_ allow it from anybody competent and cogent enough to state it this way. (A point of bias, perhaps: this is how I would state my claim with the above suit, and how I expect claims to be stated against me.) If Meckstroth makes this claim, I allow it. If Mrs. Guggenheim does so, I probably allow it but now I feel like I'm opening the door for bad players to accomplish in claims plays they can't reliably execute in the play. Luckily, these players don't claim. My point is not that one needs a rule of interpretation here. My point is that it will not be possible to craft a set of such rules that covers all relevant situations. Like it or not, the TD is going to have to do some interpretation of claimer's intent. Like it or not, that interpretation will as a practical matter be colored by any knowledge he has of the player involved, as well as by the situation -- what's been played, in what order, maybe tempo, maybe various extrinsic matters. If you did establish purely mechanical rules, many "good" (to me meaning "representing what would have happened had the cards actually been played out") claims will be rejected because the wordsmithing is inadequate, and eventually most players will learn never to claim. That may make some of you happy, but not me. I am with those who say it ain't broke. But I will admit that my impression is that a lot of players really don't like claims right now. Honestly, I think average players like any claim that they can understand in two seconds; this excludes claims for fewer than the balance of tricks, and claims when an opposing trump is outstanding, but includes most others. It is absurd to say that they don't speed up the game; _disputed_ claims slow the game down, but most claims are not disputed. One or two appeals per NABC; my experience is that a tournament session with 100 tables in play averages about one director call resulting from a claim dispute, but half of these are just a result of opponents' not understanding a clearly stated but complex line, and are easily resolved. (We don't know, however, how many times players agree without a director to "just play it out.") The other half usually arise from failure to mention a trump, so I admit this is indeed a problem; maybe less so outside of ACBL-land but I have never personally had one like Phoenix 3 where the question was whether claimer was about to draw the last one. Remember, the laws apply not just at high-profile events but in small tournaments and clubs. Most players don't care whether claim adjudication is different in Phoenix, Antwerp, Swaziland, and Mars, they just want to feel comfortable with what's going on. If you want to make the majority of players happy, change the law to permit only claims for the balance. (Probably eliminate claims by defenders, too; most players loathe them.) But purporting to permit all claiming, while requiring a degree of specificity that most players simply cannot achieve consistently, is not a recipe for general happiness. Doug Arlington, TX From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 16 20:24:39 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:24:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing Message-ID: <200212162024.PAA11647@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin L. French" > It has been asserted on blml that matchpointing across more than two sections > is marginally significant in regard to results. Henry Bethe used ACBLScore to > come up with the following results for four pairs in two sessions of an NABC+ > event. How were these four pair selected? If randomly, then I suspect something went wrong with how the sections were made up. They seem to have been of noticeably different strengths. Were early arrivers all put into the same sections and late arrivers into different sections, for example? This could create a significant bias. If Henry selected four pairs showing large discrepancies, then I'm not too surprised at the result. You can always find statistical outliers, but that doesn't refute the general proposition. > His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it should > be used as often as possible. I'll agree with that, _provided_ that doing so doesn't create other problems that are even worse. Increasing section size and decreasing the fraction of boards each pair plays is likely to be worse. From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Mon Dec 16 21:37:51 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:37:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes References: Message-ID: <002001c2a54b$64f986c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, I might agree with you in principle (timing of the claim) but you use the wrong examples. Claim 3 was after a rather silly misplay and this misplay (failure to dra= w trumps at trick 4) alone is for me enough doubt that this declarer at th= is moment is not completely connected to the hand. I have to admit that the = AC did not mention this argument but they might well have considered it. In claim 4 the AC in the end ruled 'claim interference'. I have no idea i= f this made sense given the facts but I am sure they had better access to t= he facts than you or I do. Why use flawed examples if we can use clean ones. Just assume a guy playi= ng 7S. He takes the lead and tables his hand with 14 toptricks (including SAKQJ10x opp xxx). Do we allow this claim or not. In other words, do you have to say somethi= ng about outstanding trumps or not. Personally I would not mind to allow obvious claims like the above to be good. But it is a minefield because somebody will have to decide from tim= e to time what is obvious. Besides I have seen good players go down in such contracts because they thought they were playing 7NT. To keep things simp= le we should pick (in cases where there are unmentioned outstanding trumps): OR claimer is always supposed to draw (plenty) trumps OR claimer is never supposed to draw (plenty) trumps This is much more practical than to start guessing what the guy is thinki= ng. At the top level =91always=92 is probably preferred but the current reali= ty tends to =91never=92. Besides it is such a small effort to state =91drawi= ng trumps =92 or to point at the trump suit or whatever. A small price to pay for clarity. I have also read all this stuff from Edgar (not recently). The guy is brilliant but his thinking is IMHO too complicated to arrive at workable laws for a game for the masses. Jaap van der Neut =2E ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:02 PM Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes > > > +=3D+ So, er, that's settled then..... ? > > And yet, personally, I have lingering sentiments. > > Our traditional Kaplanesque (? Kaplanic :-) thinking is > > to punish the claimer for any shortcoming in his > > clarification. > > > > > > > > Interesting statement which surprises me, though only with some > interpretation of what shortcomings are in the opinion of Kaplan we can > understand completely what he (or Grattan)meant (means) with it. > Kaplan has written a series of articles trying to educate appeal comitt= ees > and those are published in two nice booklets, but already that long ago that > hardly anybody knows about it. And it is in one of the articles about claims > that he gives the next example: > > declarer has AKJ107 in trumps and three small in dummy. > > He plays the ace and at his left the queen drops. He now claims the res= t > without spending any words. Claim allowed. > He plays the ace both opponents following low, crosses to dummy in a si= de > suit and finesses, both opponents following low. Now he claims without > saying anything. Claim allowed. > He plays the ace, left hand following with the Q and he continues with = the K > and the J. Now he claims (let me add that LHO had the queen singleton t= o > avoid some clever reactions). > Kaplan now says that this claim is a strange one, and it is. Thereis no > relation between the moment declarer could have known what is going on = and > the moment of the claim. The momentof the claim gives the impression th= at he > has forgotten about one outstanding trump. Why continuing drawing trump= s > (for nothing) without finishing that job? > > I consider that criterion rather strong: there should be a clear relati= on > between discovering what is going on and the moment of the claim. I am = not > saying that a later claim is not allowed, of course not. But doubt shou= ld be > translated in not allowing the claim. > > had the appeal comittees in Phoenix known about those articles they wou= ld > have allowed the claim in case 3 and not in case 4. But everybody alway= s > wants to start from zero, knowing better than even Kaplan. Good luck. > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 16 21:55:56 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:55:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing Message-ID: <4A256C91.0076E31C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >+=+ Amazing that anyone should think it requires proof. >But well done, Henry, to demonstrate the merits of score >comparison with the scores of all contestants against >whom a contestant is competing. What proportion of >SOs, worldwide, do not use ATF comparisons? > ~ G ~ +=+ >From my experience in Canberra-region and National events, all except one of the Australian matchpoint pairs events I have competed in use ATF comparisons. The one exception is the very largest matchpoint pairs event in Australia, the Gold Coast Pairs. The two-session qualifying rounds were traditionally scored by section. In more recent times, there has been some movement towards ATF, as now there is scoring by twin-section. (The movement involves twin E-W fields interchanging between twin N-S fields for the first and second qualifying sessions.) However, the event has proved increasingly popular. Eventually ATF comparisons will have to replace twin- sectional comparisons, as eventually fewer pairs will qualify for the final than the number of sections. Best wishes Richard From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Mon Dec 16 22:14:41 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:14:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] 4NT on a cross-ruff References: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00bd01c28ea1$8cc08020$3e9868d5@default> <006501c28ed4$71473c20$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ec01c2a550$96ca4400$eb9490d4@rabbit> From: "Marvin L. French" wrote: > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > An amusing incident from today's Swiss Teams > > in Wales: > > North > > JT85 > > KT85 > > 8653 > > 7 > > West East > > K76 AQ92 > > A2 97 > > AKJ7 9 > > AQ54 KT8632 > > West opens 2NT and after a Baron sequence, > > East ends the auction with 4NT > > East: "We agreed that 4NT asks for aces, > > I would bid 6C unless we are missing 2 Aces". > > West wins LHO's S:J lead with S:K. > > cashes C:A all following, and faces his hand > > West: "After drawing trumps the rest are mine". > > East: "There aren't any trumps, the contract > > is 4NT." > > North: "4N is down if you cash HA before > > attempting to ruff a spade. > > No one would do that. I think that in 6C some declarers would play as follows: Draw trumps, DAK, discarding a H from dummy, HA, ruff H. This is a 100% line - in 6C. Thomas From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 16 22:15:50 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:15:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <200212162215.RAA11729@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> I wrote: > >...in the ACBL...a PP does not accrue to the other team's > >score, so it might be the case that after the PP's, > >both teams have lost a KO match. If that happens, > >whatever tie-break procedure the CoC prescribe goes > >into effect. From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Disagree. Firstly the TD should apply Law 86B (Non- > balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play). If, and only > if, the score is actually tied *after* the > application of Law 86B, should tie-break procedures > then be used. What are you disagreeing with? Do I have the regulation wrong, or are you saying a different regulation would be better in some way? The ACBL's regulation is legal as far as I can see. L86B is explicitly limited to adjusted scores under L12. It would be reasonable to treat L90/91 penalties the same way, but I don't see anything that requires an SO to do so. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 16 22:38:51 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:38:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <200212162238.RAA11746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Doug Couchman > This is not a trivial problem. Indeed. Else we wouldn't have had x-thousand BLML posts! Doug makes many good points that should not be ignored. I do take issue with one aspect of his message. > Consider this suit, say clubs: AKQ543 in an entryless dummy opposite 8762 in > hand. Say declarer claims six tricks from this suit. This is a good example. > Case 1: No further clarification. I would be inclined to rule that the > clubs will block, with whatever ensuing consequence the hand produces. But > if Meckstroth makes the claim, I seriously consider accepting it. Some of us think having different rules for different players in undesirable. If Mr. Meckstroth has to add a few words of clarification, is that so bad? He doesn't even have to do that if he is _certain_ his opponents will acquiesce, but he will have to learn that if they call the TD, ruling against him will be automatic. > Case 2: Burnian clarification; declarer explicitly states that he will play > dummy's clubs from the top, playing the 8, 7, and 6 from hand No problem here. > if Mrs. Guggenheim makes such a claim and > understands the problem right now, do you really know that she won't mess up > the play a couple of tricks from now? So she gets a reward for claiming. Maybe she will claim more often. (She never claims at all right now.) I think this is a _good_ thing. > Case 3: Imperfect clarification; declarer says, "I'll take six club tricks; > I won't block them." Yes, here indeed there has to be judgment. Notice, though, the judgment question is how to translate a given statement into a specific line of play. If there is no statement at all, the mechanical rules take over. > My point is > that it will not be possible to craft a set of such rules that covers all > relevant situations. Like it or not, the TD is going to have to do some > interpretation of claimer's intent. I'm not so sure about the first sentence, and the second is certainly wrong. In our proposed world, intent has nothing to do with the matter. The question is what line of play the statement implies. The difference is that it is the statement alone, not declarer's presumed skill or state of mind, that has to be judged. The bridge judgment involved is considerably less difficult than typical UI or MI cases. > Like it or not, that interpretation > will as a practical matter be colored by any knowledge he has of the player > involved, I, for one, certainly hope not! Also, the TD is expected to consult on all judgment rulings. The players consulted have no way to know who the claimer is. Also, we hope that there will be clear guidelines and examples, although indeed there will always be new cases. > If you did establish purely > mechanical rules, many "good" (to me meaning "representing what would have > happened had the cards actually been played out") claims will be rejected > because the wordsmithing is inadequate, Well, I certainly hope it won't be "many." It won't be zero, but people will just have to learn to say a few words of clarification. From jvickers@fish.co.uk Mon Dec 16 23:29:14 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:29:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: Message-ID: <007001c2a55b$07ffb240$1a7abc3e@oemcomputer> [Tim West-Meads:] The EBU uses "If 70%+ of the player's peers would make the chosen call there is no LA". If the 70% threshold is not met the player is deemed to have at least one LA available. Perhaps a single LA that would be chosen by the other 30+%, perhaps three LAs which might be chosen by 10%+ of the others. In multiple LA situations even 2-3% might be enough to make something an LA (providing the sum of all LAs exceeds 30%). [Anon:] > > Thanks, Tim. That looks like the right way 'round. I should have > > looked at the OB before posting. [Tim:] > If it's in the OB I haven't found it. It is however what I always been > taught. It also seems to make sense in the context of clear-cut actions > being permitted. [James Vickers:] Where did you find this quote, then? It's not in the (now obsolete, although no-one admits it) EBU TD Guide, nor is it in the Orange Book or the White Book. I'm an EBU-trained director, and I've never been taught this way. It sounds good, though. James From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Dec 16 23:32:09 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:32:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <200212162238.RAA11746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <010a01c2a55b$5a66f8e0$1f3823d9@pbncomputer> Steve wrote: > Some of us think having different rules for different players in > undesirable. Quite so. A basic premise that underlies the objection to the Burn claim rules is that what is in effect the same claim may be judged a different claim if made by player X rather than player Y. I can say only that this idea is entirely abhorrent to me. I do not like the idea that different players should be treated differently under the law - indeed, I consider it fundamentally unsound, as well as creating vast administrative difficulties. > > Case 2: Burnian clarification; declarer explicitly states that he will play > > dummy's clubs from the top, playing the 8, 7, and 6 from hand > No problem here. That is the strange thing about Burn claims. They never create any problem when it comes to deciding whether or not they are valid. Yet here are a lot of people who say that the corresponding disadvantages outweigh what seems to me a major positive factor; these corresponding disadvantages never having been precisely specified apart from vague rumblings to the effect that players would have to make rather more in the way of unaccustomed effort than they are used to making nowdays. Well, why in the name of all that is holy should they not? Here we (correctly) rubbish Larry Cohen for saying that players shouldn't have to make an effort to learn defences to strange systems, and yet we do not seem prepared to accept the notion that players should have to make an effort not only to verify before claiming that their claim will work, but to formulate a clear and unambiguous statement before tabling their cards. It is all very odd indeed. Part of this has arisen because of an over-zealous interpretation of the law that makes it an impropriety to "unnecessarily prolong the play". That had got nothing to do with claiming; it was aimed at the Shenkins of the world, though it seems to have missed. But it is trotted out every so often in this guise: "it is an infraction not to claim when you can". Codswallop. When Hallberg claimed when he could, the sky fell on him, and they are (ridiculously) changing the rules as a result, even though his claim was a perfectly proper Burn claim (or would have been if the opponents had let him get on with making it) as well as a perfectly proper claim. Ladies and gentlemen, we are all very fine bridge players. We know how to exit with something when we have got a couple of trumps and a tenace. We know that if our opponents claim in that kind of position, we will concede. But there are a lot of people who do not know this; there are a lot of people who instead of exiting will spend several minutes guessing which way to finesse. The rules apply to those people also. When it comes to claims, we should forget what very fine bridge players we are. We should forget how we would like the game to be played. Fine players as we all are, if an opponent against us does not claim when he has the rest in both hands, we can always concede. But we should not put any pressure to claim on someone who does not want to, and - expressly - we should not invoke Law 74 for the purpose of making that opponent feel in the wrong. > So she gets a reward for claiming. No, she doesn't. She gets what is her due for knowing how to play the hand and for explaining the situation to her opponents. > > Case 3: Imperfect clarification; declarer says, "I'll take six club tricks; > > I won't block them." > Yes, here indeed there has to be judgment. Not really. It is clear from the statement that the player knows what he will do; it is clear that it will work. Contrary to others' representation of my position, I do not insist that all claim statements are of the form "two of spades to the king, jack of spades following with the three, four of hearts to the ace...". I insist only that enough be said about the cards to be played and the order in which they are to be played for there to be no possible doubt about the tricks claimed and the order of cards played in order to make those tricks. Words like "cash", "block", and so forth are sufficiently well established in the universal language of bridge for them to be admitted as part of a valid Burn claim, subject to certain caveats. But concepts such as "finesse" are not so well established; if a man were to say "I have five spade tricks" with AQ10xx facing KJ9x (and no entry to the long spade), he could have them; but "I have five spade tricks" with AQ10xx facing K9xx is not good enough. Let him play a spade to the ace first - then, if an opponent seems to be dwelling on his discard, let him shorten the agony by tabling his cards and speaking. > Notice, though, the judgment question is how to translate a given > statement into a specific line of play. If there is no statement at > all, the mechanical rules take over. Quite so. [RH] > > My point is > > that it will not be possible to craft a set of such rules that covers all > > relevant situations. Like it or not, the TD is going to have to do some > > interpretation of claimer's intent. For "not be possible" read "be almost laughably simple", and I would agree with you. [RH] > > Like it or not, that interpretation > > will as a practical matter be colored by any knowledge he has of the player > > involved, > I, for one, certainly hope not! And so say all of us. Well, some of us, anyway. > Well, I certainly hope it won't be "many." It won't be zero, but people > will just have to learn to say a few words of clarification. Amen. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 17 00:16:49 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:16:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes Message-ID: <4A256C92.0001CA38.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Jaap van der Neut wrote: [snip] >Why use flawed examples if we can use clean >ones. Just assume a guy playing 7S. He takes >the lead and tables his hand with 14 toptricks >(including SAKQJ10x opp xxx). > >Do we allow this claim or not. In other words, >do you have to say something about outstanding >trumps or not. > >Personally I would not mind to allow obvious >claims like the above to be good. But it is a >minefield because somebody will have to decide >from time to time what is obvious. Besides I >have seen good players go down in such >contracts because they thought they were >playing 7NT. a) As TD, I would allow the claim, because I would rule that forgetting the contract was 7S, and instead thinking that the contract was 7NT, would be irrational. b) As a player, I am well aware that good players often play irrationally. A traumatic experience I had when I was a beginner was when I reached a 6NT contract with 13 top tricks, and I irrationally refused to claim (because I wanted the fun of playing one of my first slams). I then even more irrationally revoked. One down. Since that debacle, I have claimed as often and as quickly as possible. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 17 00:58:26 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:58:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Correct weight Message-ID: <4A256C92.000404C9.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "phoenix claims", Grattan wrote: >+=+ :-) But isn't the six higher than the eight in >Aussie-land? > >Seriously, you put your finger on the point of my >discussion of weighted adjudications. Objectively, is >it not fairer to allow that the eight and the six would >each be played some of the time - a rough 50% >each would be accepted, I think. > >As I understand it, Bavin, Schoder, Riccardi share >an opinion that "oversimplification of the TD's role in >adjudicating claims is not the way to go" (I quote one >of them), In other words we should not be put off >from asking the TD to do what we think is needed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I see nothing wrong in principle with the 2004 claim Laws allowing a weighted-average determination of a doubtful claim. Likewise, I see nothing wrong in principle with the CoC of SOs providing for multiple-teams events to have correct weight carry-forwards from qualifying sessions to finals. However, the WBF has already provided non-compulsory guidance on the calculation of correct weight of carry- forwards in multiple-teams events. To simplify a TD's task in determining what factors should be taken into account in ruling on a weighted- average claim, it would be helpful if the WBF also provided non-compulsory guidance on claim calculations. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 17 01:27:18 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:27:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <4A256C92.000673B5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >>>...in the ACBL...a PP does not accrue to the other team's >>>score, so it might be the case that after the PP's, >>>both teams have lost a KO match. If that happens, >>>whatever tie-break procedure the CoC prescribe goes >>>into effect. Richard Hills replied: >>Disagree. Firstly the TD should apply Law 86B (Non- >>balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play). If, and only >>if, the score is actually tied *after* the >>application of Law 86B, should tie-break procedures >>then be used. Steve Willner continued: >What are you disagreeing with? Do I have the regulation >wrong, or are you saying a different regulation would be >better in some way? I disagree with a regulation that states: "In a knockout match, if Team A's total is minus 50 imps, and the opposing Team B's total is minus 1 imp, then the two teams have both lost, therefore they have tied and must therefore have a playoff as a tie-break." To me, a regulation which states that Team B has won the knockout match (due to having a *smaller* minus total) is the most logical. >The ACBL's regulation is legal as far as I can see. L86B >is explicitly limited to adjusted scores under L12. Legal, yes. Sensible, no. >It would be reasonable to treat L90/91 penalties the >same way, but I don't see anything that requires an SO to >do so. Agreed. Perhaps L86B could have expanded application in the 2004 Laws. Noted? Best wishes Richard From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 17 01:54:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again In-Reply-To: <007001c2a55b$07ffb240$1a7abc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meads:] > > The EBU uses "If 70%+ of the player's peers would make the chosen call > there is no LA". If the 70% threshold is not met the player is deemed > to have at least one LA available. Perhaps a single LA that would be > chosen by the other 30+%, perhaps three LAs which might be chosen by > 10%+ of the others. In multiple LA situations even 2-3% might be enough > to make something an LA (providing the sum of all LAs exceeds 30%). > > [Anon:] > > > > Thanks, Tim. That looks like the right way 'round. I should have > > > looked at the OB before posting. > > [Tim:] > > > If it's in the OB I haven't found it. It is however what I always been > > taught. It also seems to make sense in the context of clear-cut > > actions being permitted. > > [James Vickers:] > > Where did you find this quote, then? It's not in the (now obsolete, > although no-one admits it) EBU TD Guide, nor is it in the Orange Book or > the White Book. I'm an EBU-trained director, and I've never been taught > this way. Sorry, me using quotes for attempted clarity rather than direct attribution. I played my early competitive bridge in Oxford so Stephen Brown and Max Bavin are potential candidates of origin. It might even be something I said myself when checking back for understanding. > It sounds good, though. I agree:) Maybe that's why I thought it was standard. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 17 01:54:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Roger Pewick" ; > > > > > > > > I did not define faulty claim here. But I have said that a sound > > > claim leaves nothing unsaid or to chance. If you are referring to case 3 > it > > > was faulty because [a] claimer said 'my hand is good' and it was > clear > > > it was not good. > > > > Clear how? "My hand is good" does not (at least where I play) mean > "My > > hand is good regardless of the order in which I play my cards". It > means > > "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand". > > I have suggested that if that is what was meant then that is what should > have been said. > > > I can imagine the AC hearing: With minor adjustments AC: Why did you claim your hand was good? Claimant: Because opponents cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand. AC: Just where did you say that? Claimant: I said my hand was good - what is the problem. AC: Yown just a pig-ignorant Chink who don't speak English Claimant: Mr American always right, very very sorry. In truth I have no idea whether the claimant was an English-speaking cheat conversant with US claims culture or a player somewhat unfamiliar with both English and US claiming practices. The AC voted for lying cheat - they were there, they may well be correct. Their verdict means absolutely nothing when the next case comes around. > > > The proof is this: at the next trick the DA, a card > > > that was claimed to be a winner, is led and we see whether it wins > the > > > trick. > > > > The DA was not claimed to be an immediate winner. > > It most certainly was claimed to be a winner, of any trick including the > next one. Will you please stop talking bollocks. The hand was claimed as "good" not "high". There is a difference. Even if you say there is no difference to you can you at least acknowledge that there is a difference to people from different cultures and language backgrounds > > > Well, where you play tricks are won and lost by playing the game of > > > respect. > > > > Respect is not a game. > > It most certainly is a game, at least for some. Then count yourself a loser. > > > But in bridge it is what players do that wins and loses > > > tricks. It does not bother me in the least that players acquiesce > out > > > of whatever belief they have. > > > > I do not believe that I ever concede claims when declarer would not > have > > made the contract had it been played out without a claim. However, I > > *really* don't want people playing 7 extra tricks against me and > > making me waste my energy because they think I will quibble with every > > obvious claim. > > Interesting. You are entitled to know when an opponent has a true > problem and when he doesn't have a true problem. Hmmmmm. But if the > sob was delaying the game unnecessarily, then seek out the TD. Who said anything about the TD. If I quibble with a player's claim on a technicality that player will never claim against me again. I will thus have to waste energy right to the end of every hand I play against that player. > > Of course the dispute is valid. > > Then there is nothing to quibble over case 3. There was a misunderstanding. Dispute is, I would have thought obviously, valid. The AC may have made a good ruling or a bad one but nobody outside the AC (or those familiar with the appellant) can possibly be sure. > > > I am sorry to have fallen into your trap. I have unwittingly > accorded > > > to you that you could see my reasoning upon only the slimmest of > > > information. > > > I understood your point. > > A sign of a person very sensitive to the undercurrents. > > > I would like you to understand that I believe > > the case was more a linguistic issue than a bridge one. > > I am inclined to believe that this is in the bullseye. Which is to say > that the ruling being focussed on the rudiments of L70C was not focused > on what was claimed. If the ruling had focussed on the clarification, > how the clarification was invalid, and then pointed to L70C which makes > clear that the defense is entitled to its outstanding trump, all the > matters of language would have been handled. Without examination of the linguistic/cultural issues one doesn't know whether the claim was valid or not. > But I am puzzled by your claim that 'my hand is good' is a euphemism for > "You cannot stop me from taking the rest of the tricks in hand". ???? It is not a euphemism. It is a meaning. You and I speak a different languages. Sometimes translation is easy, sometimes it is fraught with problems. I have no idea what official language has been adopted for US tournaments. Quite possibly it is American. Equally possibly no specific provision has been made and the official language is that of international bridge law (English). > So, when a claim is made why should a player say something unless he > means it? Just as when tricks are played out who wins a trick is > evident on its face, I contend that it is imperative that everything > must be taken only on its face. Right. And the Chinese for "I can make the rest in hand" is? I admit I have no idea. But given that David Burn and I (separated by only a few miles) can say assign different meanings to the same statement one has to acknowledge that linguistic issues cause problems. I have no difficulty imagining a non English speaker starting a claim with "I *crash* the Ace/king of spades..." even a native English speaker might stumble over the intended *cash*. Sometimes it is necessary to extract the meaning from imperfect language. The meaning is what matters, not the words. > Maybe you do not see that what can be done with > the cards does not entitle a player the score that is possible, it is > what the four players together do that determines the score. It is the > physical action, the public things, of bidding and taking tricks that > are of importance and the monstrous things that go on in the mind are > things private. A little bit of mental telepathy among friends and even > enemies is acceptable and even sometimes de rigueur, but as a standard > of conduct for deciding bridge contests it is best avoided, and if there > be lapses it is better to be the exception than the norm. if hands are > to be resolved by some automatic formula then why show up at all? I do > think that the reason for playing a hand in the first place is to see > what is done to resolve it, and therefore the nature of the claim must > be to resolve the hand every bit as much as if the 13 tricks were > played. And the reason for claims is to avoid the pointless playing out of tricks. If verbal communication were perfect men would understand women, claims would be resolved without problems and BLML would be deserted. Please note a distinct lack of breath-holding in this vicinity. Tim From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 17 04:39:19 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:39:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <3DFDE1DD.1030106@skynet.be> References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021216230423.014d0810@mail.comcast.net> At 09:23 AM 12/16/2002, Herman De Wael wrote: >I don't agree that if a claimer states an abnormal line he should be held >to it. >For if he states it in his right mind, it is a normal line. >So he can only "state" it in some abnormal mind. > >"you get one trick". >"what with?" >"your high trump" >"there are no trumps left" >"then I get all tricks" >"no, you said we got one trick, and you're not allowed to change your >statement, and there is a legal way for us to get one trick, if you >carefully unblock all those diamonds, so we get one trick" I would say that if a player states an abnormal line, he is held to it until it would become evident to him that the line was abnormal. Spades are trumps: - - A AK8 Q - - - 6 875 QJ T - A 2 54 South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has a count on the hand and knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding trump. If he is held to this line, he would be required to discard the DA on the heart, giving E-W four tricks. However, it will be clear to declarer once West has ruffed the heart that the claim has broken down, and that it is now irrational to discard the good DA. I would award two tricks to E-W: declarer pitches DA on the HA as West pitches a club, West ruffs the second club, and then West cashes a diamond at the last trick. Switch the East and West hands, and now E-W do get four tricks; declarer is now trying to follow the line as stated, pitching the DA before East ruffs. If declarer claims without a statement, it would not be normal to intend to throw the DA on the HA, because declarer can be assumed not to know that the C8 will stand up. He will cash his four apparent winners in the least favorable order possible, but whether East or West has the ruff, there will be nothing to cash as the cards lie, so E-W get only one trick. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 17 05:17:24 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:17:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20021216230423.014d0810@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <014101c2a58b$959062a0$1f3823d9@pbncomputer> David G wrote: > Spades are trumps: > > - > - > A > AK8 > Q - > - - > 6 875 > QJ T > - > A > 2 > 54 > > South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has a count on the hand > and knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding > trump. If he is held to this line, he would be required to discard the DA > on the heart, giving E-W four tricks. However, it will be clear to > declarer once West has ruffed the heart that the claim has broken down, and > that it is now irrational to discard the good DA. I would award two tricks > to E-W: declarer pitches DA on the HA as West pitches a club, West ruffs > the second club, and then West cashes a diamond at the last trick. But that would be just as bonkers as throwing the ace of diamonds on the ace of hearts. You seem to me to start from a premise that declarer has "a count on the hand" despite having forgotten that someone has a trump. If declarer has forgotten that someone has a trump, he does not have "a count on the hand", and even if no one had a trump, declarer has claimed that he has "the ace of hearts and the AK8 of clubs"; in other words, he intends to throw the ace of diamonds on the ace of hearts anyway. Suppose the East-West hands were interchanged - would you now award four tricks to the defence? I think that this may simply be a poorly crafted example to make a point - but that does not matter. Declarer has lost his marbles, and should in no circumstance be allowed to regain them. If he has made a ridiculous claim, then he has made a ridiculous claim, and the number of tricks he makes should not be a function of whether second hand or fourth hand has the trump declarer has forgotten. There is some "principle" to the effect that declarer will notice, when someone ruffs one of the winners he is leading from dummy, that RHO has ruffed - it will now be "irrational" not to over-ruff. This "principle" is espoused only by directors, who enjoy the challenge of taking over from declarer at that point and playing the rest of his cards for him along "rational" lines. But this is absurd - why should a declarer who has got no idea that the trump suit has thirteen cards have any more idea about any other rudimentary aspect of the game? David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 17 07:13:38 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:13:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <4A256C92.00296B2D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [big snip] >Here we (correctly) rubbish Larry Cohen for >saying that players shouldn't have to make >an effort to learn defences to strange >systems, I (correctly) rubbish Larry Cohen for saying that Larry Cohen shouldn't have to make an effort to learn defences to strange systems. I do *not* generalise from that particular special case to rubbish SOs who protect bunnies from being bamboozled by strange systems. >and yet we do not seem prepared to accept >the notion that players should have to make >an effort not only to verify before claiming >that their claim will work, I agree with David Burn that players should make an effort to verify that their claim should work. >but to formulate a clear and unambiguous >statement before tabling their cards. But I disagree that unworkable claims should *necessarily* be lumped with all of those workable claims where the claimer has merely slightly mangled the English language. >It is all very odd indeed. > >Part of this has arisen because of an over- >zealous interpretation of the law that makes >it an impropriety to "unnecessarily prolong >the play". > >That had got nothing to do with claiming; it >was aimed at the Shenkins of the world, though >it seems to have missed. The *reason* the particular Law 74B4 was enacted is Lawfully irrelevant, what is relevant is the current *application* of Law 74B4. The actual words of Law 74B4 are: >>As a matter of courtesy a player should >>refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as >>in playing on although he knows that all the >>tricks are surely his) for the purpose of >>disconcerting an opponent. While I do not use the penetratingly accurate words of David Burn when claiming, it seems to me that the penetratingly accurate interpretation of the bracketed words in Law 74B4 is that prompt claims *are* required by Law. >But it is trotted out every so often in this >guise: "it is an infraction not to claim when >you can". David Burn earlier stated that in a 7NT contract with 13 tricks, it is discourteous to claim 13 tricks when the tricks are divided between two hands. (So DB would first cash 6 winners to leave one hand high before claiming.) But Law 74B4 states that Lawful courtesy is opposite to Burnian courtesy. So yes, David Burn-style delayed claims are indeed an infraction - unless: a) David Burn wishes to have a debate about the meaning of the word "unnecessarily", or b) David Burn wishes to argue that Law 74 joins Law 75 in merely stating a Utopia, and therefore should not be taken seriously. [big snip] Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 17 07:40:40 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:40:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? Message-ID: <4A256C92.002A1DDE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "let me try again", Tim West- Meads wrote: >>>The EBU uses "If 70%+ of the player's peers >>>would make the chosen call there is no LA". [snip] >>>If it's in the OB I haven't found it. It is >>>however what I always been taught. It also >>>seems to make sense in the context of clear- >>>cut actions being permitted. James Vickers replied: >>Where did you find this quote, then? It's not >>in the (now obsolete, although no-one admits >>it) EBU TD Guide, nor is it in the Orange Book >>or the White Book. I'm an EBU-trained director, >>and I've never been taught this way. >> >>It sounds good, though. Australia recently readopted the 75%+ rule. But I differ from Tim and James in that I do not think that the rule "sounds good". The 70-75% rule places too much emphasis on calculating how many experts would bid the same way as the clever- as-heck expert before the Appeals Committee. This creates subtle pressure on the AC to demonstrate how they, too, are clever-as-heck experts, and rule that 70-75% of all experts would have taken the winning LA suggested by UI. The emphasis, instead, should be on whether a significant minority of experts would have taken a different LA. Therefore, I prefer the formulation in the WBF Code of Practice for defining an LA: >A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, >amongst the class of players in question and using >the methods of the partnership, would be given >serious consideration by a significant proportion >of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think >some might adopt it. Best wishes Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 17 08:10:32 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:10:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: Doug: > This is not a trivial problem. > > Consider this suit, say clubs: AKQ543 in an entryless dummy > opposite 8762 in > hand. Say declarer claims six tricks from this suit. > > Case 1: No further clarification. I would be inclined to > rule that the > clubs will block, with whatever ensuing consequence the hand > produces. But > if Meckstroth makes the claim, I seriously consider accepting > it. If Mrs. > Guggenheim does it, it's clear to reject. (If someone claims this way > against me I object only if in my judgment there is a > reasonable likelihood > the claimer would have blocked the suit.) Let us be careful, we meet a problem here when clubs split 3-0. And in that case I would not accept the claim from Meckstroth even. It is certainly not irrational to play the deuce on the ace. I consider this to be a prototype of careless play. More interesting is the situation when the clubs split 2 - 1. Do we allow declarer to play small from dummy in the third trick then? I probably would, but it is not a clear case. Goodness, unwillingly supporting David. Let us forget about mrs. Guggenheim, she never claims and refuses to accept them. The level of play of those who do claim is at least reasonable, though careless twice in a while. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 17 08:25:16 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:25:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes Message-ID: Jaap: > Dear Ton, > > I might agree with you in principle (timing of the claim) but > you use the > wrong examples. Well sorry for that, using real life being a wrong example. I myself have passed your example: AKQJ10x opp xxx. > OR claimer is always supposed to draw (plenty) trumps > OR claimer is never supposed to draw (plenty) trumps > > This is much more practical than to start guessing what the > guy is thinking. It is not practical at all, it is adoration of a theoretical model, which doesn't meet the demands of bridge as it is and has been played. The nice thing about the examples Kaplan used is that we know what declarer was thinking and doing in the cases where he allowed the claim: 'all the trumps are mine'. So they were. ton > > I have also read all this stuff from Edgar (not recently). The guy is > brilliant but his thinking is IMHO too complicated to arrive > at workable > laws for a game for the masses. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 17 08:35:00 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: When Hallberg claimed when he could, the sky fell on > him, and they are (ridiculously) changing the rules as a result, even > though his claim was a perfectly proper Burn claim (or would have been > if the opponents had let him get on with making it I thought they did. You don't like that they threw a wrong card for his play to be valid? > people will just have to learn to say a few words of clarification. we seem to get closer. > > Amen. ton > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 17 08:56:13 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:56:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20021216230423.014d0810@mail.comcast.net> <014101c2a58b$959062a0$1f3823d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001201c2a5aa$9c11a2a0$8438e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims -------------------------- \x/ --------------------------- > > There is some "principle" to the effect that declarer > will notice, when someone ruffs one of the winners > he is leading from dummy, that RHO has ruffed - it > will now be "irrational" not to over-ruff. This "principle" > is espoused only by directors, > +=+ WBFLC minute: "The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and take account of what he would see." (30/10/01) My view is that this minute does not deny that, until the fact hits him in the face, a player should be considered to remain ignorant of what, at the point of claim, he has forgotten or overlooked. In the resolution of the claim I take the minute to support my view that claimer should be deemed to draw correct conclusions from opponent's subsequent failure to follow suit and not to act absurdly in the light of his knowledge or (if it is not too late to cater for it when it hits the table) when he is faced with a situation not foreseen because of what he forgot or overlooked when claiming. ~ G ~ +=+ This wearisome bird does indeed rise from its ashes each time I think it has burned itself out. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 17 09:01:12 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:01:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: > > There is some "principle" to the effect that declarer will > notice, when > someone ruffs one of the winners he is leading from dummy, > that RHO has > ruffed - it will now be "irrational" not to over-ruff. This > "principle" > is espoused only by directors, who enjoy the challenge of taking over > from declarer at that point and playing the rest of his cards for him > along "rational" lines. But this is absurd - why should a declarer who > has got no idea that the trump suit has thirteen cards have any more > idea about any other rudimentary aspect of the game? An attack on the directors once more. David Stevenson leaving us must have been a severe loss for you. David please, let us not have to put you in the fundamentalist corner. Who knows what Bush would do with you if he had any notice of what bridge might be? The example given is crazy, I admit, but declarer is not throwing away the diamond ace and no appeal committe will decide otherwise, unless you are chairman and have been able to choose your own people. The director will play the rest of the cards along non-irrational lines, that is what the laws tell her to do. ton > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Dec 16 13:34:57 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:34:57 EST Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing Message-ID: <10c.1c3d3d79.2b2f3081@aol.com> --part1_10c.1c3d3d79.2b2f3081_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/16/2002 2:22:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it > should > be used as often as possible. > > No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement. > > There IS a light at the end of the tunnel! =K= =K= --part1_10c.1c3d3d79.2b2f3081_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/16/2002 2:22:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes:

His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it should
be used as often as possible.

No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement.



There IS a light at the end of the tunnel!  

=K=

=K= --part1_10c.1c3d3d79.2b2f3081_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Dec 16 20:36:16 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:36:16 EST Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing Message-ID: <157.19069937.2b2f9340@aol.com> --part1_157.19069937.2b2f9340_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/16/2002 1:41:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > >>His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it > >>should > >>be used as often as possible. > >> > >>No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement. > >> > >> > > > >There IS a light at the end of the tunnel! > > > A very dim light, illuminating only the high-level games at NABCs. > Unbelievably, *all* the regionally-rated two-session NABC pair events at > NABCs > (e.g., the Mixed Pairs) are matchpointed intra-section, 12 top. Even our > lowly > Sunday unit single-session game is matchpointed across two sections, to > the > satisfaction of all. > > There seems to be a common belief among ACBL TDs that ATF matchpointing > means > that session awards must be ATF also. They say players don't like that, so > no > ATF. The solution is easy: Use the ACBLScor option of intra-section session > awards along with ATF for overall ranking. This is not as illogical as it > may > seem, as players within a section have faced the same opponents, making > their > results a mini-contest deserving of recognition. Besides, when players have > the highest score in a section, they like to see a "1" by their names, and > they want that mug. Also, the total number of masterpoints awarded is on > average slightly higher, and is distributed among more pairs. > > The main reason for TDs' reluctance to matchpoint ATF is that it creates > more > work for them. A score adjustment or fouled board affects all sections > instead > of just one, requiring the reposting of results in every section. At the > very > least games should be matchpointed across two sections, which should not > cause > much more work. > > One high-level TD had what seemed like a reasonable argument, which is that > players like to go to dinner knowing where they rank. With ATF it too often > happens that they find their scores changed by the time the second session > starts. If the preliminary scores were to include a big caveat that they > are > indeed preliminary, subject to probable minor changes, players would accept > that. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > I'm not at all sure about your conclusions about why TDs don't "like" ATF scoring, but I am fully in agreement with you on what should be done to satisfy the players -- i.e. section awards within sections and overall awards based on the ATF matchpoints. It is really a problem of education that has not been taken care of for various reasons, inertia being the one that comes most to my mind. There are few places in the world where I find that they would accept section scores as ACBL presently does. I think the time factor for results, the corrections, etc., are all smoke blowing to get the players comfortable with something that was only the result of not being able to score great big games by hand. Other Zones use of frequency charts overcame that problem but never were even given a fair shot in ACBL-land. I think we missed the boat going into computers at which time we could have made a big to--do about how we can now make the scores more valid, improve the seeding, etc., etc., etc., -- we only talked about speed, at the expense of much more important things. =K= --part1_157.19069937.2b2f9340_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/16/2002 1:41:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes:

>
>>His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it
>>should
>>be used as often as possible.
>>
>>No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement.
>>
>>
>
>There IS a light at the end of the tunnel!
>
A very dim light, illuminating only the high-level games at NABCs.
Unbelievably, *all* the regionally-rated two-session NABC pair events at NABCs
(e.g., the Mixed Pairs) are matchpointed intra-section, 12 top. Even our lowly
Sunday unit single-session game is matchpointed across two sections,  to the
satisfaction of all.

There seems to be a common belief among ACBL TDs that ATF matchpointing means
that session awards must be ATF also. They say players don't like that, so no
ATF. The solution is easy: Use the ACBLScor option of intra-section session
awards along with ATF for overall ranking.  This is not as illogical as it may
seem, as players within a section have faced the same opponents, making their
results a mini-contest deserving of recognition. Besides, when players have
the highest score in a section, they like to see a "1" by their names, and
they want that mug. Also, the total number of masterpoints awarded is on
average slightly higher, and is distributed among more pairs.

The main reason for TDs' reluctance to matchpoint ATF is that it creates more
work for them. A score adjustment or fouled board affects all sections instead
of just one, requiring the reposting of results in every section. At the very
least games should be matchpointed across two sections, which should not cause
much more work.

One high-level TD had what seemed like a reasonable argument, which is that
players like to go to dinner knowing where they rank. With ATF it too often
happens that they find their scores changed by the time the second session
starts. If the preliminary scores were to include a big caveat that they are
indeed preliminary, subject to probable minor changes, players would accept
that.

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California



I'm not at all sure about your conclusions about why TDs don't "like" ATF scoring, but I am fully in agreement with you on what should be done to satisfy the players -- i.e. section awards within sections and overall awards based on the ATF matchpoints.  It is really a problem of education that has not been taken care of for various reasons, inertia being the one that comes most to my mind.  There are few places in the world where I find that they would accept section scores as ACBL presently does. 

I think the time factor for results, the corrections, etc., are all smoke blowing to get the players comfortable with something that was only the result of not being able to score great big games by hand. Other Zones use of frequency charts overcame that problem but never were even given a fair shot in ACBL-land.  I think we missed the boat going into computers at which time we could have made a big to--do about how we can now make the scores more valid, improve the seeding, etc., etc., etc., --  we only talked about speed, at the expense of much more important things.

=K=
 --part1_157.19069937.2b2f9340_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Dec 16 20:33:24 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:33:24 EST Subject: [blml] ATF matchpointing Message-ID: <59.24b3c883.2b2f9294@aol.com> --part1_59.24b3c883.2b2f9294_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/16/2002 1:41:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > >>His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it > >>should > >>be used as often as possible. > >> > >>No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement. > >> > >> > > > >There IS a light at the end of the tunnel! > > > A very dim light, illuminating only the high-level games at NABCs. > Unbelievably, *all* the regionally-rated two-session NABC pair events at > NABCs > (e.g., the Mixed Pairs) are matchpointed intra-section, 12 top. Even our > lowly > Sunday unit single-session game is matchpointed across two sections, to > the > satisfaction of all. > > There seems to be a common belief among ACBL TDs that ATF matchpointing > means > that session awards must be ATF also. They say players don't like that, so > no > ATF. The solution is easy: Use the ACBLScor option of intra-section session > awards along with ATF for overall ranking. This is not as illogical as it > may > seem, as players within a section have faced the same opponents, making > their > results a mini-contest deserving of recognition. Besides, when players have > the highest score in a section, they like to see a "1" by their names, and > they want that mug. Also, the total number of masterpoints awarded is on > average slightly higher, and is distributed among more pairs. > > The main reason for TDs' reluctance to matchpoint ATF is that it creates > more > work for them. A score adjustment or fouled board affects all sections > instead > of just one, requiring the reposting of results in every section. At the > very > least games should be matchpointed across two sections, which should not > cause > much more work. > > One high-level TD had what seemed like a reasonable argument, which is that > players like to go to dinner knowing where they rank. With ATF it too often > happens that they find their scores changed by the time the second session > starts. If the preliminary scores were to include a big caveat that they > are > indeed preliminary, subject to probable minor changes, players would accept > that. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > I'm not at all sure about your conclusions about why TDs don't "like" ATF scoring, but I am fully in agreement with you on what should be done to satisfy the players -- i.e. section awards within sections and overall awards based on the ATF matchpoints. It is really a problem of education that has not been taken care of for various reasons, inertia being the one that comes most to my mind. There are few places in the world where I find that they would accept section scores as ACBL presently does. I think the time factor for results, the corrections, etc., are all smoke blowing to get the players comfortable with something that was only the result of not being able to score great big games by hand. Other Zones use of frequency charts overcame that problem but never were even given a fair shot in ACBL-land. I think we missed the boat going into computers at which time we could have made a big to--do about how we can now make the scores more valid, improve the seeding, etc., etc., etc., -- we only talked about speed, at the expense of much more important things. =K= --part1_59.24b3c883.2b2f9294_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/16/2002 1:41:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes:

>
>>His conclusion was that scoring ATF is the fairest method, and that it
>>should
>>be used as often as possible.
>>
>>No one on the C&C committee argued with that statement.
>>
>>
>
>There IS a light at the end of the tunnel!
>
A very dim light, illuminating only the high-level games at NABCs.
Unbelievably, *all* the regionally-rated two-session NABC pair events at NABCs
(e.g., the Mixed Pairs) are matchpointed intra-section, 12 top. Even our lowly
Sunday unit single-session game is matchpointed across two sections,  to the
satisfaction of all.

There seems to be a common belief among ACBL TDs that ATF matchpointing means
that session awards must be ATF also. They say players don't like that, so no
ATF. The solution is easy: Use the ACBLScor option of intra-section session
awards along with ATF for overall ranking.  This is not as illogical as it may
seem, as players within a section have faced the same opponents, making their
results a mini-contest deserving of recognition. Besides, when players have
the highest score in a section, they like to see a "1" by their names, and
they want that mug. Also, the total number of masterpoints awarded is on
average slightly higher, and is distributed among more pairs.

The main reason for TDs' reluctance to matchpoint ATF is that it creates more
work for them. A score adjustment or fouled board affects all sections instead
of just one, requiring the reposting of results in every section. At the very
least games should be matchpointed across two sections, which should not cause
much more work.

One high-level TD had what seemed like a reasonable argument, which is that
players like to go to dinner knowing where they rank. With ATF it too often
happens that they find their scores changed by the time the second session
starts. If the preliminary scores were to include a big caveat that they are
indeed preliminary, subject to probable minor changes, players would accept
that.

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California



I'm not at all sure about your conclusions about why TDs don't "like" ATF scoring, but I am fully in agreement with you on what should be done to satisfy the players -- i.e. section awards within sections and overall awards based on the ATF matchpoints.  It is really a problem of education that has not been taken care of for various reasons, inertia being the one that comes most to my mind.  There are few places in the world where I find that they would accept section scores as ACBL presently does. 

I think the time factor for results, the corrections, etc., are all smoke blowing to get the players comfortable with something that was only the result of not being able to score great big games by hand. Other Zones use of frequency charts overcame that problem but never were even given a fair shot in ACBL-land.  I think we missed the boat going into computers at which time we could have made a big to--do about how we can now make the scores more valid, improve the seeding, etc., etc., etc., --  we only talked about speed, at the expense of much more important things.

=K=
 --part1_59.24b3c883.2b2f9294_boundary-- From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Dec 17 09:11:56 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:11:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correct weight Message-ID: Richard: > > In the thread "phoenix claims", Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ :-) But isn't the six higher than the eight in > >Aussie-land? > > > >Seriously, you put your finger on the point of my > >discussion of weighted adjudications. Objectively, is > >it not fairer to allow that the eight and the six would > >each be played some of the time - a rough 50% > >each would be accepted, I think. > > > >As I understand it, Bavin, Schoder, Riccardi share > >an opinion that "oversimplification of the TD's role in > >adjudicating claims is not the way to go" (I quote one > >of them), In other words we should not be put off > >from asking the TD to do what we think is needed. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I see nothing wrong in principle with the 2004 claim > Laws allowing a weighted-average determination of a > doubtful claim. It depends on what kind of principle you are thinking of. In principle we can make the laws as we like. But the approach (principle) for claims at the moment being that doubtful claims are decided against the claimer, I tend to disagree with you. My contribution in the drafting committee will be that we should keep it like that: no weighted scores. But Riccardi has tried one before so he might be willing to join you. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 17 09:13:51 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:13:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20021216230423.014d0810@mail.comcast.net> <014101c2a58b$959062a0$1f3823d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DFEEACF.30600@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > There is some "principle" to the effect that declarer will notice, when > someone ruffs one of the winners he is leading from dummy, that RHO has > ruffed - it will now be "irrational" not to over-ruff. This "principle" > is espoused only by directors, who enjoy the challenge of taking over > from declarer at that point and playing the rest of his cards for him > along "rational" lines. But this is absurd - why should a declarer who > has got no idea that the trump suit has thirteen cards have any more > idea about any other rudimentary aspect of the game? > Why? Because that is how the laws have been written. > 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 Tue Dec 17 09:24:59 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:24:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correct weight References: <4A256C92.000404C9.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DFEED6B.60707@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I see nothing wrong in principle with the 2004 claim > Laws allowing a weighted-average determination of a > doubtful claim. > I do. Her you are all argueing that the current claim laws are too lenient on claimers, and this is a law that would be even more beneficial to claimer. What this means is that if there are three possible lines, leading to -4, -2 and made, the ruling would be weighted on those three. While the current ruling is -4. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 17 13:07:37 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:07:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <200212162238.RAA11746@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021217080518.00a207a0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:38 PM 12/16/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Doug Couchman > > This is not a trivial problem. > >Indeed. Else we wouldn't have had x-thousand BLML posts! > >Doug makes many good points that should not be ignored. I do take >issue with one aspect of his message. > > > Consider this suit, say clubs: AKQ543 in an entryless dummy > opposite 8762 in > > hand. Say declarer claims six tricks from this suit. > >This is a good example. > > > Case 1: No further clarification. I would be inclined to rule that the > > clubs will block, with whatever ensuing consequence the hand > produces. But > > if Meckstroth makes the claim, I seriously consider accepting it. > >Some of us think having different rules for different players in >undesirable. If Mr. Meckstroth has to add a few words of >clarification, is that so bad? He doesn't even have to do that if he >is _certain_ his opponents will acquiesce, but he will have to learn >that if they call the TD, ruling against him will be automatic. > > > Case 2: Burnian clarification; declarer explicitly states that he > will play > > dummy's clubs from the top, playing the 8, 7, and 6 from hand > >No problem here. > > > if Mrs. Guggenheim makes such a claim and > > understands the problem right now, do you really know that she > won't mess up > > the play a couple of tricks from now? > >So she gets a reward for claiming. Maybe she will claim more often. >(She never claims at all right now.) I think this is a _good_ thing. > > > Case 3: Imperfect clarification; declarer says, "I'll take six club > tricks; > > I won't block them." > >Yes, here indeed there has to be judgment. > >Notice, though, the judgment question is how to translate a given >statement into a specific line of play. If there is no statement at >all, the mechanical rules take over. > > > My point is > > that it will not be possible to craft a set of such rules that > covers all > > relevant situations. Like it or not, the TD is going to have to do > some > > interpretation of claimer's intent. > >I'm not so sure about the first sentence, and the second is certainly >wrong. In our proposed world, intent has nothing to do with the >matter. The question is what line of play the statement implies. The >difference is that it is the statement alone, not declarer's presumed >skill or state of mind, that has to be judged. The bridge judgment >involved is considerably less difficult than typical UI or MI cases. > > > Like it or not, that interpretation > > will as a practical matter be colored by any knowledge he has of > the player > > involved, > >I, for one, certainly hope not! Also, the TD is expected to consult on >all judgment rulings. The players consulted have no way to know who >the claimer is. Also, we hope that there will be clear guidelines and >examples, although indeed there will always be new cases. > > > If you did establish purely > > mechanical rules, many "good" (to me meaning "representing what > would have > > happened had the cards actually been played out") claims will be > rejected > > because the wordsmithing is inadequate, > >Well, I certainly hope it won't be "many." It won't be zero, but people >will just have to learn to say a few words of clarification. I usually avoid posting "me too's", but I think Steve has this one exactly right, and hope the law writers among us are listening. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 17 13:07:57 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:07:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <01f601c2a5cd$538662f0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Couchman" To: Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:26 PM Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity > > 4. What the player fails to state is adjudicated by a set > > of rules of procedure. > > > This is not a trivial problem. > > Consider this suit, say clubs: AKQ543 in an entryless dummy opposite 8762 in > hand. Say declarer claims six tricks from this suit. > > Case 1: No further clarification. I would be inclined to rule that the > clubs will block, with whatever ensuing consequence the hand produces. But > if Meckstroth makes the claim, I seriously consider accepting it. If Mrs. > Guggenheim does it, it's clear to reject. This is the quintessence of what I believe to be fundamentally wrong with the claim laws in place today. A TD who is supposed to tell the player "you aren't good enough to spot the danger of clubs being blocked" is something beyond my ken. These rulings always depend on the relative skills of the TD and the player. If the claimer is a better player than the TD then the director almost never has the courage to tell the player that he disallows the claim because the line of play the wasn't mentioned doesn't look so obvious to him. E.g. I cannot even imagine a TD in Krakow disallowing Andrzej Wilkosz's claim at the risk of looking foolish. Who would like to hear "Well, for you, mister director, if may not be obvious how to play this hand..." from a legend? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WIADOMOSCI minuta po minucie... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16a8 From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 17 15:15:47 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:15:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <01f601c2a5cd$538662f0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <3DFF3FA3.1060007@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>if Meckstroth makes the claim, I seriously consider accepting it. If Mrs. >>Guggenheim does it, it's clear to reject. >> > > This is the quintessence of what I believe to be fundamentally > wrong with the claim laws in place today. > A TD who is supposed to tell the player > "you aren't good enough to spot the > danger of clubs being blocked" > is something beyond my ken. > > These rulings always depend on the > relative skills of the TD and the player. > If the claimer is a better player > than the TD then the director > almost never has the courage to > tell the player that he disallows the claim > because the line of play the wasn't > mentioned doesn't look so obvious to him. > E.g. I cannot even imagine a TD > in Krakow disallowing Andrzej Wilkosz's > claim at the risk of looking foolish. > Who would like to hear "Well, for you, mister > director, if may not be obvious how > to play this hand..." from a legend? > I agree, but what is the alternative ? Disallow a claim by Mr Wilkosz because Mrs Guggenheim might not be able to play AQxx - KJx ? Or allow AKQJ4 7652 to Mrs Guggenheim as well ? I know what David will say - never to allow anything to anybody unless they clearly state it. But I don't believe that one to be fair either. It might work in the (very) long run, but in the short run you're going to have a lot of angry Wilkosz' first! > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > WIADOMOSCI minuta po minucie... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16a8 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Dec 17 13:31:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:31:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021217142445.0268a7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:54 17/12/2002 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Will you please stop talking bollocks. The hand was claimed as "good" not >"high". AG : I see a problem looming there. I do not pretend speaking perfect English (let alone American), but surely I have always been understood by opponents, partners and TDs alike at the table. The fact is, I don't know the difference between 'my hand is high' and 'my hand is good' . If there is a subtle semantic distinction, and if this distinction has been taken as a pretext for disallowing the claim, then shame on the AC. > There is a difference. Even if you say there is no difference to >you can you at least acknowledge that there is a difference to people from >different cultures and language backgrounds AG : perhaps, but they should also understand that many people who think they speak English won't get it. > > >Who said anything about the TD. If I quibble with a player's claim on a >technicality that player will never claim against me again. AG : this is surely what I would decide if some AC took the position of playing on words to disallow a perfectly reasonable claim. > I will thus >have to waste energy right to the end of every hand I play against that >player. >Right. And the Chinese for "I can make the rest in hand" is? I admit I >have no idea. But given that David Burn and I (separated by only a few >miles) can say assign different meanings to the same statement one has to >acknowledge that linguistic issues cause problems. I have no difficulty >imagining a non English speaker starting a claim with "I *crash* the >Ace/king of spades..." even a native English speaker might stumble over >the intended *cash*. Sometimes it is necessary to extract the meaning >from imperfect language. The meaning is what matters, not the words. AG : at last ! From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 17 13:49:07 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:49:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: <4A256C92.002A1DDE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021217144614.0268a2e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:40 17/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In the thread "let me try again", Tim West- >Meads wrote: > > >>>The EBU uses "If 70%+ of the player's peers > >>>would make the chosen call there is no LA". > >[snip] > > >>>If it's in the OB I haven't found it. It is > >>>however what I always been taught. It also > >>>seems to make sense in the context of clear- > >>>cut actions being permitted. > >James Vickers replied: > > >>Where did you find this quote, then? It's not > >>in the (now obsolete, although no-one admits > >>it) EBU TD Guide, nor is it in the Orange Book > >>or the White Book. I'm an EBU-trained director, > >>and I've never been taught this way. > >> > >>It sounds good, though. > >Australia recently readopted the 75%+ rule. But >I differ from Tim and James in that I do not >think that the rule "sounds good". The 70-75% >rule places too much emphasis on calculating how >many experts would bid the same way as the clever- >as-heck expert before the Appeals Committee. This >creates subtle pressure on the AC to demonstrate >how they, too, are clever-as-heck experts, and >rule that 70-75% of all experts would have taken >the winning LA suggested by UI. AG : and, of course, some experts would have made another bid at the table that the one they say they would make, when answering to the poll. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 17 15:38:08 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:38:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <200212171538.KAA18350@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > Declarer has lost his marbles, and > should in no circumstance be allowed to regain them. If he has made a > ridiculous claim, then he has made a ridiculous claim, and the number of > tricks he makes should not be a function of whether second hand or > fourth hand has the trump declarer has forgotten. Why do we need such an extreme position? Yes, declarer has made a bad claim, having forgotten the outstanding trump. That doesn't mean he won't see it when it appears face up on the table. The difference between the "extra" trump being in second hand or fourth depends on whether it will be too late to do anything about it at the moment it appears. Sometimes it will matter, and sometimes it won't. We are not trying to punish claimers, even the bad ones. We just don't want the claimer's opponents to be damaged. > From: Herman De Wael > I agree, but what is the alternative ? > Disallow a claim by Mr Wilkosz because Mrs Guggenheim might not be > able to play AQxx - KJx ? > Or allow AKQJ4 7652 to Mrs Guggenheim as well ? This will depend on the details of the "mechanical line of play" rules to be adopted. Whatever they are, Mr. Wilkosz and Mrs. Guggenheim will get the same result. Personally I'd allow both of them the first claim and neither one the second (absent a proper statement), but reasonable people can disagree. If the rules are changed, the authorities have a clear duty to publicize the changes and what they mean. Also, it will be good if the rules are clear that the TD has no option in the case of a missing statement.* Mr. Wilkosz may have to modify his habits slightly. *A thought occurs to me... perhaps a bad one. Could the existing L70C be generalized to the case of a missing statement, not just a statement that fails to mention trumps? From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 16:27:18 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:27:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212171538.KAA18350@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > From: "David Burn" > > Declarer has lost his marbles, and > > should in no circumstance be allowed to regain them. If he has made a > > ridiculous claim, then he has made a ridiculous claim, and the number of > > tricks he makes should not be a function of whether second hand or > > fourth hand has the trump declarer has forgotten. > > Why do we need such an extreme position? What did he claim? When he claimed he was winning tricks with the three clubs he therby claimed he was discarding the DA on the HA because there is no other way to achieve three clubs. Was this a stated line or an unstated line? A stated line. Being a stated line there is no doubt as to what he intended at the time he claimed. What David Burn has put forth not only can not with a straight face be said to be extreme, but is a statement as to what claimer has earned. > Yes, declarer has made a bad > claim, having forgotten the outstanding trump. That doesn't mean he > won't see it when it appears face up on the table. In light of what he claimed isn't this irrelevant? As an opponent I am happy enough if declarer takes his three tricks by playing the cards so that they take three tricks or claims so they take three tricks, but when he earns zero tricks I am unhappy when he gets credit for something other than zero. regards roger pewick From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 17 17:13:52 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:13:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: References: <200212171538.KAA18350@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021217180030.02685ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:27 17/12/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 9:38 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > > From: "David Burn" > > > Declarer has lost his marbles, and > > > should in no circumstance be allowed to regain them. If he has made >a > > > ridiculous claim, then he has made a ridiculous claim, and the >number of > > > tricks he makes should not be a function of whether second hand or > > > fourth hand has the trump declarer has forgotten. > > > > Why do we need such an extreme position? > >What did he claim? When he claimed he was winning tricks with the three >clubs he therby claimed he was discarding the DA on the HA because there >is no other way to achieve three clubs. AG : recall the original problem : Spades are trumps: - - A AK8 Q - - - 6 875 QJ T - A 2 54 South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has a count on the hand and knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding trump. >Was this a stated line or an >unstated line? A stated line. Being a stated line there is no doubt as >to what he intended at the time he claimed. What David Burn has put >forth not only can not with a straight face be said to be extreme, but >is a statement as to what claimer has earned. AG : declarer has indeed stated he will discard the DA. Of course, nobody would do that. If one thinks there is no trump outside, one would play HA, discarding a club. Or, as I usually do, play the HA, simultaneously saying "small club and dummy's high" and showing my cards. There is one easy explanation : the example is not authentic. > > Yes, declarer has made a bad > > claim, having forgotten the outstanding trump. That doesn't mean he > > won't see it when it appears face up on the table. > >In light of what he claimed isn't this irrelevant? > >As an opponent I am happy enough if declarer takes his three tricks by >playing the cards so that they take three tricks or claims so they take >three tricks, but when he earns zero tricks I am unhappy when he gets >credit for something other than zero. AG : I don't think that any declarer would play the DA on appearance of the trump. This clearly ranges among the irrational. The shock of seeing the SQ should be enough to make one realize he'd better keep the high cards - yes, even Mrs Guggenheim would do so). Thus, the decision should be different if the outstanding trump is on the right (however artificial be the example, if declarer says precisely that, he discards DA ; let's say, for the sake of plausibility, that it is another diamond, now high) and if it is on the left. In the latter case, I would give EW only one trick. But there might be cases where EW would get 3 (say West has no more clubs and ruffs on the second trick after the master diamond is away). Best regards, Alain. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 17:02:27 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:02:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael > >I know what David will say - never to allow anything to anybody unless they >clearly state it. >But I don't believe that one to be fair either. I don't undestand what's not fair about it. Claim tricks by verbally claiming they're going to be yours. If you can't, either because you don't know what's going on, or because you don't explain things very well, don't claim. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. >It might work in the (very) long run, but in the short run you're going to >have a lot of angry Wilkosz' first! So, we stay where we are, because the process of progress produces protesting posturings from pained Polish professionals? Prefer persist with present position permanently? Pathetic... _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 17 17:10:54 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:10:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: <200212171710.MAA19765@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > Yes, declarer has made a bad > > claim, having forgotten the outstanding trump. That doesn't mean he > > won't see it when it appears face up on the table. > From: "Roger Pewick" > In light of what he claimed isn't this irrelevant? Haven't you ever changed your line of play when an unexpected card appears? From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 17 17:29:10 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:29:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021217182741.00ac2c90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:02 17/12/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >> >>I know what David will say - never to allow anything to anybody unless >>they clearly state it. >>But I don't believe that one to be fair either. > >I don't undestand what's not fair about it. Claim tricks by verbally >claiming they're going to be yours. If you can't, either because you don't >know what's going on, or because you don't explain things very well, don't >claim. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. AG : would be, if there were no time limits. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 17:17:35 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:17:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has a count on the hand >and knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding trump. How can we progress from there? How can South have a count of the hand if he has forgotten West has a trump? This is nonsense. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 17 17:28:12 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:28:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <3DFF5EAC.3070607@skynet.be> Norman Scorbie wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> >> I know what David will say - never to allow anything to anybody unless >> they clearly state it. >> But I don't believe that one to be fair either. > > > I don't undestand what's not fair about it. Claim tricks by verbally > claiming they're going to be yours. If you can't, either because you > don't know what's going on, or because you don't explain things very > well, don't claim. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. > But where does it stop? Should Wilkosz explain how he's going to make four tricks off AQxx KJx? >> It might work in the (very) long run, but in the short run you're >> going to have a lot of angry Wilkosz' first! > > > So, we stay where we are, because the process of progress produces > protesting posturings from pained Polish professionals? Prefer persist > with present position permanently? Pathetic... > Yes, why not? You say it's progress - I don't believe it is. I don't believe it is right to ask Wilkosz to say "I'll play king and jack of hearts, then ace and queen". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 17 17:30:09 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:30:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021217144614.0268a2e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DFF5F21.4000406@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 17:40 17/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > AG : and, of course, some experts would have made another bid at the > table that the one they say they would make, when answering to the poll. > I suggest we take the blml-claims approach to this problem. Since we cannot agree on what a LA is, let's scrap the idea from the laws completely and rewrite the UI-laws saying that if in possession of UI, a player is no longer allowed to bid. Ridiculous ? yes, of course. But no more so than some of the suggestions I hear in the claims thread. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 17 17:33:43 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:33:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212171538.KAA18350@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DFF5FF7.8010208@skynet.be> Sorry Roger, but again you are wrong. Roger Pewick wrote: >> > > What did he claim? When he claimed he was winning tricks with the three > clubs he therby claimed he was discarding the DA on the HA because there > is no other way to achieve three clubs. Was this a stated line or an > unstated line? A stated line. Being a stated line there is no doubt as > to what he intended at the time he claimed. What David Burn has put > forth not only can not with a straight face be said to be extreme, but > is a statement as to what claimer has earned. > No it is not. He stated he would cash clubs. He did not state what he would discard on those clubs. It would be abnormal for him to throw the DA on the CA. Maybe on the third club, but not on the first. > >>Yes, declarer has made a bad >>claim, having forgotten the outstanding trump. That doesn't mean he >>won't see it when it appears face up on the table. >> > > In light of what he claimed isn't this irrelevant? > > As an opponent I am happy enough if declarer takes his three tricks by > playing the cards so that they take three tricks or claims so they take > three tricks, but when he earns zero tricks I am unhappy when he gets > credit for something other than zero. > I agree, but who says he earns 0 tricks? I don't. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Dec 17 18:42:51 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:42:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021217080518.00a207a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c2a5fc$1d38d280$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > I usually avoid posting "me too's", but I think Steve has this one > exactly right, and hope the law writers among us are listening. > Me too. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From shrike@surfbest.net Tue Dec 17 22:22:30 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:22:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] why we like claims In-Reply-To: <20021217090529.18624.86892.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > There is some "principle" to the effect that declarer will notice, when > someone ruffs one of the winners he is leading from dummy, that RHO has > ruffed - it will now be "irrational" not to over-ruff. This "principle" > is espoused only by directors, who enjoy the challenge of taking over > from declarer at that point and playing the rest of his cards for him > along "rational" lines. But this is absurd - why should a declarer who > has got no idea that the trump suit has thirteen cards have any more > idea about any other rudimentary aspect of the game? You are right: the only reason we think that a claimer should be allowed to notice a ruff or overruff when he hadn't previously realized there was a trump out is because we enjoy the ensuing hand reconstruction. It has nothing to do with wanting to produce a result that most closely resembles what would have happened if there had been no claim; if it weren't for the enjoyment we get from playing hands, we would just have the sloppy claimer revoke at every opportunity, as this would produce such a fair result -- after all, if his claim is so bad that he can't count trumps, why should he know about that other rudimentary aspect of the game, following suit? Your arguments would be easier to accept if they weren't accompanied by such sweeping statements. As to the argument itself: I know that I favor this principle, whereby doubt is resolved against the claimer but we do not go hunting for all possible doubt -- we try to be reasonable. Heck, I will "espouse" this principle. Is there really no one else who will do so, who is not a director? Doug Arlington, TX From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 17 23:59:43 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:59:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Correct weight Message-ID: <4A256C92.00830239.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: >>>I see nothing wrong in principle with the 2004 claim >>>Laws allowing a weighted-average determination of a >>>doubtful claim. Herman replied: >>I do. >> >>Here you are all arguing that the current claim laws >>are too lenient on claimers, and this is a law that >>would be even more beneficial to a claimer. What is "too" lenient? "Should" claimers be benefited? Edgar Kaplan once argued that claimers should not be discouraged by hair-splitting Burnian technicalities invalidating claims, since generally claims serve a useful social purpose of shortening session times. >>What this means is that if there are three possible >>lines, leading to -4, -2 and made, the ruling would be >>weighted on those three. >> >>While the current ruling is -4. True. But is the current ruling "too" harsh to be equitable? Ton replied: >It depends on what kind of principle you are thinking >of. In principle we can make the laws as we like. But >the approach (principle) for claims at the moment >being that doubtful claims are decided against the >claimer, I tend to disagree with you. My contribution >in the drafting committee will be that we should keep >it like that: no weighted scores. But Riccardi has >tried one before so he might be willing to join you. What I am suggesting is that the 2004 Laws should be based on a *consistent* underlying set of principles. It is unprincipled to arbitrarily legislate that these two philosophically inconsistent rules are part of the same Laws: a) an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity. b) any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Dec 17 23:44:17 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:44:17 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Brown stickers and psychics Message-ID: In the WBF Systems Policy it is written (2.4.d) that "psychic bids protected by system or required by system" are Brown Sticker Conventions. Suppose a player grows very fond of responding 1S to 1 of a minor opening, with or without a double, on either a real spade suit, or a normal-responding-strength hand very short in spades. If he doesn't alert 1S, but DOES use 1D-1S-2S-2NT and 1D-1S-3S-3NT as to play (partner may not return to spades), he is clearly using a psychic control. Suppose, however, that he alerts and explains 1S as "either 4+ spades, 6+ HCP, or short in spades intending to play notrump later," explicitly making it part of his system. If you are up front about this, and announce your intention to do it anytime you have this type of hand -- is it just a mildly strange system, sort of like the 'Impossible Negative' in Precision? Or do you still call this a Brown Sticker convention? GRB From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 17 23:49:01 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:49:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correct weight References: Message-ID: <004d01c2a62a$03185a00$892de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 9:11 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Correct weight > My contribution in the drafting committee will be > that we should keep it like that: no weighted scores. > But Riccardi has tried one before so he might be > willing to join you. > > ton > +=+ Well, I don't think I would wish to make my mind up whether the idea is a good one or not until I have heard some discussion around it. Given that there is strong pressure for some change in the law on contested claims, the way is open to reconsider all options, of which the idea of weighted avarages is a possible one; I would want to be persuaded in discussion as to what is best, and not to go out on any limb beforehand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Dec 18 00:07:53 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:07:53 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Correct weight In-Reply-To: <4A256C92.00830239.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > I wrote: > > >>>I see nothing wrong in principle with the 2004 claim > >>>Laws allowing a weighted-average determination of a > >>>doubtful claim. > > Herman replied: > > >>I do. > >> > >>Here you are all arguing that the current claim laws > >>are too lenient on claimers, and this is a law that > >>would be even more beneficial to a claimer. > > >>What this means is that if there are three possible > >>lines, leading to -4, -2 and made, the ruling would be > >>weighted on those three. > >> > >>While the current ruling is -4. > > True. But is the current ruling "too" harsh to be > equitable? Put me down for an emphatic NO on this one. The current rulings after claims, IMO, are usually exactly as they should be (-4 in this case), but occasionally we let sloppy ones slide through that we shouldn't. I feel the same way, as many of you know, about several other laws in the book which were watered down in the last change or are being considered for "equityfying" this time around. > What I am suggesting is that the 2004 Laws should be > based on a *consistent* underlying set of principles. > > It is unprincipled to arbitrarily legislate that these > two philosophically inconsistent rules are part of the > same Laws: > > a) an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted > score in order to do equity. > > b) any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > claimer. > A fair point, though it has been my understanding that appeals committees assigned scores that gave the benefit of doubt to non-offending sides too. GRB From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 23:44:36 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:44:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212171710.MAA19765@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > Yes, declarer has made a bad > > > claim, having forgotten the outstanding trump. That doesn't mean he > > > won't see it when it appears face up on the table. > > > From: "Roger Pewick" > > In light of what he claimed isn't this irrelevant? > > Haven't you ever changed your line of play when an unexpected > card appears? I have never changed a stated line of play. regards roger pewick From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 00:22:47 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:22:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212171538.KAA18350@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20021217180030.02685ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > At 10:27 17/12/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Steve Willner" > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 9:38 AM > >Subject: Re: [blml] phoenix claims > > > > > > > > From: "David Burn" > > > > Declarer has lost his marbles, and > > > > should in no circumstance be allowed to regain them. If he has made > >a > > > > ridiculous claim, then he has made a ridiculous claim, and the > >number of > > > > tricks he makes should not be a function of whether second hand or > > > > fourth hand has the trump declarer has forgotten. > > > > > > Why do we need such an extreme position? > > > >What did he claim? When he claimed he was winning tricks with the three > >clubs he therby claimed he was discarding the DA on the HA because there > >is no other way to achieve three clubs. > > AG : recall the original problem : > > Spades are trumps: > - > - > A > AK8 > Q - > - - > 6 875 > QJ T > - > A > 2 > 54 > South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has a count on the hand > and knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding trump. > > > >Was this a stated line or an > >unstated line? A stated line. Being a stated line there is no doubt as > >to what he intended at the time he claimed. What David Burn has put > >forth not only can not with a straight face be said to be extreme, but > >is a statement as to what claimer has earned. > > AG : declarer has indeed stated he will discard the DA. Of course, nobody > would do that. If one thinks there is no trump outside, one would play HA, > discarding a club. Or, as I usually do, play the HA, simultaneously saying > "small club and dummy's high" and showing my cards. > There is one easy explanation : the example is not authentic. > > > > > Yes, declarer has made a bad > > > claim, having forgotten the outstanding trump. That doesn't mean he > > > won't see it when it appears face up on the table. > > > >In light of what he claimed isn't this irrelevant? > > > >As an opponent I am happy enough if declarer takes his three tricks by > >playing the cards so that they take three tricks or claims so they take > >three tricks, but when he earns zero tricks I am unhappy when he gets > >credit for something other than zero. > AG : I don't think that any declarer would play the DA on appearance of the > trump. Are we talking about a declarer or are we talking about a claimer who was a declarer? > This clearly ranges among the irrational. Not for someone who says he is taking a trick with the C8. > The shock of seeing the SQ > should be enough to make one realize he'd better keep the high cards - yes, > even Mrs Guggenheim would do so). Is a disputed claim a place for talking about what should have happened for the purpose of giving credit? > Thus, the decision should be different if the outstanding trump is on the > right (however artificial be the example, if declarer says precisely that, > he discards DA ; let's say, for the sake of plausibility, that it is > another diamond, now high) and if it is on the left. In the latter case, I > would give EW only one trick. But there might be cases where EW would get 3 > (say West has no more clubs and ruffs on the second trick after the master > diamond is away). Change the hands. Do what ever you want to change the target so it can't be hit. There are hundreds of slippery ways to win a debate. The fact is this: Claimer has deprived us of what he would have done had he played the hand out. He has made a contract of sorts- a contract with the nature of specific perfomance. Well, that is not the way most of the world views it. But it makes a lot of sense and some day may the world will have that view. regards roger pewick > Best regards, > > Alain. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 18 01:37:40 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:37:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <4A256C93.00075FBC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >>In our proposed world, intent has nothing >>to do with the matter. The question is >>what line of play the statement implies. >> >>The difference is that it is the statement >>alone, not declarer's presumed skill or >>state of mind, that has to be judged. The >>bridge judgment involved is considerably >>less difficult than typical UI or MI cases. [big snip] I agree that a careless statement is demonstrable evidence of a careless mind. So, therefore, I agree that if declarer did not specifically state the careful play in this suit: Declarer Dummy A10xx KQ9xx then if declarer's RHO holds Jxxx, as TD I would rule that a declarer of any skill level would lose a trick. But, I disagree with these assertions: a) that the TD's bridge judgement should be more facile than typical UI or MI cases. b) that intent should have *nothing* to do with the TD's determination of the matter, and, c) that the statement alone should have to be judged by the TD. A careless statement is *not* demonstrable evidence of an _irrational_ mind. Put me in with Tim West-Meads, who wrote: [big snip] >Sometimes it is necessary to extract the >meaning from imperfect language. The >meaning is what matters, not the words. [snip] >If verbal communication were perfect men would >understand women, claims would be resolved >without problems and BLML would be deserted. >Please note a distinct lack of breath-holding >in this vicinity. Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 18 03:51:43 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:51:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021216230423.014d0810@mail.comcast.net> References: <3DFDE1DD.1030106@skynet.be> <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021217224717.01eb2a90@mail.comcast.net> At 11:39 PM 12/16/2002, David J. Grabiner wrote: >I would say that if a player states an abnormal line, he is held to it >until it would become evident to him that the line was abnormal. My example was made up, and it led to the confusing situation of a declarer who had (or thought he had) a count on the hand but had lost track of an outstanding trump. Try changing it to eliminate the problem: >Spades are trumps: > > - > - > A > AK8 >Q - >- - >6 875 >76 2 > - > A > 2 > 54 > >South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has seen QJT9 of clubs >and thus knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding >trump. If he is held to this line, he would be required to discard the DA >on the heart, giving E-W four tricks. However, it will be clear to >declarer once West has ruffed the heart that the claim has broken down, >and that it is now irrational to discard the good DA. I would award two >tricks to E-W: declarer pitches DA on the HA as West pitches a club, West >ruffs the second club, and then West cashes a diamond at the last trick. > >Switch the East and West hands, and now E-W do get four tricks; declarer >is now trying to follow the line as stated, pitching the DA before East ruffs. Now, however, if declarer claims without a statement, he should be assumed to know that the C8 is good, and thus it is normal to throw a winner in either suit from dummy. Thus the ruling is the same whether there is a statement or not. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 18 05:46:43 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 05:46:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <200212171538.KAA18350@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20021217180030.02685ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <009d01c2a659$060cd680$059868d5@default> I will go "read-only" for a while :) :) but, before I do, I will restate the obvious :( :( Bridge is still quite popular so most of its Laws must be OK; but to the delight of BLML debaters, there are several woolly laws; these laws give rise to wildly different rulings by different conscientious TDs and ACs; even when presented with identical facts. The offending laws tend to be badly phrased, complex, or subjective (sometimes all three). There are often several possible fixes but players tend to prefer shorter, simpler solutions. These are the favourite laws of WBFLC members and TDs, especially those who do not seem to understand them. The ordinary player admits to be being baffled by them; and is dismayed by the inevitable incomprehensible, inconsistent rulings; especially when he is the victim. Law can be unjust in spite of being consistent; but Law cannot be just unless it is consistent. Sometimes, in real life, we tolerate daft law (e.g. about a sensitive subject); but Bridge is a game; the main purpose of its law is to give pleasure to players; not to provide intriguing puzzles for lawyers; hence we should do our best to make the law simple and objective: so that most TDs and even a few of the brighter players can understand it; thus to enable TDs to enforce the law consistently; also to persuade some players that justice is being done. If law-makers find it hard to achieve perfect equity, it does not matter too much, providing the game is fun. In the laws of a game, simplicity and consistency of enforcement are more important than abstract fairness. For instance, a "Monopoly" enthusiast is unlikely to abandon his game if told to pay a fortune to stay in a small red wooden hut; but he will probably object when his wife demands financial compensation because the station, whither she came, has no trains. For Bridge, the problem is urgent. To confirm how urgent, please peruse the diversity of contradicting legal interpretations of basic simple paradigms, in this BLML thread, or in any one of dozens of other threads. As things are, Bridge-players can expect no change of regime for many years; and if the WBFLC then get something wrong -- perhaps making some law worse -- we must wait another 5-10 years after that, in hope that they do something about it. Manifestly, the WBFLC is clever, conscientious, and has the good of the game at heart; but it must heed players more; and TD/administrators less. While blatant anomalies remain in TFLB, surely the WBFLC must meet more frequently; the WBFLC could try local experiments, for trial periods, until the bad laws get a bit better. In the interests of the game as a whole, local bridge administrations must completely delegate law-making to the WBFLC, for a year or so, and promise to implement whatever decisions it makes. The prognosis is that, if we leave the disease untreated, the complications will kill Bridge. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 18 08:07:03 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:07:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: <3DFDE1DD.1030106@skynet.be> <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20021217224717.01eb2a90@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <3E002CA7.1040300@skynet.be> David J. Grabiner wrote: > track of an outstanding trump. Try changing it to eliminate the problem: > >> Spades are trumps: >> >> - >> - >> A >> AK8 >> Q - >> - - >> 6 875 >> 76 2 >> - >> A >> 2 >> 54 >> >> South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has seen QJT9 of >> clubs and thus knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's >> outstanding trump. If he is held to this line, he would be required >> to discard the DA on the heart, giving E-W four tricks. However, it >> will be clear to declarer once West has ruffed the heart that the >> claim has broken down, and that it is now irrational to discard the >> good DA. I would award two tricks to E-W: declarer pitches DA on the >> HA as West pitches a club, West ruffs the second club, and then West >> cashes a diamond at the last trick. >> >> Switch the East and West hands, and now E-W do get four tricks; >> declarer is now trying to follow the line as stated, pitching the DA >> before East ruffs. > > > Now, however, if declarer claims without a statement, he should be > assumed to know that the C8 is good, and thus it is normal to throw a > winner in either suit from dummy. Thus the ruling is the same whether > there is a statement or not. > > Exactly. Change the example again - make it the J of clubs. Declarer says "all high". Is it rational to pitch one ace on another when having 5 tricks out of 4 - I don't believe so, but this may well be an interesting question, and I'm prepared to admit that it comes close. But the point is that the claim statement is immaterial for the purposes of knowing what declarer will do. It is important for knowing what precise error declarer has made. If instead he had claimed "you only get your trump", we would rule that pitching one ace on another is irrational, and the claim would stand (or am I overlooking a line?) In fact, allow me to be even harsher than some. In this claim, declarer has said "ace of heart and three clubs". Suppose the opponents hands are such that declarer loses even more tricks if he plays three clubs and the diamond ace. I would prefer the claim laws to be such that all normal lines be considered, not just those that claimer happens to mention. This is a claim for five of the last four tricks. The order is immaterial. And then the claim statement is only needed to establish what declarer knows about the hand. Mind you, I am not advocating abolishing claim statements. They are quite necessary, as a polite gesture to opponents. After all, we're trying to save time, so let's not waste it again by having opponents needing to check everything. But if a claimer says "3 spades, 2 hearts and a diamond", this is not a statement of how he shall play, only of which tricks he plans to make. In any order. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 18 08:23:18 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:23:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <4A256C93.00075FBC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E003076.2010402@skynet.be> I am not in the habit of posting mere "me too" posts, but since it is Richard, I believe it is only fair to notice that we are not always in different camps: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > I agree that a careless statement is > demonstrable evidence of a careless mind. > yes. > So, therefore, I agree that if declarer did > not specifically state the careful play in > this suit: > > Declarer Dummy > A10xx KQ9xx > > then if declarer's RHO holds Jxxx, as TD I > would rule that a declarer of any skill level > would lose a trick. > while if it is LHO, claimer cannot go wrong. > But, I disagree with these assertions: > > a) that the TD's bridge judgement should be > more facile than typical UI or MI cases. Exactly. We accept that UI or MI need TD judgment, then why not also in claim cases? > b) that intent should have *nothing* to do > with the TD's determination of the matter, > and, Exactly. Claimer's intent is the most important thing. Difficult to determine, but let's try nevertheless. > c) that the statement alone should have to be > judged by the TD. > > A careless statement is *not* demonstrable > evidence of an _irrational_ mind. Put me in > with Tim West-Meads, who wrote: > > [big snip] > > >>Sometimes it is necessary to extract the >>meaning from imperfect language. The >>meaning is what matters, not the words. >> > > [snip] > > >>If verbal communication were perfect men would >>understand women, claims would be resolved >>without problems and BLML would be deserted. >>Please note a distinct lack of breath-holding >>in this vicinity. >> > Me too. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 18 08:30:14 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:30:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correct weight References: <4A256C92.00830239.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E003216.2080109@skynet.be> Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > I wrote: > > > > Herman replied: > > >>>I do. >>> >>>Here you are all arguing that the current claim laws >>>are too lenient on claimers, and this is a law that >>>would be even more beneficial to a claimer. >>> > > What is "too" lenient? "Should" claimers be benefited? > Not my words - those of several conributers. > Edgar Kaplan once argued that claimers should not be > discouraged by hair-splitting Burnian technicalities > invalidating claims, since generally claims serve a > useful social purpose of shortening session times. > Indeed they do. So we should not be too harsh on "careless statements". > >>>What this means is that if there are three possible >>>lines, leading to -4, -2 and made, the ruling would be >>>weighted on those three. >>> >>>While the current ruling is -4. >>> > > True. But is the current ruling "too" harsh to be > equitable? > Some people on this list are advocating that -8 would still be right. And here we find Grattan going along with a suggestion that the laws be changed to make it -2. > Ton replied: > > >>It depends on what kind of principle you are thinking >>of. In principle we can make the laws as we like. But >>the approach (principle) for claims at the moment >>being that doubtful claims are decided against the >>claimer, I tend to disagree with you. My contribution >>in the drafting committee will be that we should keep >>it like that: no weighted scores. But Riccardi has >>tried one before so he might be willing to join you. >> > > What I am suggesting is that the 2004 Laws should be > based on a *consistent* underlying set of principles. > > It is unprincipled to arbitrarily legislate that these > two philosophically inconsistent rules are part of the > same Laws: > > a) an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted > score in order to do equity. > > b) any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > claimer. > I was not commenting on the merits of the change. I was merely saying that the climate is such that this would seem a change in the wrong direction, and I a m surprised that Grattan has taken this thread to bring up Antonio's suggestion. > 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 normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 09:43:38 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:43:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: "William Crack arrived, in answer to repeated shouts" [M.R. James] Herman: >But where does it stop? >Should Wilkosz explain how he's going to make four tricks off AQxx KJx? Moi: Why on earth not? How long does it take to say "these two then over there for those two"? Herman: >I don't believe it is right to ask Wilkosz to say "I'll play king and jack >of hearts, then ace and queen". Moi encore He's exactly the sort of person who should do this. If good behaviour and practice start from the top, they will filter down. They won't move in the other direction. Norman. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 18 10:07:55 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Brown stickers and psychics References: Message-ID: <001a01c2a67d$566508e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 12:44 AM Subject: [blml] Brown stickers and psychics > > In the WBF Systems Policy it is written (2.4.d) that "psychic bids > protected by system or required by system" are Brown Sticker Conventions. > > Suppose a player grows very fond of responding 1S to 1 of a minor opening, > with or without a double, on either a real spade suit, or a > normal-responding-strength hand very short in spades. > > If he doesn't alert 1S, but DOES use 1D-1S-2S-2NT and 1D-1S-3S-3NT as to > play (partner may not return to spades), he is clearly using a psychic > control. > > Suppose, however, that he alerts and explains 1S as "either 4+ spades, 6+ > HCP, or short in spades intending to play notrump later," explicitly > making it part of his system. > > If you are up front about this, and announce your intention to do it > anytime you have this type of hand -- is it just a mildly strange system, > sort of like the 'Impossible Negative' in Precision? Or do you still call > this a Brown Sticker convention? I haven't checked it out in detail against the Norwegian regulations, but it seems to me that including a convention like that in a system will result in the entire system being classified as a yellow class ("highly unusual") system in Norway (sharing the class with for instance strong pass systems) regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 18 10:56:31 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:56:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <3E00545F.8030109@skynet.be> OK Norman, shall I have another go. Norman Scorbie wrote: > "William Crack arrived, in answer to repeated shouts" > [M.R. James] > > > Herman: > >> But where does it stop? >> Should Wilkosz explain how he's going to make four tricks off AQxx KJx? > > > Moi: > Why on earth not? How long does it take to say "these two then over > there for those two"? > But where does it stop? Should Wilkosz explain how he's going to make four tricks off AKQJ xxx? And if that one is not enough: But where does it stop? Should Wilkosz explain "this one with the one pip is the highest, then this male figure, then this female one". Really Norman, the point some people are trying to make is that we should not have to judge what is normal and what not. That reasoning is absurd, since at some extreme point even Norman Scorbie will admit that something is normal enough not to need explaining. > Herman: > >> I don't believe it is right to ask Wilkosz to say "I'll play king and >> jack of hearts, then ace and queen". > > > Moi encore > He's exactly the sort of person who should do this. If good behaviour > and practice start from the top, they will filter down. They won't move > in the other direction. > That is true - if Wilkosz is playing against Mrs Guggenheim. But if he is playing Martens, I don't want Martens getting some tricks because Wilkosz did not state exactly how he would make those four tricks. Good behaviour and practice, yes - Laws and regulations, no. If Wilkosz claims against me on a line too difficult for me I will ask him to explain it more thoroughly, and I won't mind if some director tells me - this really was normal for him if maybe not for you. And then I will thank Mr Wilkosz for his overestimating me. All this has got to do with is etiquette and pleasantness. Nothing to do with claims rulings. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 11:36:50 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:36:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael OK Norman, shall I have another go. Be my guest. >But where does it stop? >Should Wilkosz explain how he's going to make four tricks off AKQJ xxx? ++++He doesn't have to, does he? This is fundamentally different from AQxx opposite KJx, or K10xx opposite AQ9xx, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. Claiming AKQJ opposite xxx by saying "...and Four Spade [or whatever] tricks is no hardship whatsoever, and takes less than a second, even with my cheap teeth in. >But where does it stop? >Should Wilkosz explain "this one with the one pip is the highest, then this >male figure, then this female one". A point supported by sarcasm is no point at all [Eisenhower]. >Really Norman, the point some people are trying to make is that we should >not have to judge what is normal and what not. >That reasoning is absurd, >since at some extreme point even Norman Scorbie will admit that something >is normal enough not to need explaining. This does not resolve the problem of subjective applications of the concept of normality. This problem can only be resolved by removing the subjective aspect altogether, and making people state clearly what they intend to do, in terms that anyone can understand. >>Herman: >That is true - if Wilkosz is playing against Mrs Guggenheim. But if he is >playing Martens, I don't want Martens getting some tricks because Wilkosz >did not state exactly how he would make those four tricks. Your concept works only if Wiklosz is playing against Wiklosz, and his opponent has a perfect insight into what is 'normal' in his mind, and what isn't. In all other circumstances it is flawed because nobody knows what is 'normal' for someone else. They might think they know. But that is not the same as knowing. Norman _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 18 13:16:21 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:16:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] weighted claims References: Message-ID: <016501c2a697$aac5fdd0$42c7f1c3@LNV> Grattan wants (more) arguments before accepting (and agreeing with?) a statement that we should not start weighted claims, which I gave in a previous message. Let me try. Where there seem to be some people who want to punish lousy claims by demanding irrational play to decide the number of tricks I feel happy with the current laws saying that doubtful points should be decided in favor of claimer's opponents. Given that law there is no room for weighted scores. And the laws do give some impression on how to interpret doubt, though we could express that clearer. We could say that a badly stated claim wil only be awarded when the tricks are made with any normal play. (which is what L70C does already for a trump left). What purpose does a weighted score have then? It only can be applied in case of doubt in my opinion. Since the TD awards the full claim when claimer will make the tricks he announced. This means that the proposal to introduce weighted claims is in favor of the player who might loose a trick he announced to make. I didn''t read any message going in that direction. THAT IS WHY. There is another explanation for this proposal: taking into account the tricks claimed (and made with any normal play) and one or more less supposing irrational play, resulting in a weighted score. Nobody will be surprised that I don't support that idea. Consequence would be that every claim will end in a weighted score. It is still possible that I didn't understand the deeper thoughts behind this idea of weighted scores. Try to make me understand then. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 18 14:19:23 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:19:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021218151830.00ac2b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:17 17/12/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner: > >>South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has a count on the hand >>and knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding trump. > >How can we progress from there? How can South have a count of the hand if >he has forgotten West has a trump? This is nonsense. AG : Norman, would you please find another culprit ? I never wrote the above sentence. (and would not admit it if I did) From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 18 14:26:35 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:26:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Brown stickers and psychics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021218152130.00ac22a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:44 17/12/2002 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >In the WBF Systems Policy it is written (2.4.d) that "psychic bids >protected by system or required by system" are Brown Sticker Conventions. > >Suppose a player grows very fond of responding 1S to 1 of a minor opening, >with or without a double, on either a real spade suit, or a >normal-responding-strength hand very short in spades. > >If he doesn't alert 1S, but DOES use 1D-1S-2S-2NT and 1D-1S-3S-3NT as to >play (partner may not return to spades), he is clearly using a psychic >control. > >Suppose, however, that he alerts and explains 1S as "either 4+ spades, 6+ >HCP, or short in spades intending to play notrump later," explicitly >making it part of his system. > >If you are up front about this, and announce your intention to do it >anytime you have this type of hand -- is it just a mildly strange system, >sort of like the 'Impossible Negative' in Precision? Or do you still call >this a Brown Sticker convention? AG : according to the description of BSCs, it is notr one, because : 1) BSCs can only be openings or overcalls, not responses 2) even if it once happened that we add responses to BSCs, this one would not be, because "barring a strong hand, one 4+ suit is known". Besides, this is a bad convention : you don't find Moysian spades anymore. AQJx Kxx xxx xx xx AKxx AQJx Kxxx 1C 1S 2S 3NT ? Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 18 14:20:57 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:20:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <3E008449.9090303@skynet.be> No Norma, you have not understood my point. Norman Scorbie wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael > > arguments > >> OK Norman, shall I have another go. > > > Be my guest. > >> But where does it stop? >> Should Wilkosz explain how he's going to make four tricks off AKQJ xxx? > > > ++++He doesn't have to, does he? This is fundamentally different from > AQxx opposite KJx, or K10xx opposite AQ9xx, and nobody is suggesting > otherwise. Claiming AKQJ opposite xxx by saying "...and Four Spade [or > whatever] tricks is no hardship whatsoever, and takes less than a > second, even with my cheap teeth in. > "no hardship whatsoever" Is that the degree you want to introduce? Why is "AKQJ xxx" no hardhip, but "AQxx KJx" is? Where do you draw the line ? And my point is that wherever YOU draw the line, you have drawn a line. I have drawn another line. Some people say that there is no need for lines. They are wrong. Even Norman Scorbie has some line - the "no hardship" line. >> But where does it stop? >> Should Wilkosz explain "this one with the one pip is the highest, then >> this male figure, then this female one". > > > A point supported by sarcasm is no point at all [Eisenhower]. > The point I was trying to make was that even if Norman Scorbie was not convinced of "AKQJ xxx" there would be some point where he would agree that saying nothing would be enough. >> Really Norman, the point some people are trying to make is that we >> should not have to judge what is normal and what not. >> That reasoning is absurd, >> since at some extreme point even Norman Scorbie will admit that >> something is normal enough not to need explaining. > > > This does not resolve the problem of subjective applications of the > concept of normality. This problem can only be resolved by removing the > subjective aspect altogether, and making people state clearly what they > intend to do, in terms that anyone can understand. > As I stated, that is exactly not a solution. You cannot remove the subjective aspect without introducing another one. Just at a different level. >>> Herman: >> > >> That is true - if Wilkosz is playing against Mrs Guggenheim. But if he >> is playing Martens, I don't want Martens getting some tricks because >> Wilkosz did not state exactly how he would make those four tricks. > > > Your concept works only if Wiklosz is playing against Wiklosz, and his > opponent has a perfect insight into what is 'normal' in his mind, and > what isn't. In all other circumstances it is flawed because nobody knows > what is 'normal' for someone else. They might think they know. But that > is not the same as knowing. > I agree - and that is what blm (among other things) is for - for trying to come to grips with the word normal. Compare it to the UI laws. We discuss LA's all the time, yet we don't seem to be concluding that it would be better if we got rid of the concept. Why should there be any more problem with a concept like "normal". And don't forget that doubt is still ruled against claimer. Do you really doubt that Wilkosz knows how to play AQxx KJx? So why not call it normal then? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 14:53:29 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:53:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims Message-ID: >>>South claims, "A of hearts and AK8 of clubs," (he has a count on the hand >>>and knows that the C8 will be good), forgetting West's outstanding trump. >> >>How can we progress from there? How can South have a count of the hand if >>he has forgotten West has a trump? This is nonsense. > >AG : Norman, would you please find another culprit ? ++++I will. And when I do... >I never wrote the above sentence. (and would not admit it if I did) ++++Careless editing on my behalf. Apologies _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 15:10:41 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:10:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael >No Norma, you have not understood my point. Norma????You must have caught me trying on Mrs. Scorbie's Christmas present... >Claiming AKQJ opposite xxx by saying "...and >>Four Spade [or whatever] tricks is no hardship whatsoever, and takes less >>than a second, even with my cheap teeth in. >> > > >"no hardship whatsoever" > >Is that the degree you want to introduce? >Why is "AKQJ xxx" no hardhip, but "AQxx KJx" is? >Where do you draw the line ? ++++I'm claiming it's no hardship for him to explain it, the same way that it is no hardship to explain the latter. "Four top Spades, throwing a Diamond, cash the King, Jack of Hearts then over to dummy with a small Heart for the Ace and Queen" Is a comprehensive statement covering xxx AQxx x - AKQJ KJx - - and takes precisely three seconds, or, the acid test of claiming, less time to explain than it would to play. Why do you think that it is too much to ask a declarer to do this if (in your opinion) he is a good player, when you would insist upon it from a poor or unknown player? If you treat everyone the same, the good players will learn to deal with it (they'll have to) and the poor players will never feel that courtesies (to use a polite term) are being extended to good players that aren't being extended to them. >And my point is that wherever YOU draw the line, you have drawn a line. I don't think I did draw a line. >I have drawn another line. Some people say that there is no need for lines. >They are wrong. Even Norman Scorbie has some line - the "no hardship" line. That wasn't a line. I still made him state it. [NS] >>A point supported by sarcasm is no point at all [Eisenhower]. Congratulations on not rising to the bait there... _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 18 15:33:38 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:33:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <3E009552.6010807@skynet.be> Norman Scorbie wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael > > >> No Norma, you have not understood my point. > > > Norma????You must have caught me trying on Mrs. Scorbie's Christmas > present... > Sorry - I believe it is norma, not irrationa, to call norma norm. >> Claiming AKQJ opposite xxx by saying "...and >> >>> Four Spade [or whatever] tricks is no hardship whatsoever, and takes >>> less than a second, even with my cheap teeth in. >>> >> >> >> "no hardship whatsoever" >> >> Is that the degree you want to introduce? >> Why is "AKQJ xxx" no hardhip, but "AQxx KJx" is? >> Where do you draw the line ? > > > ++++I'm claiming it's no hardship for him to explain it, the same way > that it is no hardship to explain the latter. "Four top Spades, throwing > a Diamond, cash the King, Jack of Hearts then over to dummy with a small > Heart for the Ace and Queen" Is a comprehensive statement covering > > xxx > AQxx > x > - > > AKQJ > KJx > - > - > > and takes precisely three seconds, or, the acid test of claiming, less > time to explain than it would to play. > I agree with you - but where do you want to go? Are you trying to educate players, asking them to be more polite to their opponents? In that case, I applaude your goal, but think your means are far too harsh. Ruling against this claim will drive people away, not make them claim more politely. Or are you trying to get to a legal system that is more fair than the current one? Because you will have claims that are less complete than you'd wish. What are you going to do? If you are simply going to award them PP's for wasting their opponent's time, I agree with you. But you seem eager to rule against them. Why? To teach them a lesson? or because you feel they don't deserve their tricks? > Why do you think that it is too much to ask a declarer to do this if (in > your opinion) he is a good player, when you would insist upon it from a > poor or unknown player? If you treat everyone the same, the good players > will learn to deal with it (they'll have to) and the poor players will > never feel that courtesies (to use a polite term) are being extended to > good players that aren't being extended to them. > A common argument, but not a valid one. Mrs Guggenheim would not claim this, and if she would, she's probably indeed forgotten something. I would claim this, and maybe I would have forgotten. But Wilkosz would not have forgotten. So there is no treating anybody differently. The same statements just indicate different mindsets in different people. >> And my point is that wherever YOU draw the line, you have drawn a line. > > > I don't think I did draw a line. > Yes you did. You admitted AKQJ xxx but not AQxx KJx. Somewhere in between there is a line. Or are you suggesting that you only accept legal lines? And that you would not accept AKQJ2 6543? >> I have drawn another line. Some people say that there is no need for >> lines. They are wrong. Even Norman Scorbie has some line - the "no >> hardship" line. > > > That wasn't a line. I still made him state it. > But what do you do if he doesn't state? Do you accept AKQJ xxx or not? > [NS] > >>> A point supported by sarcasm is no point at all [Eisenhower]. >> > > Congratulations on not rising to the bait there... > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 18 15:47:43 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:47:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021218164525.00acd490@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:10 18/12/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >>Is that the degree you want to introduce? >>Why is "AKQJ xxx" no hardhip, but "AQxx KJx" is? >>Where do you draw the line ? > >++++I'm claiming it's no hardship for him to explain it, the same way that >it is no hardship to explain the latter. "Four top Spades, throwing a >Diamond, cash the King, Jack of Hearts then over to dummy with a small >Heart for the Ace and Queen" Is a comprehensive statement covering > >xxx >AQxx >x >- > >AKQJ >KJx >- >- > >and takes precisely three seconds, or, the acid test of claiming, less >time to explain than it would to play. AG : no need to be that long. Just put your KJ of hearts on the table. It means you play them first. (you will have to) From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Dec 18 16:47:06 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:47:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <6809800.1040230026972.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >No Norman, you have not understood my point. Yes, he has. He just doesn't agree with it. Those are not the same thing. >I agree with you - but where do you want to go? Are you trying to educate players, asking them to be more polite to their opponents? Well, if this is a by-product of getting people to make claims that don't cause controversy, ill-feeling, and wrong rulings, then it is a useful by-product. Indeed, one might almost say that it would compensate for slowing the game down, the *only* undesirable by-product of proper claims. >In that case, I applaude your goal, but think your means are far too harsh. Ruling against this claim will drive people away, not make them claim more politely. How do you know? How does anyone know? *You* might not want to sit at a table where players make proper claim statements, but why do you think that you speak for the majority of bridge players? >Or are you trying to get to a legal system that is more fair than the current one? Yes, Herman. That is what we are trying to do. > Because you will have claims that are less complete than you'd wish. Why? Because players cannot be bothered to comply with the rules? > What are you going to do? If you are simply going to award them PP's for wasting their opponent's time, I agree with you. But you seem eager to rule against them. Why? To teach them a lesson? or because you feel they don't deserve their tricks? Herman, it is not a question of what a player deserves. If a player leaves an ace in the board when removing his cards, does he deserve to take a trick with that ace? Or does he deserve not only not to take a trick with that ace, but to suffer revoke penalties for failing to play that ace? Similarly, it is no objection to changing the claim rules to say: "Players will not get tricks they deserve." Of course they will - if they do not make proper claim statements, they will not deserve the tricks they misclaim, just as if they do not take all their cards out of the board, they do not deserve to take tricks with the ones they have left behind. It is carelessness to leave your cards in the board; the rules will punish you for it, and no one considers the punishment unjust. It is carelessnesss not to claim properly, and if the rules were to punish you for that as well, why would anyone feel that the punishment was unjust? > But Wilkosz would not have forgotten. Nonsense. The history of world championship finals contains all manner of incidents where players have "forgotten" such elementary things. You don't read about them, of course - they are described usually as a "loss of concentration", which is a euphemism for a grotesque blunder. But they happen. >So there is no treating anybody differently. The same statements just indicate different mindsets in different people. This makes almost no sense to me at all. David Burn London, England From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 16:52:56 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:52:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: Cutting to the chase: Herman: >But what do you do if he doesn't state? Do you accept AKQJ xxx or not? In theory or in practice? Is this where there's a line drawn in the sand? And would crossing it be the thin end of the wedge? As a (so-called) player, if I faced my hand with AKQJ and an opponent gazed at me with dumb, cowlike eyes, I would indeed explain very carefully and very slowly. The onus to do this is upon me, like it or not, or no matter how stupid it seems to be. I don't expect my opponents to do my claiming for me, nor the tournament director, nor a group of lawmakers in a far away country. I may, it appears, not have unanimous support in this view. I've just noticed that I haven't appended my country of origin to any of my recent "contributions" - it's England. This may explain in part my attitude: A lot of my (unmet) David Burn's recent mailings have made a lot of sense to me, although he seems a lot more depressed about the current state of affairs than I am. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 18 17:15:04 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:15:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <6809800.1040230026972.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E00AD18.1060901@skynet.be> Hello David, I am quite amazed at your insistence in this issue. You are the only person I know that has a correct (other) view on the claims laws. Your manner of writing the claim laws is the only other consistent one. Yet you know that while this is how you'd want the claim laws to be, they are not. But when I was addressing Norman, I was, and still am, unsure of his point of view. Is he trying to say that Burnian claim laws are better. Is he trying to seduce us into trying some Scorbian claim laws. Or is he deluded into thinking he is talking about the actual claims laws? dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>No Norman, you have not understood my point. >> > > Yes, he has. He just doesn't agree with it. Those are not the same thing. > Well, if he has understood me, he has not shown it. > >>I agree with you - but where do you want to go? Are you trying to educate players, asking them to be more polite to their opponents? >> > > Well, if this is a by-product of getting people to make claims that don't cause controversy, ill-feeling, and wrong rulings, then it is a useful by-product. Indeed, one might almost say that it would compensate for slowing the game down, the *only* undesirable by-product of proper claims. > Maybe that is true, but if it is the only goal you are trying to achieve then the laws are far too harsh for that. A PP for a missing statement will achieve far better results then. > >>In that case, I applaude your goal, but think your means are far too harsh. Ruling against this claim will drive people away, not make them claim more politely. >> > > How do you know? How does anyone know? *You* might not want to sit at a table where players make proper claim statements, but why do you think that you speak for the majority of bridge players? > Well, I am merely doing what many others are doing on blml. Writing personal opinions without always adding IMO. > >>Or are you trying to get to a legal system that is more fair than the current one? >> > > Yes, Herman. That is what we are trying to do. > Speak for yourself, will you - has Norman said he wants to belong to the BS? > >>Because you will have claims that are less complete than you'd wish. >> > > Why? Because players cannot be bothered to comply with the rules? > Indeed. And sometimes not even of their own fault. How about a player who claims a NT contract on a cross-ruff. His claim will break down when hihs first ruff is not acknowledged by the opponents. From then on, you basically have a claim without a statement. We need rules to deal with such cases. Now if you want to say "worst of all legal", that is a possibility. But then you also give -11 on that 7NT of the past week. But I am still working along "worst of all normal" lines. And that means defining "normal". Something Norman is reluctant to admit needs doing. > >>What are you going to do? If you are simply going to award them PP's for wasting their opponent's time, I agree with you. But you seem eager to rule against them. Why? To teach them a lesson? or because you feel they don't deserve their tricks? >> > > Herman, it is not a question of what a player deserves. If a player leaves an ace in the board when removing his cards, does he deserve to take a trick with that ace? Or does he deserve not only not to take a trick with that ace, but to suffer revoke penalties for failing to play that ace? > David, it is precisely a question of what a player deserves. > Similarly, it is no objection to changing the claim rules to say: "Players will not get tricks they deserve." Of course they will - if they do not make proper claim statements, they will not deserve the tricks they misclaim, just as if they do not take all their cards out of the board, they do not deserve to take tricks with the ones they have left behind. It is carelessness to leave your cards in the board; the rules will punish you for it, and no one considers the punishment unjust. It is carelessnesss not to claim properly, and if the rules were to punish you for that as well, why would anyone feel that the punishment was unjust? > > >>But Wilkosz would not have forgotten. >> > > Nonsense. The history of world championship finals contains all manner of incidents where players have "forgotten" such elementary things. You don't read about them, of course - they are described usually as a "loss of concentration", which is a euphemism for a grotesque blunder. But they happen. > If that is the standard then all claims are immediately solved as zero tricks to claimer. > >>So there is no treating anybody differently. The same statements just indicate different mindsets in different people. >> > > This makes almost no sense to me at all. > This makes almost no sense to me at all. You see? The same statement can imply a different mindset in different people. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 18 17:25:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:25:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <3E00AF6D.4060005@skynet.be> Norman Scorbie wrote: > Cutting to the chase: > Indeed. > Herman: > >> But what do you do if he doesn't state? Do you accept AKQJ xxx or not? > > > In theory or in practice? Is this where there's a line drawn in the > sand? And would crossing it be the thin end of the wedge? > I was merely trying to induce you into admitting that you would accept this claim without a statement. Ergo, to have you admit that there are "normal" lines which are acceptable without being stated full-out. We may differ on where the line is, but you cannot say there is no such line. That is all I am trying to make you see at the moment. David may wish for a claim law that says "worst of all legal" or even "worst of all possible (including revokes)", but as long as you are along any sane lines "worst of all normal" is the only way forward. Which just leaves us to define normal. Your original remarks suggested that we did not need the word "normal" at all. I hope I have been able to show to you that this is sadly impossible. > As a (so-called) player, if I faced my hand with AKQJ and an opponent > gazed at me with dumb, cowlike eyes, I would indeed explain very > carefully and very slowly. The onus to do this is upon me, like it or > not, or no matter how stupid it seems to be. I don't expect my opponents > to do my claiming for me, nor the tournament director, nor a group of > lawmakers in a far away country. > I agree - but with regards to the current claim laws, your clarification statement, which came after the cowlike eyes, is too late. So the Director should not take it into account. The ruling should be the same as if you had simply said nothing, and your opponent had called the TD saying you had claimed without a statement. What is that ruling? Let's distinguish between two aims. Getting players to issue completer statements for their opponent's benefit - and settling claims in a way that the players accept. I believe (Personal Opinion) that a player who claims four tricks from AQxx KJx will not be happy if you rule that he might have blocked that suit and award him only three tricks from it. > I may, it appears, not have unanimous support in this view. > > I've just noticed that I haven't appended my country of origin to any of > my recent "contributions" - it's England. This may explain in part my > attitude: A lot of my (unmet) David Burn's recent mailings have made a > lot of sense to me, although he seems a lot more depressed about the > current state of affairs than I am. > I don't recall whether it was your posting or the fact that I've known you on blml for a long time already that made me realize you were from this side of the chasm that separates us from the ACBL, but I realize this. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 18 17:26:55 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:26:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <200212181726.MAA27324@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > But, I disagree with these assertions: > > a) that the TD's bridge judgement should be > more facile than typical UI or MI cases. > b) that intent should have *nothing* to do > with the TD's determination of the matter, > and, > c) that the statement alone should have to be > judged by the TD. > > A careless statement is *not* demonstrable > evidence of an _irrational_ mind. Put me in > with Tim West-Meads, who wrote: > > [big snip] > > >Sometimes it is necessary to extract the > >meaning from imperfect language. The > >meaning is what matters, not the words. If you agree with Tim, as I do, I fail to see how you can disagree with a) or c). As for b), I draw a distinction between the "intended line of play" and the "intended meaning of the claim statement." Perhaps that's a false distinction, but the latter is something that can reasonably be judged, while the former cannot or at best is very much harder. Herman definitely disagrees; he wants to judge the player's state of mind and derive the intended line of play from that. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 18 18:06:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <4A256C92.00296B2D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > >>As a matter of courtesy a player should > >>refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as > >>in playing on although he knows that all the > >>tricks are surely his) for the purpose of > >>disconcerting an opponent. > > While I do not use the penetratingly accurate > words of David Burn when claiming, it seems to > me that the penetratingly accurate interpretation > of the bracketed words in Law 74B4 is that prompt > claims *are* required by Law. Another one for the mind-readers. It is (implicit in the above) perfectly legal to play on if one's purpose is to reduce the complexity of the claim to level that enables opponents to understand. By a similar token it may also be legal to play out a claim situation for the purpose of having time penalties imposed on opponents. At least in the former case one can argue that play (or at least the time taken to resolve the hand) is likely to be quicker by playing out than by claiming on a double squeeze against novices. Perhaps we would be better served were the closing bracket after the word opponent rather than his. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 18 22:23:46 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:23:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] weighted claims In-Reply-To: <016501c2a697$aac5fdd0$42c7f1c3@LNV> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021218171636.026c5ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:16 AM 12/18/02, Ton wrote: >Grattan wants (more) arguments before accepting (and agreeing with?) a >statement that we should not start weighted claims, which I gave in a >previous message. >Let me try. Where there seem to be some people who want to punish lousy >claims by demanding irrational play to decide the number of tricks I feel >happy with the current laws saying that doubtful points should be >decided in >favor of claimer's opponents. Given that law there is no room for weighted >scores. And the laws do give some impression on how to interpret doubt, >though we could express that clearer. We could say that a badly stated >claim >wil only be awarded when the tricks are made with any normal play. >(which is >what L70C does already for a trump left). > >What purpose does a weighted score have then? It only can be applied >in case >of doubt in my opinion. Since the TD awards the full claim when >claimer will >make the tricks he announced. This means that the proposal to introduce >weighted claims is in favor of the player who might loose a trick he >announced to make. I didn''t read any message going in that direction. >THAT >IS WHY. >There is another explanation for this proposal: taking into account the >tricks claimed (and made with any normal play) and one or more less >supposing irrational play, resulting in a weighted score. Nobody will be >surprised that I don't support that idea. Consequence would be that every >claim will end in a weighted score. An additional argument is simply that computing (or even just considering) weighted scores would add a level of complexity to the process of adjudicating claims, which, in real life situations faced by TDs and ACs, is already complicated enough. Those who are unhappy with the current process are put off primarily by the fact that many such adjudications are highly inconsistent from case to (similar) case, and allowing weighted scores would make them even more so. 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 Dec 18 22:33:41 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:33:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <3E008449.9090303@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021218172607.026bce50@pop.starpower.net> At 09:20 AM 12/18/02, Herman wrote: >Compare it to the UI laws. We discuss LA's all the time, yet we don't >seem to be concluding that it would be better if we got rid of the >concept. Why should there be any more problem with a concept like >"normal". And don't forget that doubt is still ruled against claimer. >Do you really doubt that Wilkosz knows how to play AQxx KJx? So why >not call it normal then? I don't see that we need to bring Mr. Wilkosz into the picture to determine what should be called "normal". Does anyone really doubt that Mrs. Guggenheim knows how to play AQxx opposite KJx? I think we can (and should) live with a concept of "normal" that applies to plays that we would want to consider normal no matter whose claim we are adjudicating. 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 Dec 18 22:47:25 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:47:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021218173606.026a0be0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:10 AM 12/18/02, Norman wrote: >++++I'm claiming it's no hardship for him to explain it, the same way >that it is no hardship to explain the latter. "Four top Spades, >throwing a Diamond, cash the King, Jack of Hearts then over to dummy >with a small Heart for the Ace and Queen" Is a comprehensive statement >covering > >xxx >AQxx >x >- > >AKQJ >KJx >- >- [sic] >and takes precisely three seconds, or, the acid test of claiming, less >time to explain than it would to play. > >Why do you think that it is too much to ask a declarer to do this if >(in your opinion) he is a good player, when you would insist upon it >from a poor or unknown player? If you treat everyone the same, the >good players will learn to deal with it (they'll have to) and the poor >players will never feel that courtesies (to use a polite term) are >being extended to good players that aren't being extended to them. I don't think Herman has suggested requiring that declarer be a good player (in either his or anyone's opinion) in order not to be required to explain so obvious a position in such detail. Why should the rankest novice be required to say anything more than "I have four spade tricks and four heart tricks"? If we treat everyone the same (and I believe that we should), that doesn't mean that we must treat everyone as if they were totally brain-dead. 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 Dec 18 22:53:54 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:53:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <3E009552.6010807@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021218174929.0269d950@pop.starpower.net> At 10:33 AM 12/18/02, Herman wrote: >Norman Scorbie wrote: > >>Why do you think that it is too much to ask a declarer to do this if >>(in your opinion) he is a good player, when you would insist upon it >>from a poor or unknown player? If you treat everyone the same, the >>good players will learn to deal with it (they'll have to) and the >>poor players will never feel that courtesies (to use a polite term) >>are being extended to good players that aren't being extended to them. > >A common argument, but not a valid one. Mrs Guggenheim would not claim >this, and if she would, she's probably indeed forgotten something. >I would claim this, and maybe I would have forgotten. >But Wilkosz would not have forgotten. >So there is no treating anybody differently. The same statements just >indicate different mindsets in different people. In my own reply to Norman, I wrote, "I don't think Herman has suggested requiring that declarer be a good player (in either his or anyone's opinion) in order not to be required to explain so obvious a position in such detail." Apparently (sadly) I was wrong. Herman says that Mrs. Guggenheim would not claim this, but surely, if she did, we would have no reason to assume that had she played it she would have screwed it up, any more than we would have any reason to assume that Mr. Wilkosz would. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 18 23:38:58 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:38:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correct weight References: <4A256C92.00830239.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001f01c2a6ee$fb717820$6f1ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 11:59 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Correct weight > > >>Here you are all arguing that the current claim laws > >>are too lenient on claimers, and this is a law that > >>would be even more beneficial to a claimer. > > What is "too" lenient? "Should" claimers be benefited? > +=+ Not all. I have expressed disquiet that our current claims law gives the opponent too much, and the claimer too little, when a statement of clarification leaves a doubt. There is a thought in my mind that we should try to get nearer to the balance of likelihood of what would have happened if the hand were played out. This is what motivates me to think about weighted averages; it is a question what the philosophy of the approach to contested claims should be. I do not see why a pair should get an extreme score just because an opponent made a claim against them in a way they could contest, nor does it feel like equity to me to give claimer the other end of such a score. I do say the claimer has committeed no infraction if his clarification has a hole in it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Dec 19 02:23:29 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:23:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <3E002CA7.1040300@skynet.be> References: <3DFDE1DD.1030106@skynet.be> <8243683.1039721550089.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <009401c2a30b$ab1f05e0$289868d5@default> <005101c2a336$f51a53e0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c2a3b9$795e5de0$d16f87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021215191356.026b1480@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20021217224717.01eb2a90@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021218211731.020d54a8@mail.comcast.net> At 03:07 AM 12/18/2002, Herman De Wael wrote: >In fact, allow me to be even harsher than some. > >In this claim, declarer has said "ace of heart and three clubs". Suppose >the opponents hands are such that declarer loses even more tricks if he >plays three clubs and the diamond ace. >I would prefer the claim laws to be such that all normal lines be >considered, not just those that claimer happens to mention. >This is a claim for five of the last four tricks. The order is immaterial. I don't think the order should be fixed. However, if declarer says, "Ace of hearts and AK8 of clubs", he should not have imposed on him any normal line of play in which he does not attempt to take the ace of hearts. I would not consider only lines in which the ace of hearts is played first; if there wereart in dummy, declarer could reasonably play either suit first. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 19 02:04:52 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:04:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play Message-ID: <4A256C94.00108C8D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "claims, classes and clarity", Law 74B4 was quoted: >>As a matter of courtesy a player should >>refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as >>in playing on although he knows that all the >>tricks are surely his) for the purpose of >>disconcerting an opponent. Tim replied: >Another one for the mind-readers. It is >(implicit in the above) perfectly legal to play >on if one's purpose is to reduce the complexity >of the claim to level that enables opponents to >understand. Yes, my understanding of the word "unnecessarily" is that playing on is required if a claim would take more time to explain, than the time taken by actually playing the cards. >By a similar token it may also be legal to play >out a claim situation for the purpose of having >time penalties imposed on opponents. I agree that Law 74B4 does not currently prohibit deliberate slow play for the purpose of inflicting a slow play penalty on the opponents (see an earlier thread discussing how the Soloway-Goldman partnership lost an ACBL Trials semi-final because their claims were too prompt). But the narrow scope of Law 74B4 is irrelevant; as currently written, Law 74B4 is an unnecessary Law, since *all* deliberate slow play is prohibited by Law 90B2 and consequently Law 72B2. [snip] >Perhaps we would be better served were the >closing bracket after the word opponent rather >than his. If I was rewriting Law 74B4 in 2004, I would not merely move a bracket, but would go for a total rewrite. I would also renumber the Law to follow the current Law 90B2. For example: >>>2004 Laws, Law 90B2-and-a-half >>> >>>Offences subject to penalty include, but are >>>not limited to, failure to claim when >>>appropriate. >>> >>>The gravest possible infraction of this Law is: >>> >>>a) failure by declarer to claim when all the >>>remaining tricks will obviously be won by the >>>declaring side, or >>> >>>b) failure by a particular defender to claim >>>when all the remaining tricks will obviously be >>>won by that particular defender. Noted? Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Dec 19 02:44:34 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 02:44:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <6809800.1040230026972.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E00AD18.1060901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002601c2a708$92d980e0$0aa423d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > I am quite amazed at your insistence in this issue. No need to be. The way in which claims are currently adjudicated seems to me to be wrong. Not simply procedurally wrong, not simply wrong in terms of equity, not simply wrong in terms of a purely legalistic approach - just all wrong. It is possible that this is a completely irrational reaction on my part; it may well be, as you said earlier, that the Laws ain't broke, so we should not try to fix them. But, as was the case with the earlier thread about inferences from potential future calls, there is something in the majority argument that appears to me absurd. I bashed away at that until one or two here were prepared to concede that I might have a point. I bash away at this for the same kind of reason. > You are the only person I know that has a correct (other) view on the > claims laws. Your manner of writing the claim laws is the only other > consistent one. Yet you know that while this is how you'd want the > claim laws to be, they are not. Up to a point. The claim laws at the moment are not anything. Nobody knows what they mean, for the words they use are nowhere defined in any helpful manner. Here is Ton Kooijman, who says that Jeff Meckstroth might "carelessly", as oppose to "irrationally", play AKQ543 facing 8762 by leading the two. Now, if Kooijman thinks that, then one thing is completely obvious - no one has the faintest idea of the distinction between "careless" and "irrational". The point I want to make is that, given that no one has the faintest idea what the distinction should be, there should simply not be one. I know that there is one in the Laws at the moment, and I know that it is the cause of all the problems. My position has, inevitably, been somewhat exaggerated by its detractors. That is inevitable. But the Laws make people be far more punctilious than is their wont in all sorts of ways. The Laws enforce, for example, "full disclosure". Why should not the next set of Laws enforce "full claims"? David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 19 02:13:22 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:13:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <4A256C94.00108C99.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >I draw a distinction between the "intended line >of play" and the "intended meaning of the claim >statement." Perhaps that's a false distinction, >but the latter is something that can reasonably >be judged, while the former cannot or at best is >very much harder. I don't draw such a distinction, but a difference which makes no difference is no difference. My ruling as TD would be identical to Steve's ruling as TD - I would use the claim statement as the only reliable starting point for determining the claimer's intent *at the time of the claim*. Any questioning of the claimer about their intent by the TD would get data about the claimer's intent that was possibly corrupted by second thoughts. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 19 03:40:02 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:40:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] You can't get the wool, you know Message-ID: <4A256C94.00146CD1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Graffitti: >>>My mother made me a homosexual. Responding graffitti: >>If I get her the wool, will she make me one >>too? In "phoenix claims", Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >to the delight of BLML debaters, there are >several woolly laws; these laws give rise to >wildly different rulings by different >conscientious TDs and ACs; even when >presented with identical facts. > >The offending laws tend to be badly phrased, >complex, or subjective (sometimes all three). >There are often several possible fixes but >players tend to prefer shorter, simpler >solutions. Woolly laws, giving rise to wild and woolly variations in decisions of TDs, are inevitable. Even in a system of rules as carefully defined as Bridge World Standard, unanimity of decisions amongst the members of the Master Solvers Club is a blue-moon rarity. [big snip] >In the laws of a game, simplicity and >consistency of enforcement are more important >than abstract fairness. Where did you get the wool to weave that commandment? When I visited Mount Sinai, my tapestry was woven to read, "Fairness is what players want. Players do not care if this means that TDs consequently have more complex responsibilities." [big snip] Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Dec 19 03:40:34 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:40:34 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] You can't get the wool, you know In-Reply-To: <4A256C94.00146CD1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Somebody else wrote: > >In the laws of a game, simplicity and > >consistency of enforcement are more important > >than abstract fairness. > > Where did you get the wool to weave that > commandment? When I visited Mount Sinai, my > tapestry was woven to read, "Fairness is what > players want. Players do not care if this > means that TDs consequently have more complex > responsibilities." Perhaps I can reword the original comment: Fairness is what players want. Laws which the players can easily understand, and which are consistently enforced, will be perceived as fair by almost everyone. Laws which are overly complicated, will be perceived by many as unfair, regardless of how closely those laws approach some ideal equity. Laws which are not consistently enforced, will fail to meet both practical and theoretical standards of fairness. This, I think, is a fairly hefty argument against weighted scores (whether for claims, appeals committees, or anywhere else!): if you go through a long complicated process to arrive at an adjustment, everyone involved in the case will be unhappy with some part of it and hate the final ruling. A nice straightforward ruling will at least be understandable to everyone, and if you're lucky, half the people involved may even agree with it. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 18 23:48:10 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:48:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Brown stickers and psychics Message-ID: <4A256C94.001D59A6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Gordon Bower asked: [snip] >>Suppose, however, that he alerts and >>explains 1S as "either 4+ spades, 6+ >>HCP, or short in spades intending to >>play notrump later," explicitly making >>it part of his system. >> >>If you are up front about this, and >>announce your intention to do it >>anytime you have this type of hand -- >>is it just a mildly strange system, >>sort of like the 'Impossible Negative' >>in Precision? Or do you still call >>this a Brown Sticker convention? Sven Pran replied: [snip] >a convention like that in a system will >result in the entire system being >classified as a yellow class ("highly >unusual") system in Norway (sharing the >class with for instance strong pass >systems) An Aussie gadget freak invented a Forcing Pass system where an opening Pass was 16+ hcp OR 0-4 hcp; and a 1C response to the opening Pass was also 16+ hcp OR 0-4 hcp. A theoretical flaw in this Forcing Pass system was exposed when both players held 19 hcp, both assumed that partner held 0- 4 hcp, and therefore they decided to play a grand slam in a partscore. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 19 07:46:11 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 07:46:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <6809800.1040230026972.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E00AD18.1060901@skynet.be> <002601c2a708$92d980e0$0aa423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002d01c2a732$e95c2a10$7f25e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity > > Up to a point. The claim laws at the moment > are not anything. Nobody knows what they mean, > for the words they use are nowhere defined in any > helpful manner. Here is Ton Kooijman, who says > that Jeff Meckstroth might "carelessly", as opposed > to "irrationally", play AKQ543 facing 8762 by > leading the two. Now, if Kooijman thinks that, then > one thing is completely obvious - no one has the > faintest idea of the distinction between "careless" > and "irrational". > +=+ Surely to block the suit would only be irrational if it were a conscious act done by Meckstroth or Mr. Guggenheim when aware of what he was doing; done simply because of not noticing the pips is it not careless in either? Are not 'inferior' and 'irrational' descriptions of conscious or reasoned actions and 'careless' applicable to the absent mind? When the law book supplies no definition of a word we must go to the best English dictionary we can find. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 19 08:46:23 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:46:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <200212181726.MAA27324@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E01875F.20407@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > If you agree with Tim, as I do, I fail to see how you can disagree with > a) or c). As for b), I draw a distinction between the "intended line > of play" and the "intended meaning of the claim statement." Perhaps > that's a false distinction, but the latter is something that can > reasonably be judged, while the former cannot or at best is very much > harder. > > Herman definitely disagrees; he wants to judge the player's state of > mind and derive the intended line of play from that. > I don't know who I am disagreeing with. But I believe this is indeed the way claims must be adjudicated. The claim statement is more a clarification of the state of mind of declarer and less a definite line of play. Remember the strange claim? In it, a player wanted four tricks from an obviously blocked suit. The only way to literally execute this statement would have been an totally irrational overtaking, while there was a perfectly legal and 50% winning line to the contract. Sadly the 50% line failed while the irrational one worked. In the end the consensus on blml was that declarer was not to be held to a literal execution of his claim statement but received the worst of all normal lines (-1). IIRC there was even a suit of AQTx. Without the 10 all normal lines would have worked, with it the finesse on the jack was also possible and that one failed. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Dec 19 09:02:39 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:02:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <4A256C94.00108C8D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000b01c2a73d$61f05820$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:04 AM .............. > If I was rewriting Law 74B4 in 2004, I would not > merely move a bracket, but would go for a total > rewrite. I would also renumber the Law to follow > the current Law 90B2. For example: > > >>>2004 Laws, Law 90B2-and-a-half > >>> > >>>Offences subject to penalty include, but are > >>>not limited to, failure to claim when > >>>appropriate. > >>> > >>>The gravest possible infraction of this Law is: > >>> > >>>a) failure by declarer to claim when all the > >>>remaining tricks will obviously be won by the > >>>declaring side, or > >>> > >>>b) failure by a particular defender to claim > >>>when all the remaining tricks will obviously be > >>>won by that particular defender. > > Noted? > > Best wishes > > Richard My immediate reaction was NO! And after some consideration my reaction remains the same. We must never make it an offence to play the board out in the regular way even when a claim could be justified. I have seen so many players who have difficulties analyzing a claim, they beg: "Please play it out", partly because they (correctly) fear that they will be fooled if they just accept. Agreed, those players are not top class, but we do want to keep them interested in bridge don't we? And frankly: How many seconds do you really save on an obvious claim instead of rapidly "playing" the remaining cards one by one? "Playing" one card per second with six cards left (typical "obvious" claim case) takes six seconds! What I would fancy for a change in the laws on claiming is a specification that the claimer shows his cards, not all in one single action but rapidly one by one to indicate the sequence in which he intends to play them. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 19 10:15:08 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:15:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another claim Message-ID: <3E019C2C.8080606@skynet.be> My partner was playing 3NT and at the end there were only red cards left: KQ A8 - xxx Jxxx K x Qxx RHO is on lead and he plays hearts. "You get the last trick in diamonds", says partner. We decided she got all tricks. Opponents thought this one was obvious. And they realized they would have gotten the trick if it were at all possible for them to do so on some "normal" line. I'm sure some of you will disagree, but can you not see that this is what players expect and accept? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Dec 19 09:56:54 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:56:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <3E00AF6D.4060005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <011b01c2a744$f840db90$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > I believe (Personal Opinion) that a player who claims four tricks from > AQxx KJx will not be happy if you rule that he might have blocked that > suit and award him only three tricks from it. Of course he won't be. Just as someone who accidentally plays this suit by starting with the ace. If he places the ace on the table with the clear intention of designating this card then even if after a while he says "oh s*t, I didn't mean to play the ace, I pulled the wrong card!" we still rule against him, don't we? And it doesn't drive anyone from game - players just know that a card played is a card played. They do get upset every time they pull the wrong card just as they get upset when they revoke. They aren't happy but they know that these are the rules. I came to bridge from other card games and I admit I was truly astonished about this "irrational" or "inadvertent" stuff in the laws dealing with contested claims or withdrawn bids. In every other card game I played every time someone made a mechanical (even irrational) mistake he was told that "blind people shouldn't play cards" and was offered no sympathy. Try to start an elaboration on equity, rationality and normal plays at poker table and you'll know what I mean. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 19 10:35:39 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:35:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another claim References: <3E019C2C.8080606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005c01c2a74a$60279320$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:15 AM Subject: [blml] Yet another claim > My partner was playing 3NT and at the end there were only red cards left: > > KQ > A8 > - > xxx > Jxxx K > x > Qxx > > RHO is on lead and he plays hearts. > "You get the last trick in diamonds", says partner. > We decided she got all tricks. > Opponents thought this one was obvious. And they realized they would > have gotten the trick if it were at all possible for them to do so on > some "normal" line. > > I'm sure some of you will disagree, but can you not see that this is > what players expect and accept? No I (for one) do not see. I suppose I might have done so if I had been able to identify which cards were at which hands? Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 19 10:39:47 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:39:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <3E00AF6D.4060005@skynet.be> <011b01c2a744$f840db90$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <006201c2a74a$f3b10b80$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" ......... > Try to start an elaboration on equity, > rationality and normal plays at poker table > and you'll know what I mean. Well, as far as I know two aces and a gun beats a straight flush in poker? That is equity. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 19 11:37:07 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:37:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Brown stickers and psychics In-Reply-To: <4A256C94.001D59A6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021219123406.00abbdd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:48 19/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Gordon Bower asked: > >[snip] > > >>Suppose, however, that he alerts and > >>explains 1S as "either 4+ spades, 6+ > >>HCP, or short in spades intending to > >>play notrump later," explicitly making > >>it part of his system. > >> > >>If you are up front about this, and > >>announce your intention to do it > >>anytime you have this type of hand -- > >>is it just a mildly strange system, > >>sort of like the 'Impossible Negative' > >>in Precision? Or do you still call > >>this a Brown Sticker convention? > >Sven Pran replied: > >[snip] > > >a convention like that in a system will > >result in the entire system being > >classified as a yellow class ("highly > >unusual") system in Norway (sharing the > >class with for instance strong pass > >systems) > >An Aussie gadget freak invented a Forcing >Pass system where an opening Pass was 16+ >hcp OR 0-4 hcp; and a 1C response to the >opening Pass was also 16+ hcp OR 0-4 hcp. > >A theoretical flaw in this Forcing Pass >system was exposed when both players held >19 hcp, both assumed that partner held 0- >4 hcp, and therefore they decided to play >a grand slam in a partscore. AG : it shouldn't happen. In such a system (Omega, by the Franco-Belgian Pierre Collet, used pass = 0-7 or 15-18 at amber) the distinction is easily made : p 1C 1D = weak, p 1C other = strong. No problem. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 19 11:43:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:43:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <000b01c2a73d$61f05820$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C94.00108C8D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021219123911.00acfb70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:02 19/12/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >What I would fancy for a change in the laws on claiming >is a specification that the claimer shows his cards, >not all in one single action but rapidly one by one >to indicate the sequence in which he intends to play >them. AG : I've always acted that way. Once, the TD was called, and decided that it showed without any doubt how I intended to play the hand, and as such was a correct claim - even if not so defined. Usually, it is indeed very efficient, clearer than classical claims. Hmm, one more question : do the Laws admit contingency claims "making 4 ou 5 according to whether the spade finesse fails or works" ? I've seen several of them, but they aren't _stricto sensu_ statements about how many tricks you'll make. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 19 11:47:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:47:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another claim In-Reply-To: <3E019C2C.8080606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021219124507.00aca1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:15 19/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >My partner was playing 3NT and at the end there were only red cards left: > > KQ > A8 >- xxx >Jxxx K > x > Qxx > >RHO is on lead and he plays hearts. >"You get the last trick in diamonds", says partner. >We decided she got all tricks. >Opponents thought this one was obvious. And they realized they would have >gotten the trick if it were at all possible for them to do so on some >"normal" line. > >I'm sure some of you will disagree, but can you not see that this is what >players expect and accept? AG : 1) playing the Dx rather than the Ace is not a "normal line of play". 2) Laws are there to ensure equity. Giving the defense one trick is not equitable. However, it would be so easy to have said "you get the last trick in diamonds unless the King is bare". Which puts us back on the subject of contingency claims. What are they worth ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 19 12:02:46 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:02:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] You can't get the wool, you know In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C94.00146CD1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021219130137.00abdd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:40 18/12/2002 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >Fairness is what players want. Laws which the players >can easily understand, and which are consistently >enforced, will be perceived as fair by almost everyone. > >Laws which are overly complicated, will be perceived >by many as unfair, regardless of how closely those >laws approach some ideal equity. > >Laws which are not consistently enforced, will >fail to meet both practical and theoretical standards >of fairness. > >This, I think, is a fairly hefty argument against weighted >scores (whether for claims, appeals committees, or anywhere >else!): if you go through a long complicated process to >arrive at an adjustment, everyone involved in the case >will be unhappy with some part of it and hate the final >ruling. A nice straightforward ruling will at least be >understandable to everyone, and if you're lucky, half >the people involved may even agree with it. AG : you know you've found a good compromise when both sides are equally unsatisfied (attributed to Henry Kissinger) >GRB > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 19 11:50:23 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:50:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another claim References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021219124507.00aca1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007801c2a754$d060c710$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 11:15 19/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >My partner was playing 3NT and at the end there were only red cards left: > > > > KQ > > A8 > >- xxx > >Jxxx K > > x > > Qxx > > > >RHO is on lead and he plays hearts. > >"You get the last trick in diamonds", says partner. > >We decided she got all tricks. > >Opponents thought this one was obvious. And they realized they would have > >gotten the trick if it were at all possible for them to do so on some > >"normal" line. > > > >I'm sure some of you will disagree, but can you not see that this is what > >players expect and accept? > > AG : 1) playing the Dx rather than the Ace is not a "normal line of play". > 2) Laws are there to ensure equity. Giving the defense one trick > is not equitable. Well, this time it is easier to see. And whatever other arguments could be used, the statement "You get the *last* trick in diamond" is a clear evidence that she would play her three high cards first, thus all tricks won is the correct verdict (law 71, the trick cannot be lost under the line of play she has stated beyond doubt). Sven From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Dec 19 12:18:29 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 07:18:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021219123911.00acfb70@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4A256C94.00108C8D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000b01c2a73d$61f05820$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20021219123911.00acfb70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:43:47 +0100, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >Hmm, one more question : do the Laws admit contingency claims "making 4 ou >5 according to whether the spade finesse fails or works" ? I've seen >several of them, but they aren't _stricto sensu_ statements about how many >tricks you'll make. > I don't know whether the current laws admit them or not - but the online laws certainly should. Contingency claims can save a LOT of time when playing online, and they're a fact of life on OKBridge. The usual method, at least in my experience, is to say (e.g) "Claiming. Where's KS?", and when an opponent tells you, claim the appropriate number of tricks. Yes, this could cause problems if the claim is a bad one, or if you're up against less than honest opponents (in which case, it's the last hand you play against them anyway). However, it is how things currently work, at least in my experience of OKBridge. I have no idea how they're handled on other online services. 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 Thu Dec 19 12:19:40 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:19:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <6809800.1040230026972.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E00AD18.1060901@skynet.be> <002601c2a708$92d980e0$0aa423d9@pbncomputer> <002d01c2a732$e95c2a10$7f25e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002101c2a758$e8007560$0aa423d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > Are not 'inferior' and 'irrational' > descriptions of conscious or reasoned actions and > 'careless' applicable to the absent mind? > When the law book supplies no definition of > a word we must go to the best English dictionary > we can find. If that dictionary were to describe an "irrational" action as a "reasoned" one, I would... well, I would hope someone gave me another one for Christmas. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 19 12:53:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] You can't get the wool, you know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > > Fairness is what players want. Yes. > Laws which the players can easily understand, and which are consistently > enforced, will be perceived as fair by almost everyone. Such as the death penalty? I do not believe that people will regard consistent enforcement of overly harsh (or lenient) penalties as fair. > Laws which are overly complicated, will be perceived > by many as unfair, regardless of how closely those > laws approach some ideal equity. Perhaps the "will" should be a "may". Good education (of which we currently have little) can overcome some of these barriers. > Laws which are not consistently enforced, will > fail to meet both practical and theoretical standards > of fairness. Absolutely, and it is undeniably harder to enforce complex laws consistently. > This, I think, is a fairly hefty argument against weighted > scores (whether for claims, appeals committees, or anywhere > else!): if you go through a long complicated process to > arrive at an adjustment, everyone involved in the case > will be unhappy with some part of it and hate the final > ruling. A nice straightforward ruling will at least be > understandable to everyone, and if you're lucky, half > the people involved may even agree with it. At money rubber the players at the table will, when appropriate, agree a weighted score amongst themselves. Perhaps nobody is entirely happy with such a ruling but the net unhappiness level is less than it would be for more extreme rulings. Tim From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 19 15:01:55 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:01:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <3E01875F.20407@skynet.be> References: <200212181726.MAA27324@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E01875F.20407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6QkPYdBj9dA+Ew3$@asimere.com> In article <3E01875F.20407@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Steve Willner wrote: > >> >> If you agree with Tim, as I do, I fail to see how you can disagree with >> a) or c). As for b), I draw a distinction between the "intended line >> of play" and the "intended meaning of the claim statement." Perhaps >> that's a false distinction, but the latter is something that can >> reasonably be judged, while the former cannot or at best is very much >> harder. >> >> Herman definitely disagrees; he wants to judge the player's state of >> mind and derive the intended line of play from that. >> > ok, let's try this one. H AKQx facing xxx, no other entries, no trump contract: declarer calls "Ace, king, heart" (all followed to first two tricks). How do we rule? [snip] 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 19 16:18:37 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:18:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <200212191618.LAA02938@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > The claim statement is more a > clarification of the state of mind of declarer and less a definite > line of play. There are several besides me who disagree with Herman's opinion on this. I hope the Laws make things clear one way or the other in the next edition. > Remember the strange claim? > In it, a player wanted four tricks from an obviously blocked suit. The > only way to literally execute this statement would have been an > totally irrational overtaking, while there was a perfectly legal and > 50% winning line to the contract. I don't think we ever reached consensus on the correct ruling precisely because of the difference of opinion on the fundamental approach to claim rulings. Some people wanted to understand the claimer's state of mind, while others wanted to follow the claim statement as far as possible. As long as the only guideline is "equity," a term not further defined, there is no way determine a single correct answer. This is, by the way, a good example of the difference between "intended line of play" and the "intended meaning of the claim statement." > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Hmm, one more question : do the Laws admit contingency claims "making 4 ou > 5 according to whether the spade finesse fails or works" ? Isn't this a suggestion to curtail play? If so, it's a claim (L68A). If there is a claim statement (as defined in L68C, not merely as commonly understood), there is no problem judging the claim. If there is no proper claim statement, well, that's precisely the problem we are discussing. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > H AKQx facing xxx, no other entries, no trump contract: > > declarer calls "Ace, king, heart" (all followed to first two tricks). I think John is asking whether this could or should be analogous to a faulty claim statement. It isn't at the moment because the Laws on card designations are much more specific than the ones for claims. As far as I can tell, the low heart is designated (L46B2), and the relevant question is whether declarer can change the designation under L45C4. (Both parts a and b may be relevant.) Of course declarer must _attempt_ a change, or there is no question (despite what happened in Vancouver). We have, of course, discussed L45C4 before, so it isn't entirely crystal clear to everyone. :-) But it does suggest a much more nearly mechanical process for judgment than do the claim laws. From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 16:28:56 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:28:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: John Probst: >ok, let's try this one. > >H AKQx facing xxx, no other entries, no trump contract: > >declarer calls "Ace, king, heart" (all followed to first two tricks). > >How do we rule? >[snip] > Well, if it's an expert and the suit breaks 3-3 we award four tricks. After all it would be normal for him to play the Queen on the third round, wouldn't it? If it's anyone else, they're so stupid it would be normal for them to miscount the suit and think that there were only eleven cards in it to start with, so they would regard the Queen and the X as equals so we make them play the X. Personally if I were called to the table and an expert declarer had done this, not only would I agree with him about the purity of his intent, I might even slap a fine on his opponents for having the temerity to suggest otherwise. ...And that's about as leaden a piece of facetiousness you're likely to get before 2003... ...And yes, I do realise that I'm confusing two different dicussions, but would venture to suggest that they aren't really that different at all. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 19 22:21:48 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:21:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play Message-ID: <4A256C94.00793E47.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Sven wrote: [snip] >I have seen so many players who have difficulties >analyzing a claim, they beg: "Please play it out", >partly because they (correctly) fear that they will be >fooled if they just accept. > >Agreed, those players are not top class, but we do >want to keep them interested in bridge don't we? It is obvious that "obvious" is not an invariant fixed standard, but rather a standard which varies based on an opponent's ability to comprehend lines of play. (There is a famous deal in the book "Bridge with the Blue Team", where Pietro Forquet could have claimed, but declined, since the explanation of the squeeze would have taken longer than the play of the cards.) >And frankly: How many seconds do you really save >on an obvious claim instead of rapidly "playing" the >remaining cards one by one? Huge numbers of seconds are saved when the opponents are suffering prolonged agony in finding discards. [snip] Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 19 21:44:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:44:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <000901c2a2f2$f8a148a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On 12/13/02, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >my claim laws are very simple, you get what you claim, never more. I don't believe that's in accordance with the existing laws. Are you suggesting a change, or are you saying that's how you would rule under current law? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 19 21:27:33 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:27:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again Message-ID: On 12/13/02, James Vickers wrote: >[Herman:] >> >> I remember the argument well. >> Since "bidding" is considered an "action", and that action is now >> again a LA, you may not pass. > >Considered by whom? Not by those who have been insisting that "action" >refers to a call or play (as the law says). Er, what? A bid is a call. If a call is an action, then so is a bid. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 19 22:53:22 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:53:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Options for handling wrong explanations Message-ID: <200212192253.RAA03179@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> About two weeks ago, I wrote: > Here are some things I think should receive unanimous agreement, > whether you believe in the dWS or not. ("Explanations" should be > understood to include alerting or not alerting.) > > 1. You may not take advantage of information from partner's > explanations in choosing a call or play. (L16A and 73C may compel you > to change an intended call or play to avoid taking advantage). > > 2. You may (perhaps must) use information from partner's explanations > to choose your own explanations. > > 3. The _first_ explanation given by your side should reflect the true > partnership agreement, even if you happen to know that one of the hands > doesn't match this agreement. (Behind screens or online, this could be > your own hand.) There has been some agreement and little if any dissent. I'll take it that we are largely in agreement so far and go on. The problem is what to do when a player hears partner give a wrong explanation. To have a concrete case, let's assume I open 2D, natural and weak, and our CC will verify this. Partner alerts, and when asked, explains "multi." What's this?!! We don't play multi and never have. If nothing else happens, LHO will pass, partner will bid 2H, and I'll have to decide whether to alert and how to explain. Let's assume that "natural and forcing," our true agreement, is unalertable, but "pass or correct," the standard agreement for those who play multi, is alertable. Rather than say what I think the rules are or ought to be -- both of which topics have been explored at great length already -- I'm going to try to list all the possible procedures that might be adopted. A. Call the TD, who gets the MI cleared up and lets play continue, monitoring for UI. This obviously solves the MI problem, but both players on the offending side have UI and must follow item 1 above. (The TD may be able to minimize UI by sending people away from the table, but he won't be able to eliminate it altogether.) B. Call the TD, who immediately gives an adjusted score. Perhaps 95%/5% would be fair, given the UI situation. It is highly unlikely that recovery will be possible. C. Don't alert, and if asked, explain "natural and forcing." This is the "traditional" school. What happens now depends on whether RHO asks for an explanation and on whether the TD is called or not. At best, partner has UI from my failure to alert. If I explain, he will have clearer UI. This may end up as the equivalent of "procedure A" if the opponents call the TD before RHO makes a call. If the TD is not called, the UI is still there, and the MI may not be entirely cleared up, although both opponents have clues. D. Alert, and if asked explain "pass or correct." This is the dWS. Now both opponents have MI, and I have UI, but partner does not. Of course at the proper time (before the opening lead or at the end of the hand), I'll have to call the TD and clear up the MI. As far as I can tell, the above four are all the possibilities, although I may have made mistakes in exploring the consequences. One other option should be mentioned: new Laws could make some parts of our explanations AI or at least a less severe form of UI. This has precedent: under the 1975 Laws, there were in effect two classes of UI. My correct explanation would have in the milder class, while partner's incorrect one would have been in the more severe class. Creating less severe UI restrictions might be an adjunct to procedures A or C. I know some people will have immediate reactions to the above, but I suggest waiting 24 hours or so to give the matter some consideration before replying, unless, of course, I have made a gross blunder somewhere. Also, there is no need to repeat arguments that have already been given. I am not now advocating any of the procedures but am merely listing them. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 20 09:13:53 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:13:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <4A256C94.00793E47.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021220101057.00acbdd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:21 20/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >And frankly: How many seconds do you really save > >on an obvious claim instead of rapidly "playing" the > >remaining cards one by one? > >Huge numbers of seconds are saved when the opponents >are suffering prolonged agony in finding discards. AG : non, ERichard, that's not what Sven meant. He suggested that, when claiming, one should (say 'claim' and) play one's cards in rapid succession, without waiting for the opponents to play theirs. This uncontroveribly establishes a clear line of play, in case the claim is contested. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 20 09:22:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:22:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Options for handling wrong explanations References: <200212192253.RAA03179@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E02E152.9040302@skynet.be> Steve has the right approach: Steve Willner wrote: > > To have a concrete case, let's assume I open 2D, natural and weak, and > our CC will verify this. Partner alerts, and when asked, explains > "multi." What's this?!! We don't play multi and never have. If > nothing else happens, LHO will pass, partner will bid 2H, and I'll have > to decide whether to alert and how to explain. Let's assume that > "natural and forcing," our true agreement, is unalertable, but "pass or > correct," the standard agreement for those who play multi, is > alertable. > > Rather than say what I think the rules are or ought to be -- both of > which topics have been explored at great length already -- I'm going to > try to list all the possible procedures that might be adopted. > > A. Call the TD, who gets the MI cleared up and lets play continue, > monitoring for UI. This obviously solves the MI problem, but both > players on the offending side have UI and must follow item 1 above. > (The TD may be able to minimize UI by sending people away from the > table, but he won't be able to eliminate it altogether.) > > B. Call the TD, who immediately gives an adjusted score. Perhaps > 95%/5% would be fair, given the UI situation. It is highly unlikely > that recovery will be possible. > > C. Don't alert, and if asked, explain "natural and forcing." This is > the "traditional" school. What happens now depends on whether RHO asks > for an explanation and on whether the TD is called or not. At best, > partner has UI from my failure to alert. If I explain, he will have > clearer UI. This may end up as the equivalent of "procedure A" if the > opponents call the TD before RHO makes a call. If the TD is not > called, the UI is still there, and the MI may not be entirely cleared > up, although both opponents have clues. > > D. Alert, and if asked explain "pass or correct." This is the dWS. > Now both opponents have MI, and I have UI, but partner does not. Of > course at the proper time (before the opening lead or at the end of the > hand), I'll have to call the TD and clear up the MI. > > As far as I can tell, the above four are all the possibilities, > although I may have made mistakes in exploring the consequences. > I see no major errors in the consequences. I don't think B. is a possibility. The TD must allow play to continue. This is not a 16C case. I do have one comment, though. I believe A-B-C to be just shades of one single case. Whether one calls the TD or not, UI is given. There is no use (in my mind) to try and hide the UI my giving only partial correct information. If one gives just partial information, one can still be subject to a MI ruling. Whereas even the slightest amount of UI can prevent partner from being allowed to wake up. > One other option should be mentioned: new Laws could make some parts of > our explanations AI or at least a less severe form of UI. This has > precedent: under the 1975 Laws, there were in effect two classes of > UI. My correct explanation would have in the milder class, while > partner's incorrect one would have been in the more severe class. > Creating less severe UI restrictions might be an adjunct to procedures > A or C. > I don't believe less severe UI is a solution. After all, we are telling partner something that we know he doesn't know. What can be worse than this? I do believe the laws are perfectly able to cope with this situation. The amount of MI that a dWS adept will give is perfectly handled by the existing MI laws. There is no need, in my opinion, to lessen these laws simply because some unfortunate individual is forced to break them. > I know some people will have immediate reactions to the above, but I > suggest waiting 24 hours or so to give the matter some consideration > before replying, unless, of course, I have made a gross blunder > somewhere. Also, there is no need to repeat arguments that have > already been given. I am not now advocating any of the procedures but > am merely listing them. > And you have done a great job in doing so. I wish more people would realize that this is just what needs to be done. Explore the possible actions and see what they result in. Then you will notice that I am not some bearded devil trying to lure innocent bridgers into a lawless hell. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Dec 20 09:56:45 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:56:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play Message-ID: > AG : non, ERichard, that's not what Sven meant. He suggested > that, when > claiming, one should (say 'claim' and) play one's cards in rapid > succession, without waiting for the opponents to play theirs. This > uncontroveribly establishes a clear line of play, in case the > claim is > contested. This could be a useful approach. Altering the idea somewhat it could lead to only allowing a claim when no more decision has to be taken. So no claim in a (double) squeeze or in a marked finesse any more. And if made deciding that claimer could go wrong. Let us see: We just had a claim where declarer has 3 trumps in both hands and one defender has 3 too, with the ace. Declarer claims saying that he will draw the trumps. And yes if defender doesn't play his ace in the first or second trick and declarer continues with the third trump trick he looses control and more tricks. Another catastrophic decision for David: we decided that playing this third trump trick would not be 'normal' and allowed the claim. No David, not a bunch of directors but top players in the Netherlands. Following the approach described above we could not have allowed this claim, since the order of play depends on opponents play. I am prepared to make that concession to get more clarity. another example (we claim like rabbits in the Netherlands): declarer has AKQJ8 of spades in dummy with the K of hearts. He plays the club ace from hand stating to discard the heart K and then crossing to the spades for 6 tricks. LHO in stead of 'accepting' this claim and showing his 5 spades continues play by following with the ace of hearts on the club ace. I don't dare to say it but we allowed the claim on an automatic not discovered squeeze on LHO. (not these topplayers this time, but the directors). With this new idea we shouldn't. I begin to like the idea. Mind you: I still would allow the claim in case 3 Phoenix. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 20 10:47:14 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:47:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx Message-ID: <3E02F532.3060401@skynet.be> Not exactly the example we gave in a recent thread, but I found this combination while browsing a book for beginners from the French Bridge Federation. It's on page 37 (large print) of the first book for beginners! Do you really imagine even Mrs Guggenheim to get this wrong? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Dec 20 10:51:52 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:51:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] weighted claim? Message-ID: I tried to explain why weighted results in a claim should not be given. I mentioned that nobody gave any signal that in assigning scores TD's are too severe for the claimer. Now Grattan did. Well, we need some discussion in our drafting group. But I still feel room for weighted scores involving claims. I myself think that claimers are treated too generously and their opponents too severe once they have reached acquiescence in a doubtful claim. Now the burden is on the opponents who only get a trick back when it would have been made in any normal play. That approach I don't like. Claimer for sure gets too much in my opinion, it is less clear that opponents get too little. Room for a split score? Or a weighted score? ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Dec 20 10:54:57 2002 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:54:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx Message-ID: > > Not exactly the example we gave in a recent thread, but I found this > combination while browsing a book for beginners from the > French Bridge > Federation. > > It's on page 37 (large print) of the first book for beginners! > > Do you really imagine even Mrs Guggenheim to get this wrong? Hopefully Jurgen is on holidays since I can't resist: any reason to start reading those books again? ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 20 11:00:13 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:00:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: Message-ID: <3E02F83D.3000003@skynet.be> Nice ones, Ton! Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > >>AG : non, ERichard, that's not what Sven meant. He suggested >>that, when >>claiming, one should (say 'claim' and) play one's cards in rapid >>succession, without waiting for the opponents to play theirs. This >>uncontroveribly establishes a clear line of play, in case the >>claim is >>contested. >> > > > > This could be a useful approach. Altering the idea somewhat it could lead to > only allowing a claim when no more decision has to be taken. So no claim in > a (double) squeeze or in a marked finesse any more. And if made deciding > that claimer could go wrong. > You do realize that this diminishes the number of claims ? > Let us see: > > We just had a claim where declarer has 3 trumps in both hands and one > defender has 3 too, with the ace. Declarer claims saying that he will draw > the trumps. > And yes if defender doesn't play his ace in the first or second trick and > declarer continues with the third trump trick he looses control and more > tricks. > Another catastrophic decision for David: we decided that playing this third > trump trick would not be 'normal' and allowed the claim. No David, not a > bunch of directors but top players in the Netherlands. > I assume that declarer knew that the ace was still out. (otherwise your ruling is lousy) Then indeed this claim is valid. Declarer knows what is going to happen, and he can deal with all eventualities. If you change the law making he can only claim if he can play all the tricks no matter what opponents do, then he is no longer allowed to claim in this position. Yet this board is effectively over, and he should be allowed to spare his opponents from thinking on. > Following the approach described above we could not have allowed this claim, > since the order of play depends on opponents play. I am prepared to make > that concession to get more > clarity. > I am not, as defender, prepared to make this concession. I want this declarer to claim against me. I don't want to be forced into thinking on, when declarer already knows the hand is effectively over. > another example (we claim like rabbits in the Netherlands): > > > declarer has AKQJ8 of spades in dummy with the K of hearts. He plays the > club ace from hand stating to discard the heart K and then crossing to the > spades for 6 tricks. > LHO in stead of 'accepting' this claim and showing his 5 spades continues > play by following with the ace of hearts on the club ace. > I don't dare to say it but we allowed the claim on an automatic not > discovered squeeze on LHO. (not these topplayers this time, but the > directors). > Seems like a variant on what happened to me on wednesday (the bare king coming down on the ace, with partner still scoring the Q for an unexpected overtrick. It seems to me that declarers should not suffer when they are forced to make an unexpected extra trick. > With this new idea we shouldn't. I begin to like the idea. I don't. This player would always make six tricks. Why not give them? > Mind you: I still would allow the claim in case 3 Phoenix. > > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Fri Dec 20 11:47:25 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:47:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <6809800.1040230026972.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E00AD18.1060901@skynet.be> <002601c2a708$92d980e0$0aa423d9@pbncomputer> <002d01c2a732$e95c2a10$7f25e150@endicott> <002101c2a758$e8007560$0aa423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000401c2a822$bffedaa0$392a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity > Grattan wrote: > > > Are not 'inferior' and 'irrational' > > descriptions of conscious or reasoned actions and > > 'careless' applicable to the absent mind? > > When the law book supplies no definition of > > a word we must go to the best English dictionary > > we can find. > > If that dictionary were to describe an "irrational" action > as a "reasoned" one, I would... well, I would hope > someone gave me another one for Christmas. > +=+ Not to haver over interpretation I will rephrase the question so that for 'conscious or reasoned actions' I substitute 'conscious actions or actions by design'. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 20 12:29:22 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:29:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx References: Message-ID: <3E030D22.8020508@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Not exactly the example we gave in a recent thread, but I found this >>combination while browsing a book for beginners from the >>French Bridge >>Federation. >> >>It's on page 37 (large print) of the first book for beginners! >> >>Do you really imagine even Mrs Guggenheim to get this wrong? >> > > > Hopefully Jurgen is on holidays since I can't resist: any reason to start > reading those books again? > :-)))) > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Dec 20 12:35:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] weighted claim? References: Message-ID: <3E030E7E.6080804@skynet.be> I don't think I understand, Ton. Kooijman, A. wrote: > I tried to explain why weighted results in a claim should not be given. I > mentioned that nobody gave any signal that in assigning scores TD's are too > severe for the claimer. > Now Grattan did. Well, we need some discussion in our drafting group. > I also made the point that the feeling around the world seems that claims laws are too generous to claimers, so it seems somewhat strange to go around making them even more generous. > But I still feel room for weighted scores involving claims. > I myself think that claimers are treated too generously and their opponents > too severe once they have reached acquiescence in a doubtful claim. Now the > burden is on the opponents who only get a trick back when it would have been > made in any normal play. That approach I don't like. Claimer for sure gets > too much in my opinion, it is less clear that opponents get too little. > Now you are talking of acquiescence, Ton. That is not the same as claims. Until now, we have always considered the point from the claimer, on a contested claim. If you want to introduce weighted results for withdrawn acquiescence, go right ahead. After all, that is symmetrical position. After acquiescence, it can be said that both sides claimed. So now it is less certain that the burden should lie with one side rather than another. So weighted claims might be a solution. > Room for a split score? Or a weighted score? > weighted. Split would only be equitable if claimer bullied opponents into acquiescing. And even then I'd prefer simply to rule that the claim is still contested. > 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 20 12:51:33 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:51:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Options for handling wrong explanations In-Reply-To: <3E02E152.9040302@skynet.be> References: <200212192253.RAA03179@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021220134647.00abd140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:22 20/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I don't believe less severe UI is a solution. After all, we are >telling partner something that we know he doesn't know. What can be >worse than this? >I do believe the laws are perfectly able to cope with this situation. >The amount of MI that a dWS adept will give is perfectly handled by >the existing MI laws. There is no need, in my opinion, to lessen these >laws simply because some unfortunate individual is forced to break them. AG : IBTD. We agree that the Laws are contradictory, don't we ? And in this case one of the laws should be erased, or one should be modified in such a way that the other one clearly takes precedence. Using the new / old concept of 'slight UI' is one way to do so, and though I don't think it's not the best one, it would solve the dilemma. My favorite way (and, I suppose, yours) would be to say that once MI is given, further MI is no infraction. Best regards, Alain. > > I know some people will have immediate reactions to the above, but I > > suggest waiting 24 hours or so to give the matter some consideration > > before replying, unless, of course, I have made a gross blunder > > somewhere. Also, there is no need to repeat arguments that have > > already been given. I am not now advocating any of the procedures but > > am merely listing them. > > > > >And you have done a great job in doing so. I wish more people would >realize that this is just what needs to be done. Explore the possible >actions and see what they result in. Then you will notice that I am >not some bearded devil trying to lure innocent bridgers into a lawless >hell. > > > > > > >-- >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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 20 15:11:06 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:11:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Options for handling wrong explanations Message-ID: <200212201511.KAA08768@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael >I don't think B. is a > possibility. The TD must allow play to continue. This is not a 16C case. I guess it wasn't clear, but I was enumerating logical possibilities for future Laws. Requiring the TD to stop play is surely among them. (I make no claim about the merits of this option!) > From: Alain Gottcheiner > My > favorite way (and, I suppose, yours) would be to say that once MI is given, > further MI is no infraction. This is an interesting idea and one I hadn't thought of. I'm not exactly sure how it would work; perhaps Alain could expand a bit. Yet another idea is that the opponents should be entitled to a correct description of our hands instead of our agreements. That has the merit of being easy to rule(!), but I can think of a few disadvantages as well. :-) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 20 15:40:49 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:40:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play Message-ID: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > ...only allowing a claim when no more decision has to be taken. So no claim in > a (double) squeeze or in a marked finesse any more. And if made deciding > that claimer could go wrong. This seems too severe to me, and as Herman commented, it will reduce the number of claims. As long as claimer _clearly states_ the intended line of play, what's the problem? > declarer has AKQJ8 of spades in dummy with the K of hearts. He plays the > club ace from hand stating to discard the heart K and then crossing to the > spades for 6 tricks. > LHO in stead of 'accepting' this claim and showing his 5 spades continues > play by following with the ace of hearts on the club ace. > I don't dare to say it but we allowed the claim on an automatic not > discovered squeeze on LHO. Just as a point of bridge jargon, in connection with a squeeze "automatic" means the squeeze will operate against either opponent. The above squeeze is "positional" instead. (I am sure Ton knows about the squeeze position, but apparently he overlooked this matter of English jargon.) The squeeze is certainly "automatic" in the normal English sense of the word: it operates without any thought by the player. I'm not sure there is a good English word for this, but perhaps "inadvertent" comes close. Other possibilities from my thesaurus: unplanned, unintentional, spontaneous, self-operating. Maybe someone else will suggest the perfect adjective. FWIW, I agree with the ruling and would personally prefer the ruling to be the same in the future. The idea is that the mere act of claiming should not cost claimer tricks he was virtually certain to win had he played on. To rule otherwise will discourage claims. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 20 16:37:49 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:37:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021220173250.00ac6cf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:40 20/12/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >Just as a point of bridge jargon, in connection with a squeeze >"automatic" means the squeeze will operate against either opponent. >The above squeeze is "positional" instead. (I am sure Ton knows about >the squeeze position, but apparently he overlooked this matter of >English jargon.) > >The squeeze is certainly "automatic" in the normal English sense of the >word: it operates without any thought by the player. I'm not sure >there is a good English word for this, but perhaps "inadvertent" comes >close. Other possibilities from my thesaurus: unplanned, >unintentional, spontaneous, self-operating. Maybe someone else will >suggest the perfect adjective. AG : serendipitous ? >FWIW, I agree with the ruling and would personally prefer the ruling to >be the same in the future. The idea is that the mere act of claiming >should not cost claimer tricks he was virtually certain to win had he >played on. AG : that's how to rule if fairness is the main concern. The case of the outlurker which can be overruffed whenever it appears pertains to the same class. Does this mean that a stated line must be followed only to the point where something unexpected happens ? I don't think so. But one could write somewhere that a stated line must be followed word by word unless the events at the table make it irrational. This is an extension on the principle of irrationality. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Dec 20 19:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Maybe someone else will suggest the perfect adjective. I think the class as a whole is called Guggenheim squeezes. Tim From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Fri Dec 20 23:21:23 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:21:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> I really don't care if reduces the number of claims (a tiny wimpsy little bit only, only fools make this kind of claims). I even wish the number of claims reduced a little if it means stopping this kind of stupid claims. If the guy claimes 5 spade tricks and the opps have a spade stopper than he loses a trick (even if there is a self-operating squeeze). Keep it simple. Nobody asked him to claim six spades. This has nothing to do with normal, rational, irrational play or so. In his mind the spades are good and if they are not why help him out with giving him a heart trick? He is supposed to play the hand himself. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:40 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Deliberate slow play > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > ...only allowing a claim when no more decision has to be taken. So no claim in > > a (double) squeeze or in a marked finesse any more. And if made deciding > > that claimer could go wrong. > > This seems too severe to me, and as Herman commented, it will reduce > the number of claims. As long as claimer _clearly states_ the > intended line of play, what's the problem? > > > declarer has AKQJ8 of spades in dummy with the K of hearts. He plays the > > club ace from hand stating to discard the heart K and then crossing to the > > spades for 6 tricks. > > LHO in stead of 'accepting' this claim and showing his 5 spades continues > > play by following with the ace of hearts on the club ace. > > I don't dare to say it but we allowed the claim on an automatic not > > discovered squeeze on LHO. > > Just as a point of bridge jargon, in connection with a squeeze > "automatic" means the squeeze will operate against either opponent. > The above squeeze is "positional" instead. (I am sure Ton knows about > the squeeze position, but apparently he overlooked this matter of > English jargon.) > > The squeeze is certainly "automatic" in the normal English sense of the > word: it operates without any thought by the player. I'm not sure > there is a good English word for this, but perhaps "inadvertent" comes > close. Other possibilities from my thesaurus: unplanned, > unintentional, spontaneous, self-operating. Maybe someone else will > suggest the perfect adjective. > > FWIW, I agree with the ruling and would personally prefer the ruling to > be the same in the future. The idea is that the mere act of claiming > should not cost claimer tricks he was virtually certain to win had he > played on. To rule otherwise will discourage claims. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 20 22:52:28 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:52:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <4A256C94.00793E47.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000d01c2a87a$78e8bbb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: > Sven wrote: ........... > >And frankly: How many seconds do you really save > >on an obvious claim instead of rapidly "playing" the > >remaining cards one by one? > > Huge numbers of seconds are saved when the opponents > are suffering prolonged agony in finding discards. Did you misunderstand me? I am talking about "playing" the remaining cards one by one, not waiting for defenders play to each trick but just showing that their play is immaterial. Sven From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Fri Dec 20 23:39:25 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:39:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] 4NT on a cross-ruff References: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00bd01c28ea1$8cc08020$3e9868d5@default> <006501c28ed4$71473c20$049a1e18@san.rr.com> <00ec01c2a550$96ca4400$eb9490d4@rabbit> Message-ID: <006401c2a883$9291b540$25b54351@noos.fr> Nobody seems to have picked up the thread. But it is a nice example of my statement that I have seen good declarers go down in cold contracts because they thought they were playing another contract. I am to lazy to analyze the hand, but once declarer admits (evidence is his claim) that he thinks he is playing 6C IMO he should be down in 4NT if a reasonable line of play in 6C means he goes down in 4NT. That nobody would play like that in 4NT is IMO irrelevant. But I know that some people think I am to extreme. But they have failed to give any good argument for that so far. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 4NT on a cross-ruff > > From: "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > > An amusing incident from today's Swiss Teams > > > in Wales: > > > North > > > JT85 > > > KT85 > > > 8653 > > > 7 > > > West East > > > K76 AQ92 > > > A2 97 > > > AKJ7 9 > > > AQ54 KT8632 > > > West opens 2NT and after a Baron sequence, > > > East ends the auction with 4NT > > > East: "We agreed that 4NT asks for aces, > > > I would bid 6C unless we are missing 2 Aces". > > > West wins LHO's S:J lead with S:K. > > > cashes C:A all following, and faces his hand > > > West: "After drawing trumps the rest are mine". > > > East: "There aren't any trumps, the contract > > > is 4NT." > > > North: "4N is down if you cash HA before > > > attempting to ruff a spade. > > > > No one would do that. > > I think that in 6C some declarers would play as follows: > Draw trumps, DAK, discarding a H from dummy, > HA, ruff H. This is a 100% line - in 6C. > > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Fri Dec 20 23:23:28 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:23:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? References: <4A256C92.002A1DDE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <017a01c2a87e$cf8d8820$209590d4@rabbit> wrote: > Australia recently readopted the 75%+ rule. But > I differ from Tim and James in that I do not > think that the rule "sounds good". The 70-75% > rule places too much emphasis on calculating how > many experts would bid the same way as the clever- > as-heck expert before the Appeals Committee. This > creates subtle pressure on the AC to demonstrate > how they, too, are clever-as-heck experts, and > rule that 70-75% of all experts would have taken > the winning LA suggested by UI. > > The emphasis, instead, should be on whether a > significant minority of experts would have taken a > different LA. Therefore, I prefer the formulation > in the WBF Code of Practice for defining an LA: > > >A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, > >amongst the class of players in question and using > >the methods of the partnership, would be given > >serious consideration by a significant proportion > >of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think > >some might adopt it. The wording is fine, but the problem remains the same. The same AC which would demonstrate that 70-75% of the experts would have taken the winning LA, would also demonstrate that the experts would not adopt the losing LA. Thomas From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Dec 21 01:07:50 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:07:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? References: <4A256C92.002A1DDE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <017a01c2a87e$cf8d8820$209590d4@rabbit> Message-ID: <003701c2a88e$12eadf00$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> A logical alternative is one that is not illogical. Illogical actions are obviously foolish, egregiously erroneous, absurd. If an action would be right quite often, then it is not illogical. (Paraphrasing Edgar Kaplan's words of November 1995) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Dec 21 06:28:12 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 01:28:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <000b01c2a73d$61f05820$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C94.00108C8D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221011918.00b7f780@mail.comcast.net> At 04:02 AM 12/19/2002, Sven Pran wrote: >And frankly: How many seconds do you really save >on an obvious claim instead of rapidly "playing" the >remaining cards one by one? >"Playing" one card per second with six cards left >(typical "obvious" claim case) takes six seconds! Unfortunately, the claimer has two opponents at the table, and unless he shows his hand, these opponents may take a lot of time. I have often spent half a minute on defense when declarer has an obvious claim but doesn't take it, trying to work out declarer's hand. "If he has KQ of clubs, he has six top tricks and it doesn't matter what I do. If he has Kx of clubs and the DT, I need to unguard clubs and keep the DJ to avoid the squeeze..." From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 21 09:19:20 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:19:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <4A256C94.00108C8D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.1.6.0.20021221011918.00b7f780@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000d01c2a8d2$0b7bb390$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deliberate slow play > At 04:02 AM 12/19/2002, Sven Pran wrote: > > >And frankly: How many seconds do you really save > >on an obvious claim instead of rapidly "playing" the > >remaining cards one by one? > >"Playing" one card per second with six cards left > >(typical "obvious" claim case) takes six seconds! > > Unfortunately, the claimer has two opponents at the table, and unless he > shows his hand, these opponents may take a lot of time. I have often spent > half a minute on defense when declarer has an obvious claim but doesn't > take it, trying to work out declarer's hand. "If he has KQ of clubs, he > has six top tricks and it doesn't matter what I do. If he has Kx of clubs > and the DT, I need to unguard clubs and keep the DJ to avoid the squeeze..." For the last time (I hope!): He shows his hand - one card at a time - rapidly without awaiting opponent's plays to each of them. Merry Christmas! Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Dec 21 10:22:13 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:22:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002c01c2a8db$12ccefc0$e316e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:40 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Deliberate slow play > > The squeeze is certainly "automatic" in the normal > English sense of the word: it operates without any > thought by the player. I'm not sure there is a good > English word for this, but perhaps "inadvertent" > comes close. Other possibilities from my thesaurus: > unplanned, unintentional, spontaneous, self-operating. > Maybe someone else will suggest the perfect adjective. > > FWIW, I agree with the ruling and would personally > prefer the ruling to be the same in the future. The > idea is that the mere act of claiming should not cost > claimer tricks he was virtually certain to win had he > played on. To rule otherwise will discourage claims. > +=+ I think the WBFLC interpretation, in Minute 3 of 30 Oct 2001, authorizes the Director to grant the KH in place of the long Spade. Claimer is allowed to take account of what he would see as the hand is played. Of the list quoted from the thesaurus I would select 'spontaneous'. On the other hand Rueful Rabbit would be rather surprised by LHO's play and, having made sure it was really the AH, take advantage of the failure to notice the King. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Dec 21 10:47:04 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:47:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E0446A8.20807@skynet.be> No Jaap, this one isn't correct. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > I really don't care if reduces the number of claims (a tiny wimpsy little > bit only, only fools make this kind of claims). I even wish the number of > claims reduced a little if it means stopping this kind of stupid claims. If > the guy claimes 5 spade tricks and the opps have a spade stopper than he > loses a trick (even if there is a self-operating squeeze). Keep it simple. > Nobody asked him to claim six spades. This has nothing to do with normal, > rational, irrational play or so. In his mind the spades are good and if they > are not why help him out with giving him a heart trick? He is supposed to > play the hand himself. > Please accept that I am not talking about this case exactly. Maybe this one is just a little bit accross the line and therefor the AC ruling incorrect. But accept my comments in principle. You do agree that on the first club, LHO has to throw something? You do agree that if he throws a spade, the claim is now correct as the spades will come through? You do accept that a claimer who says that AKQJ9 are high would lose out to Txxxx - x but not to xxxxx - T ? So you will admit that LHO will have to throw the ace of hearts on the first club trick. Now it is a principle in claims resolution that a claimer will notice the cards that are thrown. We may rule that it would be normal for him to not realize what a particular discard means (so if the HK is the H8 with only the HJ out - I would rule he fails to reallize that the 8 is now high). But we are not allowed to rule that he might fail to see the ace. Now it is the esteemed opinion of the AC (and I agree with this) that when claimer sees the HA, he will no longer discard his HK, but rather that S8 (was it AKQJ8 ?). And he will make the extra trick. This part of the decision, you are allowed to criticize. But not the part before and after, those are correct applications of the claims laws. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 21 11:12:10 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:12:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001501c2a8e1$f1523600$c3be193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > > The squeeze is certainly "automatic" in the normal > > English sense of the word: it operates without any > > thought by the player. I'm not sure there is a good > > English word for this, but perhaps "inadvertent" comes > > close. Other possibilities from my thesaurus: unplanned, > > unintentional, spontaneous, self-operating. Maybe > > someone else will suggest the perfect adjective. > > +=+ ? Windfall Squeeze +=+ From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 16:20:34 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:20:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E0446A8.20807@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deliberate slow play > No Jaap, this one isn't correct. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > I really don't care if reduces the number of claims (a tiny wimpsy little > > bit only, only fools make this kind of claims). I even wish the number of > > claims reduced a little if it means stopping this kind of stupid claims. If > > the guy claimes 5 spade tricks and the opps have a spade stopper than he > > loses a trick (even if there is a self-operating squeeze). Keep it simple. > > Nobody asked him to claim six spades. This has nothing to do with normal, > > rational, irrational play or so. In his mind the spades are good and if they > > are not why help him out with giving him a heart trick? He is supposed to > > play the hand himself. > Please accept that I am not talking about this case exactly. Maybe > this one is just a little bit accross the line and therefor the AC > ruling incorrect. > But accept my comments in principle. I can not say I know what is in Jaap's mind but it seems that his point is that keeping the HK is inconsistent with the clarification and discarding it is consistent with the clarification. Note it would not be illegal to play it under the club. Now, it seems that the point you are making is that claimer has done something and he is to get the benefit of undoing it. Should not this principle be taken to the limit? If the defender had taken his HA earlier he would have gotten the trick, so why not turn back the play so that he can take his ace? Surely he was entitled to it. Every bit as much as claimer is entitled to undo his clarification. regards roger pewick > You do agree that on the first club, LHO has to throw something? > You do agree that if he throws a spade, the claim is now correct as > the spades will come through? > You do accept that a claimer who says that AKQJ9 are high would lose > out to Txxxx - x but not to xxxxx - T ? > So you will admit that LHO will have to throw the ace of hearts on the > first club trick. > > Now it is a principle in claims resolution that a claimer will notice > the cards that are thrown. We may rule that it would be normal for him > to not realize what a particular discard means (so if the HK is the H8 > with only the HJ out - I would rule he fails to reallize that the 8 is > now high). But we are not allowed to rule that he might fail to see > the ace. > > Now it is the esteemed opinion of the AC (and I agree with this) that > when claimer sees the HA, he will no longer discard his HK, but rather > that S8 (was it AKQJ8 ?). And he will make the extra trick. > This part of the decision, you are allowed to criticize. But not the > part before and after, those are correct applications of the claims laws. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sat Dec 21 18:45:15 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:45:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E0446A8.20807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004901c2a921$688bc300$25b54351@noos.fr> What is on a mans mind (mine in case) ? I think this case is a perfect example of what is wrong with the way 'we' handle claims. Sometimes there is a problem that a claim is unclear. Phoenix-3 is such a case. Declarer thought that saying 'the rest' was sufficient, the local ACBL people thought otherwise. This is a communication problem. This type of problems are difficult to avoid and difficult to rule. In P-3 I have no hard feelings one way or another but I think it is completely ridiculous we have no accepted standards for this rather frequent 'the rest without mentioning trumps' case (P-4 is from the same class). But this claim was very clear. Declarer claimed CA and five spade tricks. This is a claim with a logical error, there where no five spade tricks. IMO the guy should pay for his stupidity like we all have to pay for our stupid mistakes we all make all the time at the bridge table. But look what happens. The TD intervenes and starts playing the hand for the declarer. The TD is very smart and discovers that a 'normal' line will succeed without the fifth spade. I think this is completely wrong. The TD is probably right that any sane person would have found this line of play, the problem is that the claimer was insane at that moment and 'probably' incapable of finding this line. What would/might have happened if play had continued is that he plays CA and when the discard is too slow to his liking he will discard the HK and say something like the 'spades are good'. Do you also allow this claim (almost the same but now the HK has been played)? Probably you don't because HK has been played. But what is the difference? If the guy has convinced him self that the spades are good the hand is over for him and he might well fail to see any discard because there is no reason anymore for him to look at the discards. IMO claims which logical errors should never been 'corrected' by TD or AC. This does not discourage people to claim (I have nothing against claims, I love them), it discourages people to avoid faulty claims (which is a good thing IMO). And do you really think that this kind of rulings 'it was a stupid claim but don't worry uncle TD helps you out because on this particular lay of the cards bla bla bla' makes claims popular by opponents. Believe me, they hate it. TD should use judgement when there are communication problems between claimer and the opponents (and problems like that). But once it has been established that the claimer made a logical error (like not counting correctly, missing a card, etc) he has to suffer the consequences. (and they should be nasty like when you revoke or so). If the current law doesn't support that concept it should be changed. Jaap van der Neut call an erroneous claim Well my mind on this type of cases works like this. IMO this is not a case where the claim was unclear. This was a very clear claim. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deliberate slow play > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deliberate slow play > > > > No Jaap, this one isn't correct. > > > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > I really don't care if reduces the number of claims (a tiny wimpsy > little > > > bit only, only fools make this kind of claims). I even wish the > number of > > > claims reduced a little if it means stopping this kind of stupid > claims. If > > > the guy claimes 5 spade tricks and the opps have a spade stopper > than he > > > loses a trick (even if there is a self-operating squeeze). Keep it > simple. > > > Nobody asked him to claim six spades. This has nothing to do with > normal, > > > rational, irrational play or so. In his mind the spades are good and > if they > > > are not why help him out with giving him a heart trick? He is > supposed to > > > play the hand himself. > > > > Please accept that I am not talking about this case exactly. Maybe > > this one is just a little bit accross the line and therefor the AC > > ruling incorrect. > > But accept my comments in principle. > > I can not say I know what is in Jaap's mind but it seems that his point > is that keeping the HK is inconsistent with the clarification and > discarding it is consistent with the clarification. Note it would not > be illegal to play it under the club. > > Now, it seems that the point you are making is that claimer has done > something and he is to get the benefit of undoing it. Should not this > principle be taken to the limit? If the defender had taken his HA > earlier he would have gotten the trick, so why not turn back the play so > that he can take his ace? Surely he was entitled to it. Every bit as > much as claimer is entitled to undo his clarification. > > regards > roger pewick > > > You do agree that on the first club, LHO has to throw something? > > You do agree that if he throws a spade, the claim is now correct as > > the spades will come through? > > You do accept that a claimer who says that AKQJ9 are high would lose > > out to Txxxx - x but not to xxxxx - T ? > > So you will admit that LHO will have to throw the ace of hearts on the > > first club trick. > > > > Now it is a principle in claims resolution that a claimer will notice > > the cards that are thrown. We may rule that it would be normal for him > > to not realize what a particular discard means (so if the HK is the H8 > > with only the HJ out - I would rule he fails to reallize that the 8 is > > now high). But we are not allowed to rule that he might fail to see > > the ace. > > > > Now it is the esteemed opinion of the AC (and I agree with this) that > > when claimer sees the HA, he will no longer discard his HK, but rather > > that S8 (was it AKQJ8 ?). And he will make the extra trick. > > This part of the decision, you are allowed to criticize. But not the > > part before and after, those are correct applications of the claims > laws. > > > 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Dec 21 19:51:48 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 08:51:48 +1300 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: <003701c2a88e$12eadf00$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c2a92a$697e9860$0ee536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Marvin L. French > Sent: Saturday, 21 December 2002 2:08 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] What is a logical alternative? > > > A logical alternative is one that is not illogical. Illogical > actions are > obviously foolish, egregiously erroneous, absurd. If an > action would be right > quite often, then it is not illogical. > > (Paraphrasing Edgar Kaplan's words of November 1995) > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California Bridge is a game of imperfect information. The amount of information varies. There are times when an action that 'would be right quite often' is illogical. Assumption: I am interpreting 'would be right' to mean would work at the table. Example: at times in the bidding I have come to the realization that a slam was at best on a finesse. Some of these contracts have proved to be very close to but less than 50%. IMO it would be illogical to bid slam even though it 'would be right quite often' - 45% or 49% or whatever Wayne From jurgenr@t-online.de Sat Dec 21 21:52:13 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 22:52:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx Message-ID: > > Not exactly the example we gave in a recent thread, but I found this > combination while browsing a book for beginners from the > French Bridge > Federation. > > It's on page 37 (large print) of the first book for beginners! > > Do you really imagine even Mrs Guggenheim to get this wrong? Hopefully Jurgen is on holidays since I can't resist: any reason to start reading those books again? ton =============================== No - not yet - and I wish you and all the others a Merry Christmas etc. Jürgen From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Dec 21 22:05:23 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 14:05:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? References: <000001c2a92a$697e9860$0ee536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000e01c2a93d$154c0d00$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Wayne Burrows wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > A logical alternative is one that is not illogical. Illogical > > actions are > > obviously foolish, egregiously erroneous, absurd. If an > > action would be right > > quite often, then it is not illogical. > > > > (Paraphrasing Edgar Kaplan's words of November 1995) > > > Bridge is a game of imperfect information. > > The amount of information varies. > > There are times when an action that 'would be right quite often' > is illogical. > > Assumption: I am interpreting 'would be right' to mean would > work at the table. Wrong assumption. "Would be right quite often" is determined without regard to the opposing hands, except as revealed in the bidding (or play) up to the time of decision. > > Example: at times in the bidding I have come to the realization > that a slam was at best on a finesse. Some of these contracts > have proved to be very close to but less than 50%. IMO it would > be illogical to bid slam even though it 'would be right quite often' > - 45% or 49% or whatever > Well, your example is not an example of what you wrote. Anyway, if a player may have used UI to stay out of a slam (partner perhaps folding his cards and entering the contract in his CC before the auction was over), then yes, the score may be adjusted to -50 instead of +450 even if bidding the slam would be a marginally inferior action. People bid <50% slams all the time, which is not "foolish, absurd, egregiously erroneous." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jvickers@fish.co.uk Sat Dec 21 21:26:44 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:26:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again References: Message-ID: <00a501c2a93e$264f6880$8f7abc3e@oemcomputer> [Ed Reppert:] > On 12/13/02, James Vickers wrote: > > >[Herman:] > >> > >> I remember the argument well. > >> Since "bidding" is considered an "action", and that action is now > >> again a LA, you may not pass. > > > >Considered by whom? Not by those who have been insisting that "action" > >refers to a call or play (as the law says). > > Er, what? A bid is a call. If a call is an action, then so is a bid. You've misunderstood, Ed. The argument is about whether bidding per se can be considered a logical alternative, when "bidding" could encompass a number of individual bids, each of which counts on its own as a logical alternative. James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From jvickers@fish.co.uk Sat Dec 21 22:15:01 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 22:15:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <4A256C93.00075FBC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00b701c2a93e$68a36380$8f7abc3e@oemcomputer> [Richard Hills:] > I agree that a careless statement is > demonstrable evidence of a careless mind. > > So, therefore, I agree that if declarer did > not specifically state the careful play in > this suit: > > Declarer Dummy > A10xx KQ9xx > > then if declarer's RHO holds Jxxx, as TD I > would rule that a declarer of any skill level > would lose a trick. Or if declarer's LHO held the same, surely? James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From Trivia@TheDailyQuestion.com Sat Dec 21 02:53:55 2002 From: Trivia@TheDailyQuestion.com (Daily Trivia) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:53:55 +0800 Subject: [blml] Pass This On and Help Support the Arts. Message-ID: The Daily Question Today's Trivia
What were the original M&M's colors: Brown, Yellow, Orange, Red and ...?

Need a Hint? See below.
For the Answer: Click Here.

Pass This On and Help Support the Arts - This message is paid for in its entirety by a co-op of Photographers and Artists whose work randomly displays on our answer page.
Hint: Not Green...
To unsubscribe: click here. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Dec 21 23:47:52 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:47:52 +1300 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: <000e01c2a93d$154c0d00$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c2a94b$60d75000$aab337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Marvin L. French > Sent: Sunday, 22 December 2002 11:05 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] What is a logical alternative? > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > A logical alternative is one that is not illogical. Illogical > > > actions are > > > obviously foolish, egregiously erroneous, absurd. If an > > > action would be right > > > quite often, then it is not illogical. > > > > > > (Paraphrasing Edgar Kaplan's words of November 1995) > > > > > Bridge is a game of imperfect information. > > > > The amount of information varies. > > > > There are times when an action that 'would be right quite often' > > is illogical. > > > > Assumption: I am interpreting 'would be right' to mean would > > work at the table. > > Wrong assumption. "Would be right quite often" is determined > without regard to > the opposing hands, except as revealed in the bidding (or > play) up to the time > of decision. Sorry Marv I am not sure what specifically you mean. > > > > Example: at times in the bidding I have come to the realization > > that a slam was at best on a finesse. Some of these contracts > > have proved to be very close to but less than 50%. IMO it would > > be illogical to bid slam even though it 'would be right quite often' > > - 45% or 49% or whatever > > > Well, your example is not an example of what you wrote. I think it is. Let me try and clarify: An action would be right if it results directly in a good score for your side; If you can accurately judge that this slam is say 45% (or more likely merely that it is less than 50%) then although bidding this slam may be 'right quite often' I do not believe that it could be argued that it is logical to do so. > > Anyway, if a player may have used UI to stay out of a slam > (partner perhaps > folding his cards and entering the contract in his CC before > the auction was > over), then yes, the score may be adjusted to -50 instead of > +450 even if > bidding the slam would be a marginally inferior action. > People bid <50% slams > all the time, which is not "foolish, absurd, egregiously erroneous." There is a difference between bidding an inferior slam and bidding an inferior slam knowing that it is inferior. The definition you gave takes no account of the information available at the time of any decision. It only takes account of 'what would be right quite often'. I am expressing an opinion that sometimes bidding a slam that turns out to be say 45% is not illogical while other times bidding a slam that turns out to be the same 45% will be illogical. As an aside I bid a slam a week or two ago that IMO was logical but turned out to be zero per cent. On a different auction I would have asked for aces and found two missing and then it would be illogical to bid a slam. The logic of a bidding (or play) decision is not fully dependent on the outcome of that action or even the likely outcome when you have full single dummy information. Wayne From nancy@dressing.org Sun Dec 22 03:06:42 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy) Date: 21 Dec 2002 19:06:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Christmas Greetings from Nancy Message-ID: <096e542060316c2HOME@home.pacprod.com> Hi! You have a Personalized Electronic Christmas Greeting Card from Nancy waiting for you at Pacific Products Gallery! To view your card, simply click on this address: http://roadrunner.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/GRCard.exe?cm=b7183c211833844n Just connect to the above web site and then click on the "View My Card" button. The "View My Card" button is located on the left hand side of your screen. We'll keep your greeting card in our system for 90 days. Enjoy! *********Check These Out!********* EARN MONEY FROM YOUR WEBSITE!!! Earn commissions on any of our more than 4,000 unique gifts and collectibles when you join the Pacific Products Gallery Partner Program. Visit the link below for all the exciting details and start earning today! http://www.pacprod.com/partners/home.htm ==================================== HEAR WHO'S CALLING YOU WHILE YOUR ONLINE!!! Get the FREE the Internet Answering Machine... Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window to download the free software! http://www.pacprod.com/callwave ==================================== Joke Of The Day - http://www.pacprod.com/jokes.pl Random Quotes - http://www.pacprod.com/quotes/quotes.htm Today In History - http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/today.pl 1000's Of Gifts And Collectibles - http://www.pacprod.com ************************************** From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Thu Dec 19 12:31:17 2002 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:31:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Message-ID: <000201c2a998$f00cf7a0$084d003e@mycomputer> Dear Blml After a long pause due to personal reasons I am trying unsuccessfully for quite a while to get on the BLML mailing list . I have been told twice that I am subscribed ,but I get no mail. Can anyone help? Israel From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 22 12:18:38 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:18:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E0446A8.20807@skynet.be> <004901c2a921$688bc300$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E05AD9E.9080104@skynet.be> No Jaap, this is simply not correct. You are going wrong on a number of points. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > What is on a mans mind (mine in case) ? > > I think this case is a perfect example of what is wrong with the way 'we' > handle claims. > > Sometimes there is a problem that a claim is unclear. Phoenix-3 is such a > case. Declarer thought that saying 'the rest' was sufficient, the local ACBL > people thought otherwise. This is a communication problem. This type of > problems are difficult to avoid and difficult to rule. In P-3 I have no hard > feelings one way or another but I think it is completely ridiculous we have > no accepted standards for this rather frequent 'the rest without mentioning > trumps' case (P-4 is from the same class). > Indeed, we agree that this is merely a communication problem. We need to determine what is on claimer's mind, and in P3 and P4 this was not absolutely clear. However, in the dutch case it is clear what is on claimer's mind. He thought the spades would come high. > But this claim was very clear. Declarer claimed CA and five spade tricks. > This is a claim with a logical error, there where no five spade tricks. Indeed the claim has a logical error - there are no 5 spade tricks as claimed, when spades are 5-0 - but surely that is no reason to dissallow the claim, for example if spades are 4-1. > IMO > the guy should pay for his stupidity like we all have to pay for our stupid > mistakes we all make all the time at the bridge table. I agree that the guy must pay for the stupidities that cost, but not for those that don't cost. When I bid only 3He in stead of 4He yesterday, that was an enormous stupidity. Yet it did not cost, since partner had just enough to give the fourth himself. The mere fact that a player does something stupid is not enough for us to say that he merits a bad score from this. > But look what > happens. The TD intervenes and starts playing the hand for the declarer. The > TD is very smart and discovers that a 'normal' line will succeed without the > fifth spade. > Only one word is wrong here, Jaap. "a" should be "any". There is (in the opinion of the AC and in mine) no normal line that leads to only 5 tricks. A player need not suffer from an irrational line even if that is the one he stated. That is a well established principle in claims settlement. I repeat that I consider discarding the HK when seeing the HA appear is an irrational actoin. I agree that this may not be a unanimous view but the example is not interesting if discarding the HK is deemed normal. > I think this is completely wrong. The TD is probably right that any sane > person would have found this line of play, the problem is that the claimer > was insane at that moment and 'probably' incapable of finding this line. That is simply wrong. There is no direct link between the error of not noticing that spades can be 5-0, and the error of discarding the HK when the HA appears. It is totally wrong to assume from the presence of a small error (*) such as failing to consider bad breaks, that declarer would commit a huge (*) one totally unrelated to it. (* I consider the one error small, the other huge - your opinion may differ - but the fact remains that the errors are unrelated) > What would/might have happened if play had continued is that he plays CA and > when the discard is too slow to his liking he will discard the HK and say > something like the 'spades are good'. Do you also allow this claim (almost > the same but now the HK has been played)? Probably you don't because HK has > been played. But what is the difference? If the guy has convinced him self > that the spades are good the hand is over for him and he might well fail to > see any discard because there is no reason anymore for him to look at the > discards. > Simply untrue, Jaap. The claims laws are such that a claimer is deemed to notice discards. Now in the original like Ton told it, it did seem to me that this was almost what claimer did do. He played the club ace, and claimed only afterwards. We might say that this trick is not a claims trick, but a trick in progress, on which indeed the HK was played before LHO had a chance to discard his HA. But again, that is another story, not interesting for our discussion. I am considering a claimer who simply says "CA and 5 spades". > IMO claims which logical errors should never been 'corrected' by TD or AC. That may well be your opinion, but it is not how claims are currently being ruled. > This does not discourage people to claim (I have nothing against claims, I > love them), it discourages people to avoid faulty claims (which is a good > thing IMO). And do you really think that this kind of rulings 'it was a > stupid claim but don't worry uncle TD helps you out because on this > particular lay of the cards bla bla bla' makes claims popular by opponents. > Believe me, they hate it. > I believe they would hate far more the fact that they do not get a trick which they cannot fail to make. Suppose someone claims against you saying "you get your high trump". There are no trumps out and claimers hands are both high. Do you really want this trick? Do you really believe that you would be more unhappy if you did not get it than he would be if the laws were such that he lost this trick? > TD should use judgement when there are communication problems between > claimer and the opponents (and problems like that). But once it has been > established that the claimer made a logical error (like not counting > correctly, missing a card, etc) he has to suffer the consequences. (and they > should be nasty like when you revoke or so). If the current law doesn't > support that concept it should be changed. > I agree, he has to suffer the consequences. I believe there are no consequences in the current case. A claimer must receive the absolute worst score out of all possible ones. But no worse than that. > Jaap van der Neut > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jvickers@fish.co.uk Sun Dec 22 14:24:11 2002 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:24:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <005201c2a9c5$ea7ff120$4a8bbc3e@oemcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "James Vickers" Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity > > > On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, James Vickers wrote: > > > > Declarer Dummy > > > A10xx KQ9xx > > > > > > then if declarer's RHO holds Jxxx, as TD I > > > would rule that a declarer of any skill level > > > would lose a trick. > > > > Or if declarer's LHO held the same, surely? > > No... the idea is that if you cash the ace and LHO shows out, you are > doomed, but if you cash the king and RHO shows out, there is a marked > finesse. > > The point of the question is that the technically correct play with this > combination is always "king first", but we had a real-life example a > couple years ago of a world class player "irrationally" playing his ace. > > By some definitions of normal vs. irrational (for instance: any line that > never gains but sometimes loses is irrational), we award 5 tricks to this > combination without a statement. Others (the people who punish > Mrs. Guggenheim) are debating just how stupid we assume declarer is, if he > doesn't say he knows how to play this suit combination. > > Some people might argue for a trick anytime the jack is guarded ("declarer > can't count to 13") while others, including the original poster, think > declarer CAN count to 13, but is sloppy about choosing what to lead. > > GRB Gordon, I cannot claim to be a world class bridge player, but I'm no novice either. Two weeks ago I found myself in 3NT with a small doubleton spade in each hand, and A10xxx opposite KQxx in diamonds. I was so relieved not to receive a spade lead that I claimed ten tricks immediately, which included five from the diamond suit. In my haste I had not realised that I don't have five certain diamond tricks from the top, and I made no statement about how I was going to play the suit. Now I do not expect the director to decide how I'm going to play the cards when I don't know myself. I thought I had five diamonds from the top, and I expect to pay out to four diamonds in either hand, and for the TD to rule that I would play the suit first, unless I had stated otherwise. If I can make this mistake, there are a great many bridge players out there who can do the same. In your example of course declarer can make five tricks when RHO has Jxxx if he has his wits about him, but if he had had his wits about him he would have made five tricks against any distribution. James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Dec 22 14:44:57 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:44:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <005201c2a9c5$ea7ff120$4a8bbc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <3E05CFE9.9080007@skynet.be> Just so as to prove that I do not allow claimers to get away with just anything, let me say how I rule this one: James Vickers wrote: > > Gordon, I cannot claim to be a world class bridge player, but I'm no novice > either. Two weeks ago I found myself in 3NT with a small doubleton spade in > each hand, and A10xxx opposite KQxx in diamonds. I was so relieved not to > receive a spade lead that I claimed ten tricks immediately, which included > five from the diamond suit. In my haste I had not realised that I don't have > five certain diamond tricks from the top, and I made no statement about how > I was going to play the suit. > If the four diamonds are behind the king, you can be deemed to have started with the Ace. one trick away. If the four diamonds are behind the ace, it does not matter with which high card you start with, you shall always pick up the jack. I would rule one trick lost whenever the correct opponent has 4-0, and five tricks in any other case. I find it "normal" to not play this suit technically correct, but I do not find it normal not to count it to 13. The fact that you claimed without counting merely shows that you did not count, not that you cannot. > Now I do not expect the director to decide how I'm going to play the cards > when I don't know myself. I thought I had five diamonds from the top, and I > expect to pay out to four diamonds in either hand, and for the TD to rule > that I would play the suit first, unless I had stated otherwise. If I can > make this mistake, there are a great many bridge players out there who can > do the same. > I do not rule that it is normal, once you have started from the wrong side, to continue foolhardedly with four tricks in the suit, handing to a supposedly nonexistent fourth diamond. > In your example of course declarer can make five tricks when RHO has Jxxx if > he has his wits about him, but if he had had his wits about him he would > have made five tricks against any distribution. > > James Vickers > Wolverhampton, UK > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jfendel@optonline.net Sun Dec 22 14:59:47 2002 From: jfendel@optonline.net (Josh Fendel) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 09:59:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obligation to "play bridge"? In-Reply-To: <000001c2a94b$60d75000$aab337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <006f01c2a9ca$c5318500$f0052f18@Josh> The following occurred at a club game recently. I am curious how others would have ruled. N/S are competent players with a long established partnership, E/W are low intermediate players. Auction starting with south is: 1N, 2H*, 3H, P 4H, All pass * Alerted as spades. Result at the table was down 3, for -300. However, it turns out there was misinformation, and the E/W agreement is that the 2H bid shows both majors. The north hand is K Txxx AJxx KQxx South has KQx of hearts, 15-17 HCP It seems clear to me that E/W are not entitle to +300. About half the N/S pairs reached 3NT, which makes 4. What scores should be assigned? Is the 4H bid so bad that, even with the misinformation, they should get the score they got at the table? Or, since in no event could they have been in 4H if they had been given a correct interpretation, are they entitled to protection. Among the possibilities that I considered: +631, -630 -300, -630 A+. -630 Opinions please? From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Dec 22 15:50:30 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:50:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <005201c2a9c5$ea7ff120$4a8bbc3e@oemcomputer> <3E05CFE9.9080007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c2a9d1$db653fe0$7a1924d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > ...A10xxx opposite KQxx in diamonds.... > If the four diamonds are behind the king, you can be deemed to have > started with the Ace. one trick away. If the four diamonds are behind > the ace, it does not matter with which high card you start with, you > shall always pick up the jack. Can't find this one in Jean-Marc Roudinesco's Dictionary of Suit Combinations. Never mind, Herman. Perhaps someone will give you the nine of diamonds for Christmas... David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 19 22:31:55 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:31:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <4A256C94.007A2BB9.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=xMQ1LNxP2JqZjrPQwJPB2TfdgnKpHt7RDppFFAsTRktc8qauEr93bVFa Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >>As far as I can tell, the low heart is >>designated (L46B2), and the relevant >>question is whether declarer can change >>the designation under L45C4. [big snip] Incorrect. The *first* relevant question is for the TD to perform a bit of mind- reading, and make a ruling about the brackets in the stem sentence of Law 46B: >(except when declarer --0__=xMQ1LNxP2JqZjrPQwJPB2TfdgnKpHt7RDppFFAsTRktc8qauEr93bVFa Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline 's different >intention is incontrovertible) Best wishes Richard = --0__=xMQ1LNxP2JqZjrPQwJPB2TfdgnKpHt7RDppFFAsTRktc8qauEr93bVFa-- From nancy@dressing.org Sat Dec 21 00:41:52 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:41:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? Message-ID: <002801c2a889$c187e5d0$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C2A85F.D8935950 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At the club today, NLM team game.=20 The hands were: =20 S dlr Q96 All vul KJ986 7 A643 K A87432 T Q4 KQT953 A6 KQT52 J87 JT5 A7532 J42 9 =20 The bidding: P - 2D - 2H - 2S 2 diamonds described as weak. 3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S (A) " I think I should alert that bid as Gerber" P - 5D - P - P D all pass. =20 The director was called after the statement about Gerber with the = complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber = explanation". I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid according to = what the bid their partner made meant to them. East should respond to a = "Gerber" bid and West must bid according to what his understanding of = his partner's bid was without the Gerber explanation. West was not = playing "Gerber when obvious" and East thought they were playing that. = There were no convention cards on the table as this club has no rules = regarding convention cards. N and S both claimed that they had been = damaged because West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong. East = thought it weak and explained it as such. I tried to explain that a = player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as long = as his partner was unaware of the deviation. They had a huge problem = understanding this and continue to say W should be penalized. (very = typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very easily made = 5 D doubled. N/S are still complaining , S saying she would have bid 5 = hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this makes no sense to me). I = allowed the bid to stand. I also received very strong objections to the = fact that there were no opponent's convention cards and how difficult it = was to find out what they were playing without asking and creating a UI = scenario. (I agree but it is not my club). Following a discussion of = the situation with another director, more advanced than I, it was stated = that the bid should be rolled back to 4 Spades, down 1. Stating that = West having heard partner bid spades twice and failing to support his = 6-5 or 6-4 minor suit hand with the singleton spade king he should pass = the 4 spade bid. Further discussion with a third director would have = done what I did and allow the 5D doubled to stand but suggested a = procedural penalty to N/S for not knowing their system. Lots of = feathers were ruffled. What is the correct solution to this problem???? = =20 Thanks,=20 Nancy =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C2A85F.D8935950 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At the club today, NLM team game.
 
The hands were:     
  S=20 dlr           &nbs= p;Q96
  All=20 vul         KJ986
           &n= bsp;          7
           &n= bsp;          A643
     =20 K            =             &= nbsp;   A87432
     =20 T            =             &= nbsp;   =20 Q4
     =20 KQT953           &= nbsp;    =20 A6
     =20 KQT52           &n= bsp;      =20 J87
           &n= bsp;          =20 JT5
           &n= bsp;          =20 A7532
           &n= bsp;           J42=
           &n= bsp;           9&n= bsp;       
The bidding:
P -    2D -     2H -=20 2S     2 diamonds described as weak.
3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S    (A) " I think I should alert = that=20 bid as Gerber"
P  -   5D      - =20 P -  P
D   all pass.    
The director was called after the statement about Gerber with = the=20 complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber=20 explanation".
I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid = according to=20 what the bid their partner made meant to them.  East=20 should respond to a "Gerber"  bid and West  must bid = according to what his understanding of his partner's bid was = without=20 the Gerber explanation.  West was not playing "Gerber when = obvious"=20 and East thought they were playing that.  There were no = convention=20 cards on the table as this club has no rules regarding convention=20 cards.   N and S both claimed that they had been damaged = because=20 West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong.  East thought=20 it weak and explained it as such.  I tried to explain = that a=20 player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as long = as his=20 partner was unaware of the deviation.  They had a huge problem = understanding this and continue to say W should be = penalized.  =20 (very typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very = easily=20 made 5 D doubled.  N/S are still complaining , S = saying she=20 would have bid 5 hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this = makes no=20 sense to me).   I allowed the bid to stand.  I also = received very=20 strong objections to the fact that there were no = opponent's convention=20 cards and how difficult it was to find out what they were playing = without=20 asking and creating a UI scenario. (I agree but it is not my=20 club).  Following a discussion of the situation with another = director,=20 more advanced than I, it was stated that the bid should be = rolled back=20 to 4 Spades, down 1.  Stating that West having heard partner = bid=20 spades twice and failing to support his 6-5 or 6-4 minor suit = hand with the=20 singleton spade king he should pass the 4 spade bid.  Further = discussion=20 with a third director would have done what I did and allow the 5D = doubled=20 to stand but suggested a procedural penalty to N/S for not knowing their = system.  Lots of feathers were ruffled.  What is the correct = solution=20 to this problem????      
Thanks, 
Nancy          &nb= sp;          
------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C2A85F.D8935950-- From nancy@dressing.org Sun Dec 22 07:18:08 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 02:18:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? Message-ID: <000901c2a98a$472c6cf0$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2A960.5E37E070 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: Ruling??? At the club today, NLM team game.=20 The hands were: =20 S dlr Q96 All vul KJ986 7 A643 K A87432 T Q4 KQT953 A6 KQT52 J87 JT5 A7532 J42 9 =20 The bidding: P - 2D - 2H - 2S 2 diamonds described as weak. 3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S (A) " I think I should alert that bid as Gerber" P - 5D - P - P D all pass. =20 The director was called after the statement about Gerber with the = complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber = explanation". I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid according to = what the bid their partner made meant to them. East should respond to a = "Gerber" bid and West must bid according to what his understanding of = his partner's bid was without the Gerber explanation. West was not = playing "Gerber when obvious" and East thought they were playing that. = There were no convention cards on the table as this club has no rules = regarding convention cards. N and S both claimed that they had been = damaged because West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong. East = thought it weak and explained it as such. I tried to explain that a = player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as long = as his partner was unaware of the deviation. They had a huge problem = understanding this and continue to say W should be penalized. (very = typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very easily made = 5 D doubled. N/S are still complaining , S saying she would have bid 5 = hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this makes no sense to me). I = allowed the bid to stand. I also received very strong objections to the = fact that there were no opponent's convention cards and how difficult it = was to find out what they were playing without asking and creating a UI = scenario. (I agree but it is not my club). Following a discussion of = the situation with another director, more advanced than I, it was stated = that the bid should be rolled back to 4 Spades, down 1. Stating that = West having heard partner bid spades twice and failing to support his = 6-5 or 6-4 minor suit hand with the singleton spade king he should pass = the 4 spade bid. Further discussion with a third director would have = done what I did and allow the 5D doubled to stand but suggested a = procedural penalty to N/S for not knowing their system. Lots of = feathers were ruffled. What is the correct solution to this problem???? = =20 Thanks,=20 Nancy =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2A960.5E37E070 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy T = Dressing=20
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: Ruling???

At the club today, NLM team game.
 
The hands were:     
  S=20 dlr           &nbs= p;Q96
  All=20 vul         KJ986
           &n= bsp;          7
           &n= bsp;          A643
     =20 K            =             &= nbsp;   A87432
     =20 T            =             &= nbsp;   =20 Q4
     =20 KQT953           &= nbsp;    =20 A6
     =20 KQT52           &n= bsp;      =20 J87
           &n= bsp;          =20 JT5
           &n= bsp;          =20 A7532
           &n= bsp;           J42=
           &n= bsp;           9&n= bsp;       
The bidding:
P -    2D -     2H -=20 2S     2 diamonds described as weak.
3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S    (A) " I think I should alert = that=20 bid as Gerber"
P  -   5D      - =20 P -  P
D   all pass.    
The director was called after the statement about Gerber with = the=20 complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber=20 explanation".
I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid = according to=20 what the bid their partner made meant to them.  East=20 should respond to a "Gerber"  bid and West  must bid = according to what his understanding of his partner's bid was = without=20 the Gerber explanation.  West was not playing "Gerber when = obvious"=20 and East thought they were playing that.  There were no = convention=20 cards on the table as this club has no rules regarding convention=20 cards.   N and S both claimed that they had been damaged = because=20 West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong.  East thought=20 it weak and explained it as such.  I tried to explain = that a=20 player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as long = as his=20 partner was unaware of the deviation.  They had a huge problem = understanding this and continue to say W should be = penalized.  =20 (very typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very = easily=20 made 5 D doubled.  N/S are still complaining , S = saying she=20 would have bid 5 hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this = makes no=20 sense to me).   I allowed the bid to stand.  I also = received very=20 strong objections to the fact that there were no = opponent's convention=20 cards and how difficult it was to find out what they were playing = without=20 asking and creating a UI scenario. (I agree but it is not my=20 club).  Following a discussion of the situation with another = director,=20 more advanced than I, it was stated that the bid should be = rolled back=20 to 4 Spades, down 1.  Stating that West having heard partner = bid=20 spades twice and failing to support his 6-5 or 6-4 minor suit = hand with the=20 singleton spade king he should pass the 4 spade bid.  Further = discussion=20 with a third director would have done what I did and allow the 5D = doubled=20 to stand but suggested a procedural penalty to N/S for not knowing their = system.  Lots of feathers were ruffled.  What is the correct = solution=20 to this problem????      
Thanks, 
Nancy          &nb= sp;          
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2A960.5E37E070-- From woek@xs4all.nl Sun Dec 22 11:34:01 2002 From: woek@xs4all.nl (Kees van der Weijden) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:34:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] The reason of full-disclosure Message-ID: <001001c2a9ae$091a08e0$cf85fea9@compaq> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2A9B6.684FD6C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have a fundamental question. I have always understand that the fundamental REASON of full-disclosure = is: to SHOW the opps(the world) that you don't have used UI.=20 Q: Is this interpretation correct? You must always afterwards can explain why you came to that specific = contract or that specific counterplay. And therefore you must announce = this by (pre)alerting and convention card and have the opps the right to = ask. =3D=3D=3D Explanation/background:=20 If this is the case, let's consider the right to ask. That right also = exists to perform full-disclosure. But I think that sometimes this right = is used with no other reason than to provoke UI (opps maybe don't have = concrete agreements in that particular situation), because it is used in = situations wherein a player don't want to bid, and when he needs the = information for the counterplay, he can ask after the auction also. I = feel strong that provoking UI in such a manner is a main violation of = the rules, for it is not used for the reason of full-disclosure. So, = let's at least tell the world the reason of full-disclosure, so that = provoking UI by abusing the right to ask becomes a main violation of the = rules.=20 If this interpretation is not correct, well, tell me why, and than I = have learned. Many TD's in the Netherlands seemes to think you always = must ask after an alert with bad cards also, to avoid the UI to the = partner that you are not interested. With the negative effect of = misguiding future leader and generating UI. Sorry for my bad english, Kees van der Weijden, Netherlands. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2A9B6.684FD6C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have a fundamental = question.
 
I have always understand that=20 the fundamental REASON of full-disclosure is: to SHOW the = opps(the world) that you don't have used UI.
 
Q: Is this interpretation=20 correct?
 
You must always afterwards can = explain why you=20 came to that specific contract or that specific counterplay. = And therefore=20 you must announce this by (pre)alerting and convention card and have the = opps=20 the right to ask.
 
=3D=3D=3D
 
Explanation/background: 
If this is the = case, let's consider=20 the right to ask. That right also exists to perform full-disclosure. But = I think that sometimes this right is used with no other reason than = to=20 provoke UI (opps maybe don't have concrete agreements in that=20 particular situation), because it is used in situations wherein a player = don't=20 want to bid, and when he needs the information for the counterplay, he=20 can ask after the auction also. I feel strong that provoking UI in = such a=20 manner is a main violation of the rules, for it is not used for the = reason of=20 full-disclosure. So, let's at least tell the world the reason = of=20 full-disclosure, so that provoking UI by abusing the right to = ask=20 becomes a main violation of the rules. 
 
If this interpretation is not = correct, well,=20 tell me why, and than I have learned. Many TD's in the = Netherlands seemes=20 to think you always must ask after an alert with bad cards also, to = avoid the UI=20 to the partner that you are not interested. With the negative effect of=20 misguiding future leader and generating UI.
 
Sorry for my bad english,
Kees van der Weijden,=20 Netherlands.
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2A9B6.684FD6C0-- From henk@ripe.net Sun Dec 22 18:46:10 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:46:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: <000201c2a998$f00cf7a0$084d003e@mycomputer> Message-ID: Israel, > After a long pause due to personal reasons I am trying unsuccessfully > for quite a while to get on the BLML mailing list . I have been told > twice that I am subscribed ,but I get no mail. Can anyone help? You had set the "subscribe but don't send me mail" option. I've set it back to normal delivery. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From toddz@worldnet.att.com Sun Dec 22 19:07:05 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:07:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <3E05CFE9.9080007@skynet.be> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:45 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity > > ATxxx KQxx > > The fact that you claimed without counting merely shows > that you did not count, not that you cannot. Can we encourage bridge players to be a bit less lazy? Put me in the camp where those too lazy to do or say X before claiming don't deserve the benefit of tricks that require doing or saying X. Is playing the KD an insufferable burden? -Todd From kapust@mail.kar.net Sun Dec 22 21:47:17 2002 From: kapust@mail.kar.net (Sergey Kapustin) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:47:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] TD Code References: Message-ID: <007701c2aa03$b31951c0$cd82b2c3@svk> Ukrainian Bridge Federation has read draft of TD Code that was introduced by Vitold Brushtunov and supported his request to consider this project at the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee. Our feeling is that similar text will be quite useful, especially for TDs at club games. Best regards, Sergey Kapustin, Vice President of the Ukrainian Bridge Federation From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 22 23:22:38 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:22:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >From the thread "Deliberate slow play": [big snip] Jaap wrote: >>But look what happens. The TD intervenes >>and starts playing the hand for the >>declarer. The TD is very smart and >>discovers that a 'normal' line will >>succeed without the fifth spade. Herman replied: >Only one word is wrong here, Jaap. "a" >should be "any". There is (in the opinion >of the AC and in mine) no normal line that >leads to only 5 tricks. A player need not >suffer from an irrational line even if that >is the one he stated. That is a well >established principle in claims settlement. > >I repeat that I consider discarding the HK >when seeing the HA appear is an irrational >action. I agree that this may not be a >unanimous view but the example is not >interesting if discarding the HK is deemed >normal. [big snip] 1. Declarer has claimed thinking that the AKQJ8 of spades are five winners, with the K of hearts loser being discarded on the A of clubs. 2. When the A of hearts is discarded by LHO on the A of clubs, declarer now thinks dummy has six winners, and now thinks that a winner has to be discarded. 3. Therefore, declarer will discard the 8 of spades 50% of the time and the K of hearts 50% of the time. 4. Discarding the K of hearts is objectively irrational, but not subjectively irrational if the remaining cards are thought to be winners. 5. Ruling that it would *always* be irrational for declarer to discard the K of hearts removes a percentage of a trick from the defenders. Ruling that declarer would *always* carelessly or inferiorly discard the K of hearts removes a percentage of a trick from declarer. This particular claim is an exemplar of when weighted scores for claims would be most useful - when an unexpected circumstance occurs which modifies the previously stated claim line. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 22 22:25:20 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:25:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <3DFDE1DD.1030106@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12/16/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >"you get one trick". >"what with?" >"your high trump" >"there are no trumps left" >"then I get all tricks" >"no, you said we got one trick, and you're not allowed to change your >statement, and there is a legal way for us to get one trick, if you >carefully unblock all those diamonds, so we get one trick" > >Surely not. Erm. Sorry, I'm a little behind in my reading. But, um, "you get one trick" is a concession, not a claim. "Then I get all tricks" is now an attempt to claim without conceding any tricks - iow, claimer is changing his claim/concession. He can't do that. OTOH, it seems to me that last bit, about unblocking the diamonds, falls under 71C, and I doubt doing so is "normal". I would rule then, under 71C, that claimer gets all the tricks. But not because he stated an abnormal line - because he conceded a trick he couldn't lose by any normal line. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 22 22:30:53 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:30:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: From the ashes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/16/02, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Agree in case 3. Not so sure about case 4. The AC ruled that the >claim statement had been interrupted. I believe that we have to give >declarer the benefit of the doubt in statement interruption cases or >the defenders will be able to derail many valid claims. Hear, hear! At the levels where I play, people just flat do *not* understand the laws - any of the laws. In particular, as soon as a claim is made, like as not an opponent will interrupt the claim statement, either to say something about the statement, or to ask "play it out". It's got to the point where if I suspect that will happen, I just do not claim, and if I do claim, I call the director the instant I'm interrupted. Some players around here have learned from that last; some have not. :( From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 22 23:26:15 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:26:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obligation to "play bridge"? References: <006f01c2a9ca$c5318500$f0052f18@Josh> Message-ID: <000f01c2aa11$8652e260$70d8fea9@WINXP> IMO you should apply Law 12C2, with N/S being given the most favourable result that was likely and for E/W the most unfavourable result that was at all probable had the explanation been correct. The rest is up to your judgement (including how much tolerance you will give E/W as "low intermediate players"). Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Fendel" To: Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: [blml] Obligation to "play bridge"? > > > > The following occurred at a club game recently. I am curious how others > would have ruled. N/S are competent players with a long established > partnership, E/W are low intermediate players. > > Auction starting with south is: > 1N, 2H*, 3H, P > 4H, All pass > > * Alerted as spades. > > Result at the table was down 3, for -300. However, it turns out there > was misinformation, and the E/W agreement is that the 2H bid shows both > majors. > The north hand is > > K > Txxx > AJxx > KQxx > > South has KQx of hearts, 15-17 HCP > > It seems clear to me that E/W are not entitle to +300. About half the > N/S pairs reached 3NT, which makes 4. What scores should be assigned? > Is the 4H bid so bad that, even with the misinformation, they should get > the score they got at the table? Or, since in no event could they have > been in 4H if they had been given a correct interpretation, are they > entitled to protection. Among the possibilities that I considered: > +631, -630 > -300, -630 > A+. -630 > > Opinions please? > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 23 00:02:40 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 01:02:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <002801c2a889$c187e5d0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <002c01c2aa16$9c573ac0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:41 AM Subject: [blml] Ruling??? At the club today, NLM team game. The hands were: S dlr Q96 All vul KJ986 7 A643 K A87432 T Q4 KQT953 A6 KQT52 J87 JT5 A7532 J42 9 The bidding: P - 2D - 2H - 2S 2 diamonds described as weak. 3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S (A) " I think I should alert that bid as Gerber" P - 5D - P - P D all pass. The director was called after the statement about Gerber with the complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber explanation". I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid according to what the bid their partner made meant to them. East should respond to a "Gerber" bid and West must bid according to what his understanding of his partner's bid was without the Gerber explanation. West was not playing "Gerber when obvious" and East thought they were playing that. There were no convention cards on the table as this club has no rules regarding convention cards. This sounds correct to me. N and S both claimed that they had been damaged because West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong. N/S should be requested to state in what way they felt they were damaged? Would they have called differently? I suppose they should be heard on a claim that they would not have doubled 5D, but the crucial question is whether the agreement is that 2D is weak or not. If the explanation was correct then no redress however strong West was. East thought it weak and explained it as such. I tried to explain that a player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as long as his partner was unaware of the deviation. They had a huge problem understanding this and continue to say W should be penalized. (very typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very easily made 5 D doubled. N/S are still complaining , S saying she would have bid 5 hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this makes no sense to me). Well, maybe he supposed to cash in on 5D, but would prefer to sacrifice in 5H against a 5D that makes? I allowed the bid to stand. I also received very strong objections to the fact that there were no opponent's convention cards and how difficult it was to find out what they were playing without asking and creating a UI scenario. (I agree but it is not my club). Following a discussion of the situation with another director, more advanced than I, it was stated that the bid should be rolled back to 4 Spades, down 1. Stating that West having heard partner bid spades twice and failing to support his 6-5 or 6-4 minor suit hand with the singleton spade king he should pass the 4 spade bid. That doesn't make sense to me. Further discussion with a third director would have done what I did and allow the 5D doubled to stand but suggested a procedural penalty to N/S for not knowing their system. Is this a misprint for suggested procedural penalty to E/W? Lots of feathers were ruffled. What is the correct solution to this problem???? 1: Suggest that the club adopts a recommendation to use convention cards 2: I would probably assign an adjusted score of 5D undoubled and made for both sides. 3: Try to calm down and quietly explain the principles of the laws to all four players. (Yes, I have noticed that that was in fact done without success) Note: This is my opinion and not an undisputable facit on what is correct. Thanks, Nancy ¨' You're welcome Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 23 01:44:16 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:44:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] I like Ike Message-ID: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "From the ashes", Ed Reppert wrote: >At the levels where I play, people just >flat do *not* understand the laws - any >of the laws. In particular, as soon as a >claim is made, like as not an opponent >will interrupt the claim statement, >either to say something about the >statement, or to ask "play it out". [snip] One of America's better (and certainly most popular) Presidents was Dwight D. Eisenhower. He also demonstrated good taste by having bridge as a hobby. After Eisenhower retired from the Army, but before he became President of the USA, he served as President of a major university. On one occasion, an officious underling pressed Eisenhower to sign a by-law penalising students who continually took a diagonal shortcut across a grassy quadrangle. Eisenhower refused. Instead, Ike gave the practical order that a new path be laid along the route of the popular shortcut. In my experience, a highly popular infraction of Law is the "play it out" command when disputing a claim. Since one of the principles in designing a set of rules, is to have the rules that players want and will abide by, should the "play it out" option for a disputed claim become legal in the 2005 Laws? Best wishes Richard From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 23 02:12:54 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:12:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] I like Ike In-Reply-To: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:44:16 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: >Since one of the principles in designing >a set of rules, is to have the rules that >players want and will abide by, should >the "play it out" option for a disputed >claim become legal in the 2005 Laws? > If it does, I would suggest that an idea be borrowed from OKBridge (possibly from other online games, too) and declarer be required to face all his remaining cards, so that opponents can defend double dummy in the strictest sense of the term. 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 adam@tameware.com Mon Dec 23 02:41:48 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:41:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] I like Ike In-Reply-To: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: At 11:44 AM +1000 12/23/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >After Eisenhower retired from the Army, but before he became >President of the USA, he served as President of a major university. Here's an except from Alan and Dorothy Truscott's just published "New York Times Bridge Book": In 1948 the former commander of the invading armies in Europe had a non-military job for the first time in his life: president of Columbia University. This undemanding assignment in Manhattan suited him well, because he could go to his office in the morning and play bridge at his club in the afternoon. One day he was at the card table and was told by a club servant that he was wanted on the telephone. He was not at all pleased at being disturbed, and grumbled off. He returned looking black, and his young partner, Dan Caulkins, dared to ask what the story was. "Who was that?" "It was the President." (Truman) "What did he want?" "He wants me to go to Paris as head of NATO." "Will you go?" With a shrug, "If the President says go you go." "Who will you take as your number two?" "Well, I ought to take Bedell Smith. But I think I'll take Gruenther because he's a better bridge player." So where's the relevance to BLML? This is the same Al Gruenther known to bridge historians as the referee for the Culbertson-Lenz match 71 years ago. That match will be re-enacted next month at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in NYC. For more info see http://www.acbl.org/bridgeweek/bw.htm -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 23 03:01:53 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:01:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] I like Ike In-Reply-To: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000901c2aa2f$aaa30370$7e2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, 23 December 2002 2:44 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] I like Ike > > > > > In the thread "From the ashes", Ed > Reppert wrote: > > >At the levels where I play, people just > >flat do *not* understand the laws - any > >of the laws. In particular, as soon as a > >claim is made, like as not an opponent > >will interrupt the claim statement, > >either to say something about the > >statement, or to ask "play it out". > > [snip] > > One of America's better (and certainly > most popular) Presidents was Dwight D. > Eisenhower. He also demonstrated good > taste by having bridge as a hobby. > > After Eisenhower retired from the Army, > but before he became President of the > USA, he served as President of a major > university. On one occasion, an > officious underling pressed Eisenhower > to sign a by-law penalising students > who continually took a diagonal shortcut > across a grassy quadrangle. Eisenhower > refused. Instead, Ike gave the practical > order that a new path be laid along the > route of the popular shortcut. > > In my experience, a highly popular > infraction of Law is the "play it out" > command when disputing a claim. > > Since one of the principles in designing > a set of rules, is to have the rules that > players want and will abide by, should > the "play it out" option for a disputed > claim become legal in the 2005 Laws? > I think that playing it out or even a request to play it out confers or can confer an advantage on the offending claimer. Playing online a couple of days ago a declarer claimed failing to mention a defensive trump merely objecting to this claim warns the declarer that something is awry and may allow declarer to alter to a more successful line than was intended. There was no statement at the time of the claim. Playing it out allowed the contract to make but I will never know if declarer's intended line before the objection to the claim was the same or if it would have been successful. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 23 04:18:50 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:18:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] I like Ike Message-ID: <4A256C98.0016162C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: [snip] >>Since one of the principles in designing >>a set of rules, is to have the rules that >>players want and will abide by, should >>the "play it out" option for a disputed >>claim become legal in the 2005 Laws? Wayne Burrows replied: >I think that playing it out or even a request >to play it out confers or can confer an >advantage on the offending claimer. [snip] Agreed. I do not suggest that "play it out" should be the *only* option for disputing a claim; I suggest that an objector should have a choice between: a) calling the TD, or b) asking, "play it out". If an objector waives their right to a TD, then they have also waived a possible bonus trick or two - their problem. I personally occasionally over-estimate the ability of my opponents to understand my claims. I would prefer being able to legally accept their request to "play it out", rather than having to waste time summoning a busy TD. Best wishes Richard From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Dec 23 04:35:06 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:35:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] I like Ike In-Reply-To: <000901c2aa2f$aaa30370$7e2e56d2@Desktop> References: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021222233016.02165ba0@mail.fscv.net> At 10:01 PM 22/12/2002, Wayne Burrows wrote: >I think that playing it out or even a request >to play it out confers or can confer an >advantage on the offending claimer. Wayne I am sure that "playing it out" usually does confer an advantage to the offending claimer. As one who both understands the rules of bridge and is ethical, when I am requested to "play it out" on OKbridge, I do so and: 1. I draw no trumps unless I had stated that I would do so 2. I take no finesse unless I had declared that I would do so To my mind, this is the ethical thing to do, and it should be the required thing as well. Walt From nancy@dressing.org Mon Dec 23 05:02:44 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:02:44 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Ruling??? Message-ID: <000801c2aa40$87b7e540$6401a8c0@hare> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Sven Pran" Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > Yes, the procedural penalty was suggested for E/W not N/S. The opener = of 2D > knew his partner would think the bid was weak but he couldn't think of = a > better way to start to describe his 2 suiter. He intended to bid clubs= on > his next bid. They had no agreement on the 2S response but most player= s in > this group would not be playing it non-forcing.. S said she would have bid > 5 hearts had she known W had a strong hand! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 7:02 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > To: Bridge Laws > > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:41 AM > > Subject: [blml] Ruling??? > > > > > > At the club today, NLM team game. > > > > The hands were: > > S dlr Q96 > > All vul KJ986 > > 7 > > A643 > > K A87432 > > T Q4 > > KQT953 A6 > > KQT52 J87 > > JT5 > > A7532 > > J42 > > 9 > > The bidding: > > P - 2D - 2H - 2S 2 diamonds described as weak. > > 3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S (A) " I think I should alert that bid as Gerb= er" > > P - 5D - P - P > > D all pass. > > The director was called after the statement about Gerber with the > complaint > > that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber explanation". > > I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid according t= o > what > > the bid their partner made meant to them. East should respond to a > "Gerber" > > bid and West must bid according to what his understanding of his > partner's > > bid was without the Gerber explanation. West was not playing "Gerber when > > obvious" and East thought they were playing that. There were no > convention > > cards on the table as this club has no rules regarding convention car= ds. > > > > This sounds correct to me. > > > > N and S both claimed that they had been damaged because West's bid = was > not > > a weak two and was too strong. > > > > N/S should be requested to state in what way they felt they were damaged? > > Would they have called differently? I suppose they should be heard on= a > > claim that they would not have doubled 5D, but the crucial question i= s > > whether the agreement is that 2D is weak or not. If the explanation w= as > > correct then no redress however strong West was. > > > > East thought it weak and explained it as such. I tried to explain t= hat a > > player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as l= ong > as > > his partner was unaware of the deviation. They had a huge problem > > understanding this and continue to say W should be penalized. (very > > typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very easily ma= de 5 > D > > doubled. N/S are still complaining , S saying she would have bid 5 hearts > > had she known 2D was not weak. (this makes no sense to me). > > > > Well, maybe he supposed to cash in on 5D, but would prefer to sacrifi= ce in > > 5H against a 5D that makes? > > > > I allowed the bid to stand. I also received very strong objections= to > the > > fact that there were no opponent's convention cards and how difficult= it > was > > to find out what they were playing without asking and creating a UI > > scenario. (I agree but it is not my club). Following a discussion of the > > situation with another director, more advanced than I, it was stated that > > the bid should be rolled back to 4 Spades, down 1. Stating that West > having > > heard partner bid spades twice and failing to support his 6-5 or 6-4 minor > > suit hand with the singleton spade king he should pass the 4 spade bi= d. > > > > That doesn't make sense to me. > > > > Further discussion with a third director would have done what I did and > > allow the 5D doubled to stand but suggested a procedural penalty to N= /S > for > > not knowing their system. > > > > Is this a misprint for suggested procedural penalty to E/W? > > > > Lots of feathers were ruffled. What is the correct solution to thi= s > > problem???? > > > > 1: Suggest that the club adopts a recommendation to use convention ca= rds > > 2: I would probably assign an adjusted score of 5D undoubled and made for > > both sides. > > 3: Try to calm down and quietly explain the principles of the laws to all > > four players. > > (Yes, I have noticed that that was in fact done without success) > > > > Note: This is my opinion and not an undisputable facit on what is correct. > > > > Thanks, > > Nancy =A8' > > > > You're welcome > > > > Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 23 08:00:19 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:00:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] Obligation to "play bridge"? References: <006f01c2a9ca$c5318500$f0052f18@Josh> <000f01c2aa11$8652e260$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c2aa59$72323720$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > IMO you should apply Law 12C2, with N/S being given the > most favourable result that was likely and for E/W the most > unfavourable result that was at all probable had the explanation > been correct. The rest is up to your judgement (including how > much tolerance you will give E/W as "low intermediate players"). > But use your own judgment, without considering what happened at other tables, which is irrelevant. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 08:26:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:26:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: <005201c2a9c5$ea7ff120$4a8bbc3e@oemcomputer> <3E05CFE9.9080007@skynet.be> <000801c2a9d1$db653fe0$7a1924d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E06C8B0.8070603@skynet.be> oops. Sorry - never said I was a good player. See what kind of erroneous play can be deemed normal ? May I propose a new claims rule? If Herman can make it 100%, it's normal. Only kidding! David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >> ...A10xxx opposite KQxx in diamonds.... >> > >>If the four diamonds are behind the king, you can be deemed to have >>started with the Ace. one trick away. If the four diamonds are behind >>the ace, it does not matter with which high card you start with, you >>shall always pick up the jack. >> > > Can't find this one in Jean-Marc Roudinesco's Dictionary of Suit > Combinations. Never mind, Herman. Perhaps someone will give you the nine > of diamonds for Christmas... > > 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 Mon Dec 23 08:28:25 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:28:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity References: Message-ID: <3E06C929.3070802@skynet.be> Yes Todd, you are not contradicting me: Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Herman De Wael >>Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:45 AM >>Subject: Re: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity >> >>ATxxx KQxx >> >>The fact that you claimed without counting merely shows >>that you did not count, not that you cannot. >> > > Can we encourage bridge players to be a bit less lazy? Put me in > the camp where those too lazy to do or say X before claiming don't > deserve the benefit of tricks that require doing or saying X. Is > playing the KD an insufferable burden? > No it's not. And in this case the player has not played it. I'm not saying that. I am saying that if the suit divides 3-1, the player shall get his 5 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 08:38:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:38:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims References: Message-ID: <3E06CB69.1030400@skynet.be> Indeed Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 12/16/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>"you get one trick". >>"what with?" >>"your high trump" >>"there are no trumps left" >>"then I get all tricks" >>"no, you said we got one trick, and you're not allowed to change your >>statement, and there is a legal way for us to get one trick, if you >>carefully unblock all those diamonds, so we get one trick" >> >>Surely not. >> > > Erm. Sorry, I'm a little behind in my reading. But, um, "you get one > trick" is a concession, not a claim. "Then I get all tricks" is now an > attempt to claim without conceding any tricks - iow, claimer is changing > his claim/concession. He can't do that. OTOH, it seems to me that last > bit, about unblocking the diamonds, falls under 71C, and I doubt doing > so is "normal". I would rule then, under 71C, that claimer gets all the > tricks. But not because he stated an abnormal line - because he conceded > a trick he couldn't lose by any normal line. > Ed, I am not trying to teach people how the claims laws work. Your analysis is completely correct. The point I am trying to make is that the claim statement is not the begin and end all of all hypothetical play. We are not required, as Directors, to force upon players irrational lines in order to literally satisfy claim statements. We are at all times required to judge normal lines. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 08:52:50 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:52:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The reason of full-disclosure References: <001001c2a9ae$091a08e0$cf85fea9@compaq> Message-ID: <3E06CEE2.4020106@skynet.be> Hello Kees, and welcome to blml. Kees van der Weijden wrote: > Sorry for my bad english, > > Kees van der Weijden, Netherlands. No problems! > I have a fundamental question. > If you have no worse problems in life than UI, you are a very lucky man indeed! > > > I have always understand that the fundamental REASON of full-disclosure > is: to SHOW the opps(the world) that you don't have used UI. > I would not go as far as saying that this is THE fundamental reason. The main reason is still that opponents are entitled to know your methods, so that they can draw their conclusions about interfering in the bidding and defending (or declaring). > > > Q: Is this interpretation correct? > > > > You must always afterwards can explain why you came to that specific > contract or that specific counterplay. And therefore you must announce > this by (pre)alerting and convention card and have the opps the right to > ask. > > > > === > > > > Explanation/background: > > If this is the case, let's consider the right to ask. That right also > exists to perform full-disclosure. But I think that sometimes this right > is used with no other reason than to provoke UI (opps maybe don't have > concrete agreements in that particular situation), because it is used in > situations wherein a player don't want to bid, and when he needs the > information for the counterplay, he can ask after the auction also. I > feel strong that provoking UI in such a manner is a main violation of > the rules, for it is not used for the reason of full-disclosure. So, > let's at least tell the world the reason of full-disclosure, so that > provoking UI by abusing the right to ask becomes a main violation of the > rules. > > I agree that asking for the benefit of giving UI to opponents is not a good reason. But I turn the problem around. I would not try to discourage such questions by making them illegal, since it is impossible to determine what the reason for the question is. Rather, I would make certain that the laws make it uninteresting to ask for this reason. I believe that players have the right to protect their partners from receiving UI, so I deduce from that that a player who knows that he is about to say something his partner doesn't know be allowed to not say it. That way it becomes useless to try and ask questions merely to catch opponents in a L16 trap. Since the response will not carry UI. There are a few situations where this can be important. For instance, I shall never reply "I'm not certain". I shall always pick a meaning and explain this one. Sometimes I pick wrong and I have given UI. Sometimes I pick right and there is no UI. > > If this interpretation is not correct, well, tell me why, and than I > have learned. Many TD's in the Netherlands seemes to think you always > must ask after an alert with bad cards also, to avoid the UI to the > partner that you are not interested. With the negative effect of > misguiding future leader and generating UI. > There should be nothing wrong with asking questions for the benefit of not letting partner (and opponents) know that you are not interested. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 09:07:42 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:07:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <002801c2a889$c187e5d0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <3E06D25E.6010004@skynet.be> Hello Nancy, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > At the club today, NLM team game. > > > > The hands were: > > S dlr Q96 > All vul KJ986 > 7 > A643 > K A87432 > T Q4 > KQT953 A6 > KQT52 J87 > JT5 > A7532 > J42 > 9 > > The bidding: > > P - 2D - 2H - 2S 2 diamonds described as weak. > 3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S (A) " I think I should alert that bid as Gerber" > P - 5D - P - P > D all pass. > > The director was called after the statement about Gerber with the > complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber > explanation". > Who called - how did they know this was not correct? > I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid according to > what the bid their partner made meant to them. East should respond to a > "Gerber" bid and West must bid according to what his understanding of > his partner's bid was without the Gerber explanation. West was not > playing "Gerber when obvious" and East thought they were playing that. > There were no convention cards on the table as this club has no rules > regarding convention cards. N and S both claimed that they had > been damaged because West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong. > East thought it weak and explained it as such. I tried to explain that > a player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as > long as his partner was unaware of the deviation. They had a huge > problem understanding this and continue to say W should be penalized. > (very typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very easily > made 5 D doubled. N/S are still complaining , S saying she would have > bid 5 hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this makes no sense to > me). I allowed the bid to stand. I also received very strong > objections to the fact that there were no opponent's convention cards > and how difficult it was to find out what they were playing without > asking and creating a UI scenario. (I agree but it is not my > club). Following a discussion of the situation with another director, > more advanced than I, it was stated that the bid should be rolled back > to 4 Spades, down 1. Stating that West having heard partner bid spades > twice and failing to support his 6-5 or 6-4 minor suit hand with the > singleton spade king he should pass the 4 spade bid. Further discussion > with a third director would have done what I did and allow the 5D > doubled to stand but suggested a procedural penalty to N/S for not > knowing their system. Lots of feathers were ruffled. What is the > correct solution to this problem???? > Of course there are two rulings to make here. - regarding the "weak" nature of the 2Di opening. This hand is surely worth a 1Di opener. A player is allowed to deviate from his system, but not in such a way as to encroach into another one. I would certainly rule this as MI, like this : "if you explain something using just one word, the opponents are correct in assuming you mean the standard meaning of that word. They have read books about this and assume you have as well. If you have not read those books, or other books, you should have said so". So rulings based on taking away the double or allowing 5He to be bid are certainly on. - regarding the "Gerber" explanation of 4Sp. This is of course UI. West is not allowed to use the information that partner has 2 aces, but I don't believe we can force him to slam. West is not allowed to use the information that partner does not have a solid spade suit, and maybe indeed we can force him to pass 4Sp. That would be the harsh ruling, but maybe a correct one. But West is also not allowed to use the information that partner does not know he has clubs. He should not be allowed to no mention his clubs a second time in order for partner to not be confused. Even if passing 4Sp is not considered a LA, bidding 5Cl in stead of 5Di certainly is. What would 5Cl be after 4Cl Gerber? asking for Kings? That would bring us back to 5Di of course, but now with the added information to NS that West is very 2-suited, making 5He even more interesting. My ruling depends on players' assesment of the LA of passing 4Sp. So either 4Sp or 5He. > Thanks, > > Nancy > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 09:13:49 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:13:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> I don't think you are right here, Richard. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > 1. Declarer has claimed thinking that the > AKQJ8 of spades are five winners, with the K > of hearts loser being discarded on the A of > clubs. > > 2. When the A of hearts is discarded by LHO > on the A of clubs, declarer now thinks dummy > has six winners, and now thinks that a > winner has to be discarded. > > 3. Therefore, declarer will discard the 8 of > spades 50% of the time and the K of hearts > 50% of the time. > > 4. Discarding the K of hearts is objectively > irrational, but not subjectively irrational > if the remaining cards are thought to be > winners. > > 5. Ruling that it would *always* be > irrational for declarer to discard the K of > hearts removes a percentage of a trick from > the defenders. Ruling that declarer would > *always* carelessly or inferiorly discard > the K of hearts removes a percentage of a > trick from declarer. This particular claim > is an exemplar of when weighted scores for > claims would be most useful - when an > unexpected circumstance occurs which > modifies the previously stated claim line. > I don't like this. It's saying that we don't know, so let's split the difference and everyone is a bit happy. I believe we should be taking a stand. Richard does not believe throwing the HK is absolutely certain, so he would rule 5 tricks. Jaap as well. I would rule 6 tricks. If the three of us are in an AC together, I would simply bow to the majority and rule 5 tricks. I would not award a weighted score. Weighted scores are far more lenient to claimers than I am. They don't act as deterrent to bad claiming. Telling a player he gets his sixth trick but was so close to losing it is just as effective as awarding them 5. > 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 john@asimere.com Mon Dec 23 10:41:24 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:41:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <00b701c2a93e$68a36380$8f7abc3e@oemcomputer> References: <4A256C93.00075FBC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <00b701c2a93e$68a36380$8f7abc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: In article <00b701c2a93e$68a36380$8f7abc3e@oemcomputer>, James Vickers writes >[Richard Hills:] > >> I agree that a careless statement is >> demonstrable evidence of a careless mind. >> >> So, therefore, I agree that if declarer did >> not specifically state the careful play in >> this suit: >> >> Declarer Dummy >> A10xx KQ9xx >> >> then if declarer's RHO holds Jxxx, as TD I >> would rule that a declarer of any skill level >> would lose a trick. > >Or if declarer's LHO held the same, surely? > nope, because on the cash of the Ace the finesse is now marked. >James Vickers >Wolverhampton, UK > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 23 11:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: <000001c2a94b$60d75000$aab337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > > An action would be right if it results directly in a good score for > your side; > > If you can accurately judge that this slam is say 45% (or more likely > merely that it is less than 50%) then although bidding this slam may be > 'right quite often' I do not believe that it could be argued that it is > logical to do so. There are situations where tactical considerations mean that bidding a known 45% slam is correct (e.g. one knows one needs a well above average score on the hand). For this reason I believe it is logical to take an action known to be marginally inferior but illogical to take an action that is known to be markedly inferior. 60/40 is about where I'd draw the line. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 23 11:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] I like Ike In-Reply-To: <4A256C98.0007EF1D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Since one of the principles in designing > a set of rules, is to have the rules that > players want and will abide by, should > the "play it out" option for a disputed > claim become legal in the 2005 Laws? Heh, just like it was in 75 (I think) - and still is in rubber bridge. As you say it is necessary to retain the right to call the TD if the claimer then suddenly takes a working (unstated and unmarked) finesse. I also believe that either defender should be allowed to tell his partner what to play to each trick. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 23 11:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021217142445.0268a7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain asked. > AG : I see a problem looming there. I do not pretend speaking perfect > English (let alone American), but surely I have always been understood > by opponents, partners and TDs alike at the table. The fact is, I don't > know the difference between 'my hand is high' and 'my hand is good' . > If there is a subtle semantic distinction, and if this distinction has > been taken as a pretext for disallowing the claim, then shame on the AC. Here are a couple of examples. With a suit such as AKQxxx opposite xxx an opponent will often cash the Ace and (when both opps follow) claim with something like "OK the clubs are good now". At least where I play this is accepted as meaning "they will make 5 more tricks if played from the top". Nobody thinks declarer considers the oppos 4 clubs have split 1-1. I do not think a native English speaker would say "OK dummy is high now" (not that anybody I play with would quibble if he did) - it just wouldn't occur. In a different scenario (here in NT) AK QJTxx - - xxx AKx x _ Declarer might claim with "HAK and dummy is high", OR "HAK and dummy is good" - the first, to my mind, being more likely. Thus being "high" is actually a subset of "good" (I am not endorsing drugs here). Actually both cases are fairly likely to be statement-free claims or simply "and the rest". Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 23 11:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <4A256C94.00108C99.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > >I draw a distinction between the "intended line > >of play" and the "intended meaning of the claim > >statement." Perhaps that's a false distinction, > >but the latter is something that can reasonably > >be judged, while the former cannot or at best is > >very much harder. > > I don't draw such a distinction, but a difference > which makes no difference is no difference. My > ruling as TD would be identical to Steve's ruling > as TD - I would use the claim statement as the > only reliable starting point for determining the > claimer's intent *at the time of the claim*. Any > questioning of the claimer about their intent by > the TD would get data about the claimer's intent > that was possibly corrupted by second thoughts. I am not sure what this means. I have claimed before now with "I can untangle the rest". Opponents have taken this to mean "I have registered the fact that I need to be careful with entries/unblocking and I will take that care." This has never caused a problem. If challenged I would expect a TD to accept my clarifying line stating precise card order. Once again this form of claim is only appropriate if one reasonably expects opps to be of a decent standard. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 23 11:28:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman and I seem to be amongst the more lenient claim adjudicators in this group and I think we both follow the same guiding principle. "What is the least number of tricks the claimer was at all likely to have made *had normal play continued.*" I believe this approach has absolute primacy in attempting to establish equity regardless of any technical detail on applying the rest of the law. It seems to me that others interpret L70a as meaning something other than the above - perhaps the lawmakers should consider this issue. Thus in the AKQJ8,K case we both award 6 tricks. I do not consider it all likely that declarer would not have noticed the HA discard. I would consider it truly bizarre/irrational for a declarer to discard HK having seen that discard. I would consider it plausible for declarer to discard the HQ in the same circumstances unless I could be *absolutely* convinced that he knew the HK had already gone. Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 12:12:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:12:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: Message-ID: <3E06FDA8.2060500@skynet.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman and I seem to be amongst the more lenient claim adjudicators in > this group and I think we both follow the same guiding principle. I prefer to think of my views as standard. But I've thought that before and I was wrong. Still, it seems to me that there is a minority with more harsh views on the claims laws, but with strong voices. > "What is the least number of tricks the claimer was at all likely to have > made *had normal play continued.*" I believe this approach has absolute > primacy in attempting to establish equity regardless of any technical > detail on applying the rest of the law. I believe this is so fundamental that I simply fail to see how anyone can be of a different mind. > It seems to me that others > interpret L70a as meaning something other than the above - perhaps the > lawmakers should consider this issue. > > Thus in the AKQJ8,K case we both award 6 tricks. I do not consider it all > likely that declarer would not have noticed the HA discard. I don't think that statement is helpful, Tim. I DO consider it likely (or call it possible) that declarer would not notice something. I'm just saying that the claims laws instruct us to disregard that particular possibility. A claimer is deemed to notice discards. The question is whether or not claimer will register the meaning of the discard and whether or not it now becomes irrational for him to not change his original intention. Tim has the correct answer to that one: I would > consider it truly bizarre/irrational for a declarer to discard HK having > seen that discard. That is the main question, and this is the answer I am giving as well. If others disagree with this feeling, they are free to award only 5 tricks. But on this basis alone, not on some other one. I would consider it plausible for declarer to discard > the HQ in the same circumstances unless I could be *absolutely* convinced > that he knew the HK had already gone. > I second that emotion. I had stated it with an 8 becoming high after a J discard, but I am agreeing with Tim here as well. "of course the king is out, I cashed that one in the previous trick just to make either queen or king" would suffice, I'd say. > Tim > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 12:18:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:18:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] I like Ike References: Message-ID: <3E06FF12.5010704@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Richard wrote: > > >>Since one of the principles in designing >>a set of rules, is to have the rules that >>players want and will abide by, should >>the "play it out" option for a disputed >>claim become legal in the 2005 Laws? >> > > Heh, just like it was in 75 (I think) - and still is in rubber bridge. > As you say it is necessary to retain the right to call the TD if the > claimer then suddenly takes a working (unstated and unmarked) finesse. > I also believe that either defender should be allowed to tell his partner > what to play to each trick. > Yes Tim, and no, I don't agree with this option. I believe it is, at this moment, legal to ask declarer to "play it out". That is just one way of checking to see if the claim is correct or not. I don't believe, however, that it should be "legal" to continue the play. Play is over, and any putting of cards on the table must be considered as helping opponents to understand the lines of play. But the actual playing of cards must always remain to be void. It is the TD who adjudicates, and he may use the ensueing exchanges as pieces of evidence in his decision as to the mindset of claimer, but as no more than that. What we don't want is scenes like: - oh, but he now made that finesse; nor - oh, but they did not find that defence at the table; Playing on is an illustration and as such it is permitted and should remain to be so. > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Dec 23 14:05:29 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:05:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <3E0446A8.20807@skynet.be> References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021223145659.00ac5e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:47 21/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Please accept that I am not talking about this case exactly. Maybe this >one is just a little bit accross the line and therefor the AC ruling incorrect. >But accept my comments in principle. >You do agree that on the first club, LHO has to throw something? >You do agree that if he throws a spade, the claim is now correct as the >spades will come through? >You do accept that a claimer who says that AKQJ9 are high would lose out >to Txxxx - x but not to xxxxx - T ? >So you will admit that LHO will have to throw the ace of hearts on the >first club trick. > >Now it is a principle in claims resolution that a claimer will notice the >cards that are thrown. We may rule that it would be normal for him to not >realize what a particular discard means (so if the HK is the H8 with only >the HJ out - I would rule he fails to reallize that the 8 is now high). >But we are not allowed to rule that he might fail to see the ace. > >Now it is the esteemed opinion of the AC (and I agree with this) that when >claimer sees the HA, he will no longer discard his HK, but rather that S8 >(was it AKQJ8 ?). AG : Eager as I am to accept resonable, slightly imperfect, claims, I have some qualms about this one : even after the HA discard, declarer thinks that dummy's cards are all good. He has no reason to think one trick is more equal as another, thus no reason to keep one card rather than the other (some declarers have been known to discard high cards with ostentation to let remark that others are good, too). Yes, he might discard the S8 as a further precaution against miscounting ; however, a claim is in itself a statement that "the hands don't need any more precautions". All sorts of claims might be allowed : - conditional claims " 5 made unless ... in which case I still make 4" - contingency claims "4 or 5 made, according to whether the finesse works" - notice claims "5 made ; I know I must unblock the plums" - aha claims "now that trumps are 3-2, I make 5" (even if noty specifying you pull the last one) However, claims that depend on taking some precaution should rather not be allowed. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 23 14:22:54 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:22:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obligation to "play bridge"? In-Reply-To: <006f01c2a9ca$c5318500$f0052f18@Josh> References: <000001c2a94b$60d75000$aab337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021223151728.00abf3e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:59 22/12/2002 -0500, Josh Fendel wrote: >The following occurred at a club game recently. I am curious how others >would have ruled. N/S are competent players with a long established >partnership, E/W are low intermediate players. > >Auction starting with south is: >1N, 2H*, 3H, P >4H, All pass > >* Alerted as spades. > >Result at the table was down 3, for -300. However, it turns out there >was misinformation, and the E/W agreement is that the 2H bid shows both >majors. >The north hand is > >K >Txxx >AJxx >KQxx > >South has KQx of hearts, 15-17 HCP > >It seems clear to me that E/W are not entitle to +300. About half the >N/S pairs reached 3NT, which makes 4. What scores should be assigned? >Is the 4H bid so bad that, even with the misinformation, they should get >the score they got at the table? Or, since in no event could they have >been in 4H if they had been given a correct interpretation, are they >entitled to protection. Among the possibilities that I considered: >+631, -630 >-300, -630 >A+. -630 > >Opinions please? AG : I don't know about N/S's system. If North's bid is purely natural, it is strange - and wrong. More likely it is along Rubensohl lines : GF, 4 hearts, no stopper. Partner, with only Axx of spades and 3 good hearts, choose 4H. Nothing wrong about this. Perhaps N/S didn't know their system, North playing Rubensohl while South thought 3H was natural. In the first case, I think the error is not such an absurdity that the link is cut, and would award an adjusted score. It is marginal, however. In the second case, non problem : South hoped for 33 hearts, the correct explanation would have told him they couldn't be. Adjust. In the third case, however, there is no link between the misexplanation and the bad result ; don't adjust. The first step should thus be to enquire about N/S's methods. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 23 14:28:43 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:28:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021223152451.00ac7a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:28 23/12/2002 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Herman and I seem to be amongst the more lenient claim adjudicators in >this group and I think we both follow the same guiding principle. >"What is the least number of tricks the claimer was at all likely to have >made *had normal play continued.*" I believe this approach has absolute >primacy in attempting to establish equity regardless of any technical >detail on applying the rest of the law. It seems to me that others >interpret L70a as meaning something other than the above - perhaps the >lawmakers should consider this issue. > >Thus in the AKQJ8,K case we both award 6 tricks. I do not consider it all >likely that declarer would not have noticed the HA discard. I would >consider it truly bizarre/irrational for a declarer to discard HK having >seen that discard. AG : right. However, it is not at all impossible that declarer would have played CA, then discarded HK very quickly (they do it all too often), then only LHO (who after all has a problem) will discard his HA. Declarer would then be bound by his discard and lose a trick. Uncautious ? Sure, but so was the claim. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 14:23:00 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:23:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223145659.00ac5e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E071C44.4000809@skynet.be> Please understand that I will be argueing with Alain here on the fine point. Everything said about the rough points are still valid, and I know Alain agrees with me (and others) on those points. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> Now it is the esteemed opinion of the AC (and I agree with this) that >> when claimer sees the HA, he will no longer discard his HK, but rather >> that S8 (was it AKQJ8 ?). > > > AG : Eager as I am to accept resonable, slightly imperfect, claims, I > have some qualms about this one : even after the HA discard, declarer > thinks that dummy's cards are all good. He has no reason to think one > trick is more equal as another, thus no reason to keep one card rather > than the other (some declarers have been known to discard high cards > with ostentation to let remark that others are good, too). > Yes, he might discard the S8 as a further precaution against miscounting > ; however, a claim is in itself a statement that "the hands don't need > any more precautions". I doubt if this is the case. From the facts we know that spades have never been played. Dummy still has five, LHO has five, declarer at least one. I think that declarer had started by counting his spede tricks as "certainly 4, probably 5, nothing I can do about it". After that, he has never thought about the spades again. At the end, he claimed with the intention of throwing the heart king (which can not be good) and cashing the spades for 5 tricks, or maybe just four. The only flaw in his claim statement is that at that moment he did not mention that he was claiming 5 or 4 spade tricks, depending on the distribution of the jack. In that view, you are wrong in saying that declarer knows his five spades are good. When he sees the ace of hearts (and we must assume he will) it is irrational for him to now not realize that the king is high. I also now consider it irrational for him not to remember that spades have not been played yet and that the 8 is not as certain as the 10. That is why I feel it is irrational to not discard the S8 at that point. I don't even need the argument that declarer will realize that the discard of the HK meens that LHO was squeeze with that card and 5 spades to the ten or nine. But that may also be the case (depending on the level) which further strengthens the case for him. > All sorts of claims might be allowed : > - conditional claims " 5 made unless ... in which case I still make 4" > - contingency claims "4 or 5 made, according to whether the finesse works" > - notice claims "5 made ; I know I must unblock the plums" > - aha claims "now that trumps are 3-2, I make 5" (even if noty > specifying you pull the last one) > However, claims that depend on taking some precaution should rather not > be allowed. > I agree, but I consider this to be a conditional claim. "Probably 5 spade tricks, unless they are 5-1" is what claimer intended. What he did not say, and I do not need it, is that the conditional claim should have been "5 spade tricks, or 4 if they are 5-1 or 1-5, or 5 if they are 5-1 with the bare ace together with the spades". Claimer did not realize that this squeeze was a possibility, but he cannot fail to execute it now that the possibility becomes reality. I agree with Alain that precautionary plays are not allowed, but this is not a precaution, it is a post-caution. The jettison of the S8 need only occur after the strange lie becomes apparent. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 23 15:04:28 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:04:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223152451.00ac7a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E0725FC.2020704@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : right. However, it is not at all impossible that declarer would > have played CA, then discarded HK very quickly (they do it all too > often), then only LHO (who after all has a problem) will discard his HA. > Declarer would then be bound by his discard and lose a trick. Uncautious > ? Sure, but so was the claim. > True if he played the ace and claimed only afterwards. (which may well be the actual case, but not an interesting one for blml) Not true if he just claimed. Throwing the HK without waiting for the discard is of the irrationality level of revoking. After claims we only consider legal plays. Throwing the HK before waiting for the discard is an illegal play. It sometimes happens, yes, but we need not take it into consideration for the purpose of ruling on the claim. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 23 15:34:54 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:34:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <3E071C44.4000809@skynet.be> References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223145659.00ac5e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021223162444.00a638d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:23 23/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>AG : Eager as I am to accept resonable, slightly imperfect, claims, I >>have some qualms about this one : even after the HA discard, declarer >>thinks that dummy's cards are all good. He has no reason to think one >>trick is more equal as another, thus no reason to keep one card rather >>than the other (some declarers have been known to discard high cards with >>ostentation to let remark that others are good, too). >>Yes, he might discard the S8 as a further precaution against miscounting >>; however, a claim is in itself a statement that "the hands don't need >>any more precautions". > > >I doubt if this is the case. > From the facts we know that spades have never been played. Dummy still > has five, LHO has five, declarer at least one. >I think that declarer had started by counting his spede tricks as >"certainly 4, probably 5, nothing I can do about it". After that, he has >never thought about the spades again. At the end, he claimed with the >intention of throwing the heart king (which can not be good) and cashing >the spades for 5 tricks, or maybe just four. The only flaw in his claim >statement is that at that moment he did not mention that he was claiming 5 >or 4 spade tricks, depending on the distribution of the jack. AG : there is no doubt that if he had played the CA and said : "I will make all tricks unless spades fail to break", the claim should be allowed. For declarer knows that they could fail to break, and will therefore not discard the HK on appearance of the Ace. However, the fact that he claimed without saying so is evidence that he didn't realize his potential problem in spades. You may be right in your exegesis of declarer's thoughts, but you might also be wrong, and we are instructed to adjudicate every possible doubtful case against him. >>All sorts of claims might be allowed : >>- conditional claims " 5 made unless ... in which case I still make 4" >I agree, but I consider this to be a conditional claim. "Probably 5 spade >tricks, unless they are 5-1" is what claimer intended. AG : if declarer wanted this to be a conditional claim, he should have said it. >I agree with Alain that precautionary plays are not allowed, but this is >not a precaution, it is a post-caution. AG : wonderful word. It will serve again. However, I think those shouldn't be allowed either. >The jettison of the S8 need only occur after the strange lie becomes apparent. AG : what is strange about lying ? Oops ... Politicians lie : true Cast iron sinks : true Politicians lie 'n cast iron sinks : ridiculous >>Best regards, >> Alain. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 axman22@hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 15:35:35 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:35:35 -0600 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223145659.00ac5e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223162444.00a638d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deliberate slow play > At 15:23 23/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > AG : there is no doubt that if he had played the CA and said : "I will make > all tricks unless spades fail to break", I am not the linguist of David Burn but such words give me the impression that claimer is saying that he is accepting fewer than all the tricks if the spades fail to break. regards roger pewick > >>Best regards, > >> Alain. > >Herman DE WAEL From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 16:00:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:00:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223145659.00ac5e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223162444.00a638d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E07330A.2010903@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 15:23 23/12/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > AG : there is no doubt that if he had played the CA and said : "I will > make all tricks unless spades fail to break", the claim should be > allowed. For declarer knows that they could fail to break, and will > therefore not discard the HK on appearance of the Ace. > However, the fact that he claimed without saying so is evidence that he > didn't realize his potential problem in spades. You may be right in your > exegesis of declarer's thoughts, but you might also be wrong, and we are > instructed to adjudicate every possible doubtful case against him. > Granted Alain, but in my experience a player who claims without having played a single round of the suit will not get the suit wrong. I don't consider not saying "5 or 4" from this position as any kind of evidence to think that declarer was mistakenly thinking the 8 was the fifth highest card in the suit. You are using an argument that I often hear, and to which I have a good answer. This player said something like "and 5 spade tricks". You concclude from that that he thinks they are high. What if he had said nothing, or "and the spades". Would you draw the same conclusion? How can you impute irrational thoughts to someone who says just a little too much if you don't impute those same thoughts to someone who says nothing? At least unless the statement is clearly irrational. I don't consider this statement to be irrational. Declarer has (IMO) failed to reconsider that the spades were not solid, just "finished". I don't know about you, but when I make my plan I dismiss a number of suits as "solved". That means that I know what will happen in those (sometimes not the actual number of tricks - but at least there's nothing left for me to do there). When all 4 suits are solved, I claim. Now sometimes I have not yet actually tackled a particular suit at all, and sometimes I claim before making my mind up what I am going to say as claim statement, and sometimes I even get ruled against because of that. But my claiming without mentioning "5 spades or 4 if they break badly" does not mean that I suddenly believe there are only 11 spades in the pack. > >>> All sorts of claims might be allowed : >>> - conditional claims " 5 made unless ... in which case I still make 4" >> > > > > >> I agree, but I consider this to be a conditional claim. "Probably 5 >> spade tricks, unless they are 5-1" is what claimer intended. > > > AG : if declarer wanted this to be a conditional claim, he should have > said it. > No Alain, there is no need for that. The claim statement is required, but not obligatory. Whether he said this or not, this was his intention (at least the way I see it) >> I agree with Alain that precautionary plays are not allowed, but this >> is not a precaution, it is a post-caution. > > > AG : wonderful word. It will serve again. However, I think those > shouldn't be allowed either. > But they are ! A claimer is allowed to over-ruff if the only way opponents can make an outstanding forgotten trump is by ruffing some suit that can always be overruffed. That is a post-cautionary play. The pre-cautionary play would be to draw that forgotten trump, or even to simply play an extra round of trumps in case of forgotten ones. That play is not allowed, even if it is almost obligatorily normal. The overruff is allowed, because it is deemed irrational not to do so. > >> The jettison of the S8 need only occur after the strange lie becomes >> apparent. > > > AG : what is strange about lying ? Oops ... > > Politicians lie : true > > Cast iron sinks : true > > Politicians lie 'n cast iron sinks : ridiculous > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Dec 23 16:23:00 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:23:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c2aa9f$96f5d350$78fef1c3@LNV> > > 1. Declarer has claimed thinking that the > > AKQJ8 of spades are five winners, with the K > > of hearts loser being discarded on the A of > > clubs. > > > > 2. When the A of hearts is discarded by LHO > > on the A of clubs, declarer now thinks dummy > > has six winners, and now thinks that a > > winner has to be discarded. It happens quite often in this group that I feel amazed about the reactions, wondering whether we are living in two or more different worlds of bridge as far as experience is involved. In my bridge world the player who points to AKQJ8 for 5 tricks realizes quite well that if the spades are 5-2 between opponents he will loose another trick. And he should say so, but not making this statement can't lead to the conclusion that he can't count. In my bridge world it is simply wrong to assume that this declarer was sure to have 5 spade tricks. It is even wrong to assume that he hoped to find a sleepy opponent not being aware of his fifth spade making a trick. He just was shortcutting play. Once more: he was just shortcutting play. As he would holding the AKQJ8 as the last 5 cards himself. As a defender there is one thing I really hate (more than the most terrible misexplanation): declarer slowly playing the ace, the king, the queen, the jack, tension getting higher and higher (ha, ha) and then the eight looking surprised when the ten shows up. Now LHO discards his heart ace. In my bridge world declarer at that moment is 100% sure to make all tricks, even if he can't produce the word squeeze. So in my bridge world the TD thinking of awarding a weighted score would not be asked to do the job again. ton > > > > 3. Therefore, declarer will discard the 8 of > > spades 50% of the time and the K of hearts > > 50% of the time. not in my bridge world > > > > 4. Discarding the K of hearts is objectively > > irrational, but not subjectively irrational > > if the remaining cards are thought to be > > winners. that might be true, but the 'if'' statement is an irrational one > > > > 5. Ruling that it would *always* be > > irrational for declarer to discard the K of > > hearts removes a percentage of a trick from > > the defenders. Ruling that declarer would > > *always* carelessly or inferiorly discard > > the K of hearts removes a percentage of a > > trick from declarer. This particular claim > > is an exemplar of when weighted scores for > > claims would be most useful - when an > > unexpected circumstance occurs which > > modifies the previously stated claim line. > > > > > I don't like this. It's saying that we don't know, so let's split the > difference and everyone is a bit happy. I believe we should be taking > a stand. Richard does not believe throwing the HK is absolutely > certain, you mean the small spade ?? so he would rule 5 tricks. Jaap as well. I would rule 6 tricks. > If the three of us are in an AC together, I would simply bow to the > majority and rule 5 tricks. You shouldn't, because you shouldn't accept the assumption that declarer was sure to make 5 spade tricks. I am a bit surprised that Jaap is supporting this idea, because I thought our bridge worlds to have some common grounds. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Dec 23 16:35:27 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:35:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play References: <200212201540.KAA08784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001d01c2a87e$855ff800$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223145659.00ac5e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021223162444.00a638d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E073B4F.9050403@skynet.be> Yes Roger, indeed: Roger Pewick wrote: > > >>AG : there is no doubt that if he had played the CA and said : "I will >> > make > >>all tricks unless spades fail to break", >> > > I am not the linguist of David Burn but such words give me the > impression that claimer is saying that he is accepting fewer than all > the tricks if the spades fail to break. > Indeed he is accepting that. I have no doubt that this declarer would have immediately conceded that he'd lose a trick to the jack if they were 5-1. I can imagine an exchange such as this: "Ace of clubs and five spades, +2" "are you sure?" "what, do you have five spades?" "yes" (shows them) "OK, +1 then" "but I also have this" (shows the HA) "yes, so?" "what do I discard?" "ehmm, surely not the ace of hearts" "a spade then?" "no, certainly not a spade, my claim would be correct then" "so I throw the heart ace" "and I can discard the S8 - am I allowed to do that?" all: "director!" director: "blml!" The point of this dialogue is to show that the claim statement is totally irrelevant in this instance. It is abundently clear what claimer knew about the hand, and what he would do if a small spade appears, or if LHO can pitch a diamond, or even the HQ. There is nothing that is in doubt here. Just how we interpret the word "irrational". Well, with what I know of what claimer is thinking, I find it is irrational for him to not throw the S8 when the HA appears. If you think the mind-set of claimer is in any way different than what I have described above (and claimer need not be a very good player for all this) then you are allowed to rule +1 in his case. But if you are, like me, in no doubt about the fact that claimer knew what he was doing, you cannot do otherwise than give him +2. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From con.holzscherer@philips.com Mon Dec 23 16:58:38 2002 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:58:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Christmas Greetings from Nancy Message-ID: I received the following message, purportly from Nancy Dressing, containing a lot of (probably) commercial links. When I hit the first of the URL's in the E-mail, which suggested to be a personal (!?) christmas card, I got swamped with windows popping-up, some of which warned me that my IP address was being sent to insecure recipient or something similar. Also, there was nothing that even remotely resembled a Christmas Card. Is this caused by a virus? Or has Nancy been tricked into setting up some kind of connection of the blml readers with a commercial site? Regards, Con Holzscherer Nancy @rtflb.org on 22-12-2002 04:06:42 Sent by: blml-admin@rtflb.org To: blml@rtflb.org cc: (bcc: Con Holzscherer/EHV/SC/PHILIPS) Subject: [blml] Christmas Greetings from Nancy Classification: Hi! You have a Personalized Electronic Christmas Greeting Card from Nancy waiting for you at Pacific Products Gallery! To view your card, simply click on this address: http://roadrunner.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/GRCard.exe?cm=b7183c211833844n Just connect to the above web site and then click on the "View My Card" button. The "View My Card" button is located on the left hand side of your screen. We'll keep your greeting card in our system for 90 days. Enjoy! *********Check These Out!********* EARN MONEY FROM YOUR WEBSITE!!! Earn commissions on any of our more than 4,000 unique gifts and collectibles when you join the Pacific Products Gallery Partner Program. Visit the link below for all the exciting details and start earning today! http://www.pacprod.com/partners/home.htm ==================================== HEAR WHO'S CALLING YOU WHILE YOUR ONLINE!!! Get the FREE the Internet Answering Machine... Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window to download the free software! http://www.pacprod.com/callwave ==================================== Joke Of The Day - http://www.pacprod.com/jokes.pl Random Quotes - http://www.pacprod.com/quotes/quotes.htm Today In History - http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/today.pl 1000's Of Gifts And Collectibles - http://www.pacprod.com ************************************** _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Dec 23 17:57:51 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:57:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Christmas Greetings from Nancy Message-ID: <200212231757.MAA14964@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: con.holzscherer@philips.com > When I hit the first of the URL's in the E-mail, which suggested to be > a personal (!?) christmas card, I got swamped with windows > popping-up, some of which warned me that my IP address... This is probably some problem with your browser settings; the link worked fine for me. It is a lovely electronic card, complete with seasonal music. (Use a computer with a sound card if at all possible.) This sort of thing is not to everyone's taste, of course, so just skip it if you prefer. The link does produce one popup window, probably with an ad in it. I didn't leave it on the screen long enough to find out. > > http://roadrunner.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/GRCard.exe?cm=b7183c211833844n From abiodun@ecplaza.net Mon Dec 23 18:25:30 2002 From: abiodun@ecplaza.net (Mr. ABIODUN JOHNSON.) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:25:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] ABIODUN Message-ID: <20021223182535.7CDF12BA62@rhubarb.custard.org> PLEASE EXERCISE SOME PATIENCE AND READ THROUGH THIS DETAILED MESSAGE I am Mr ABIODUN JOHNSON an account officer one of the Nation Bank Lagos=2E for this reason =2C which will come to light as you read on =2C I obtained your address particulars from an internet address listing =2EI have a very urgent and confidential business proposition for you =2E on December 6th 1997 an oil consultant with the Nigerian National Corporation =2C Mr=2E =2E Ahmed Y=2E Mustapha an Iraqi National=2C made a numbered time =2F fixed for 48 Calendar months=2C valued US$10 million in my branch =2E On maturity=2C we sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply After a month we sent a reminder and finally=2C his contract employers=2Cthe NNPC=2C wrote to inform us that Mr=2E A=2EY Mustapha died in an automobile accident while travelling to the eastern part of the country=2E That he died without making a WILL while all attempts to trace his KIN in Iraqi and inform them about Mr=2E =2E Mustapha =2Csdeposit of US10million were fruitless=2E Further investigation revealed that Mr=2EYouseff was actively opposed to the Government of president Saddam Hussein of Iraq as a result of which he was driven into exile=2E Being an oil expert=2C he subsequently obtained a job with NNPC=2C and settled in Nigeria=2E Thereafter=2C he walked into my office to make the aforementioned deposit of US$10million=2E He did not declare his KIN in his application paperwork=2E When I asked=2C he informed me that he wished it so=2E In the conservative manner of our Bank =28my employer=29=2C I did not turn down his wish but rather honored it especially given his high net worth=2E In reality no one knows the source of his money since apparently=2C the time frame of his employment with the NNPC does indeed preclude such a large amount of money=2E It is therefore presumed that he brought his money from Iraqi=2C although this is open to speculation=2E The point however is that his employers are not awareof his money=2C therefore one can safely infer that no one will overcome forward to claim this money=2E This fund=2C totaling US$10M is still siting in my bank dormant account portfolio=2E According to Nigerian law=2C the money will automatically revert to the federal Government Treasury after five years=2Cespecially if the account owner is a foreigner who has been certified dead and there is no valid claim=2E I am thus looking for a foreigner who will stand in as the next of kin to Mr=2E Mustapha=2E It is not necessary to be a blood relation=2Cneither is it necessary to bear the same saw name with Mr=2EMustapha=2EIt is even not important for the stand in next of kin to be an Iraqi national=2E Already I have worked out modalities for achieving my aim of appointing a next of kin as well as transfer the money abroad for us to share =2E Apparently no risk involved ! I will process the initial paperwork to obtain approval from the concern parastatal=2F department=2E If you therefore agree to be the INHERITOR =2F NEXT OF KIN you should provide immediately with the following 1=2E A bank Account =28 an account with zero credit balance is okay =2E 2=2E The complete name and address of the bank =2C holder=2FBeneficiary=2Cyour phone and fax number Once I have the required information as above=2C I will initiate the processing of the transfer=2C and in about 10 working days=2C the fund will be in your nominated bank account for us to share in the ratio of =3A 70% for me and 30% for you =2E This transaction is guaranteed to succeed without any problems=2E And I shall forward to you more clarification you need and you are free to ask questions Looking forward to your urgent reply Your truly Mr=2EABIODUN JOHNSON=2E From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 23 19:14:46 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:14:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2aab7$91e2eb60$902e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Tuesday, 24 December 2002 12:28 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] What is a logical alternative? > > > Wayne wrote: > > > > An action would be right if it results directly in a good score for > > your side; > > > > If you can accurately judge that this slam is say 45% (or > more likely > > merely that it is less than 50%) then although bidding this > slam may be > > 'right quite often' I do not believe that it could be > argued that it is > > logical to do so. > > There are situations where tactical considerations mean that > bidding a > known 45% slam is correct (e.g. one knows one needs a well > above average > score on the hand). For this reason I believe it is logical > to take an > action known to be marginally inferior but illogical to take > an action > that is known to be markedly inferior. 60/40 is about where > I'd draw the > line. > My point was not so much what the percentage is but that it varies depending on the amount of information available and that there are 50-50 situations where anything above 50% is logical and anything below 50% is illogical. You have illustrated another reason why the percentage may vary. And while 60/40 may be a good place to draw the line for a pair that is behind that might not be a good criterion for a pair that is well ahead with perfect information. Wayne From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Dec 23 19:43:00 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:43:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] ABIODUN In-Reply-To: <20021223182535.7CDF12BA62@rhubarb.custard.org> from "Mr. ABIODUN JOHNSON." at Dec 23, 2002 10:25:30 AM Message-ID: <200212231943.gBNJh0V29857@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> BLML'ers: For those who are not aware, this is a computer hoax. This and various incarnations of this message have been going around for close to 10 years. The name, banks, etc, change, but the SCAM remains. This is a SCAM that is one of many variations on identity theft. Do not respond to this. I did some checking and the address "ab97c2045.com" which is the originator address of the mail is a fictitious address and does not exist. The supposed IP address of this host, 217.78.77.89 is not currently a listed IP address. And the originating e-mail address abiodun_j2002@mail.com is on a free public-access ISP that provides mailboxes much like yahoo, juno, hotmail and others. Anyone can sign up with little or no identification. You should also not respond to this message as it will only get you put onto e-mail lists that are later sold to people for junk mailings. If you are interested in seeing security postings about this class of hoaxes, go to your favorite browser and enter "hoax Nigeria bank" and you will get quite a few hits. Happy holidays everyone. May you all have a safe, healthy, happy holiday and may the new year bring you good fortune. -Ted Ying. > From: "Mr. ABIODUN JOHNSON." > Subject: [blml] ABIODUN > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:25:30 -0800 > > > PLEASE EXERCISE SOME PATIENCE AND READ THROUGH THIS DETAILED MESSAGE > > I am Mr ABIODUN JOHNSON an account officer one of the Nation > Bank Lagos. for this reason , which will come to light as you > read on , I obtained your address particulars from an internet > address listing .I have a very urgent and confidential business > proposition for you . on December 6th 1997 an oil consultant > with the Nigerian National > Corporation , Mr. . Ahmed Y. Mustapha an Iraqi National, made > a numbered time / fixed for 48 Calendar months, valued US$10 > million in my branch . On maturity, we sent a routine notification > to his forwarding address but got no reply After a month we > sent a reminder and finally, his contract employers,the NNPC, > wrote to inform us that Mr. A.Y Mustapha died in an automobile > accident while travelling to > the eastern part of the country. That he died without making > a WILL while all attempts to trace his KIN in Iraqi and inform > them about Mr. . Mustapha ,sdeposit of US10million were fruitless. > Further investigation revealed that Mr.Youseff was actively > opposed to the Government of president Saddam Hussein of Iraq > as a result of which > he was driven into exile. Being an oil expert, he subsequently > obtained a job with NNPC, and settled in Nigeria. > > Thereafter, he walked into my office to make the aforementioned > deposit of US$10million. He did not declare his KIN in his application > paperwork. When I asked, he informed me that he wished it so. > In the conservative manner of our Bank (my employer), I did not > turn down his wish but rather honored it especially given his > high net worth. In reality no one knows the source of his money > since apparently, the time frame of his employment with the > NNPC does indeed preclude such a large amount of money. It is > therefore presumed that he brought his money from Iraqi, although > this is open to speculation. > > The point however is that his employers are not awareof his > money, therefore one can safely infer that no one will overcome > forward to claim this money. This fund, totaling US$10M is still > siting in my bank dormant account portfolio. > > According to Nigerian law, the money will automatically revert > to the federal Government Treasury after five years,especially > if the account owner is a foreigner who has been certified dead > and there is no valid claim. > > I am thus looking for a foreigner who will stand in as the next > of kin to Mr. Mustapha. It is not necessary to be a blood > relation,neither > is it necessary to bear the same saw name with Mr.Mustapha.It > is even not important for the stand in next of kin to be an > Iraqi national. Already I have worked out modalities for achieving > my aim of appointing a next of kin as well as transfer the > money abroad for us to share . > > Apparently no risk involved ! I will process the initial paperwork > to obtain approval from the concern parastatal/ department. > If you therefore agree to be the INHERITOR / NEXT OF KIN you > should provide immediately with the following > 1. A bank Account ( an account with zero credit balance is okay . > 2. The complete name and address of the bank , > holder/Beneficiary,your phone and fax number > > Once I have the required information as above, I will initiate > the processing of the transfer, and in about 10 working days, > the fund will be in your nominated bank account for us to share > in the ratio of : 70% for me and 30% for you . This transaction > is guaranteed to > succeed without any problems. And I shall forward to you more > clarification you need and you are free to ask > questions > > Looking forward to your urgent reply > > Your truly > > Mr.ABIODUN JOHNSON. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Mr. ABIODUN JOHNSON.: > From blml-admin@rtflb.org Mon Dec 23 13:30:14 2002 > Return-Path: > Received: from toybox.amsterdamned.org (toybox.amsterdamned.org [193.0.0.161]) > by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBNIUEc25914 > for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:30:14 -0500 > Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=toybox.amsterdamned.org) > by toybox.amsterdamned.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 18QXHO-0000nL-00; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:26:18 +0100 > Received: from custard.org ([194.176.80.149] helo=rhubarb.custard.org) > by toybox.amsterdamned.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 18QXGn-0000mq-00 > for blml@rtflb.org; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:25:42 +0100 > Received: from ab97c2045.com (unknown [217.78.77.89]) > by rhubarb.custard.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CDF12BA62 > for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:25:35 +0000 (GMT) > From: "Mr. ABIODUN JOHNSON." > Reply-To: abiodun@ecplaza.net > To: blml@rtflb.org > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6900 DM > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Message-Id: <20021223182535.7CDF12BA62@rhubarb.custard.org> > Subject: [blml] ABIODUN > Sender: blml-admin@rtflb.org > Errors-To: blml-admin@rtflb.org > X-BeenThere: blml@rtflb.org > X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 > Precedence: bulk > List-Help: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: , > > List-Id: Bridge Laws Mailing List > List-Unsubscribe: , > > List-Archive: > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:25:30 -0800 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov id gBNIUEc25914 > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 23 20:15:54 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:15:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <002801c2a889$c187e5d0$6401a8c0@hare> <3E06D25E.6010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c2aac0$65873e00$dea8193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > > Of course there are two rulings to make here. > > - regarding the "weak" nature of the 2Di opening. This hand is surely > worth a 1Di opener. A player is allowed to deviate from his system, > but not in such a way as to encroach into another one. I would > certainly rule this as MI, like this : "if you explain something using > just one word, the opponents are correct in assuming you mean the > standard meaning of that word. They have read books about this and > assume you have as well. If you have not read those books, or other > books, you should have said so". > > So rulings based on taking away the double or allowing 5He to be bid > are certainly on. > +=+ General Alert. All readers please avoid impetuous responses. This is just Herman's little seasonal joke and is quite unconnected with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ted@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Dec 23 20:16:57 2002 From: ted@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:16:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx In-Reply-To: <3E02F532.3060401@skynet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Dec 20, 2002 11:47:14 AM Message-ID: <200212232016.gBNKGvo00354@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> Hmmm...well, several years ago, I used to teach and direct novice games. I'll tell you that quite a few novices especially those with no previous card skills (we ran some games pre-EasyBridge which were designed for people who had never played any card game let alone bridge-like games like spades or whist) actually had no concept of playing it right. I had a whole mini-lesson on playing cards from the short side first. I've seen new players who learn one lesson and use a high card to cross back to hand to take another play (like repeating a finesse) only to block the suit. Yes, I think that there are novice players who will get this wrong. After 10 years of teaching novices, I had seen quite a few get this type of problem wrong! -Ted. > From: Herman De Wael > Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx > Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:47:14 +0100 > > Not exactly the example we gave in a recent thread, but I found this > combination while browsing a book for beginners from the French Bridge > Federation. > > It's on page 37 (large print) of the first book for beginners! > > Do you really imagine even Mrs Guggenheim to get this wrong? > From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 23 09:05:41 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:05:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <000801c2aa40$87b7e540$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <001c01c2aac0$62f48530$5856e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:02 AM Subject: Fw: [blml] Ruling??? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 7:02 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > > > 3: Try to calm down and quietly explain the principles of the laws to all > > four players. > > (Yes, I have noticed that that was in fact done without success) > > > > Note: This is my opinion and not an undisputable facit on what is correct. > > > > Thanks, > > Nancy ¨' > > > > You're welcome > > > > Sven > > +=+ It seems to me that the explanation of the law and the instructions given to the players were commendable. As to the ruling subsequently I suggest the following: South is not entitled to know that West has chosen to violate his partnership agreement; nor are North and East entitled to know it. What S would have done "had she known" is irrelevant. Violations that could be the basis for a PP in the Director's discretion may be: (a) not having a CC (if the club requires players to have CCs) (b) accompanying an alert with a statement, when not asked, of the reason for it - again if the club alerting rules do not allow of such a statement. West is in possession of UI, N & S may have received MI; the chief judgement to be made is whether there is a logical alternative to the 5D bid; a pass of 4S has been suggested and that is what the TD should consider (and, of course, a decision either way may be appealed). The MI to N&S, if it exists, concerns whether there is an agreement to use Gerber. Even if there is MI about this I find it difficult to see how N or S could allege that any action by them at the table was based on it. South's double strikes me as a gross misjudgement not for redress. The only circumstance to override this would be if the EW agreement is that the 2D opener is something other than weak. The account of the incident does not suggest that the agreement has been incorrectly explained. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From ted@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Dec 23 20:42:47 2002 From: ted@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:42:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: <3E0725FC.2020704@skynet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Dec 23, 2002 04:04:28 PM Message-ID: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:04:28 +0100 > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > AG : right. However, it is not at all impossible that declarer would > > have played CA, then discarded HK very quickly (they do it all too > > often), then only LHO (who after all has a problem) will discard his HA. > > Declarer would then be bound by his discard and lose a trick. Uncautious > > ? Sure, but so was the claim. > > > True if he played the ace and claimed only afterwards. > (which may well be the actual case, but not an interesting one for blml) > Not true if he just claimed. > Throwing the HK without waiting for the discard is of the > irrationality level of revoking. > After claims we only consider legal plays. Throwing the HK before > waiting for the discard is an illegal play. It sometimes happens, yes, > but we need not take it into consideration for the purpose of ruling > on the claim. > TY: Sorry...I'm dropping into this discussion late and apologize if I missed something that was already discussed. 2 points: 1. If the claim was made "Play the CA, discard the HK, then a spade to the board (with AKQJ8), then that is what is required. Laws 68 and 70 require that the remaining trick be granted to the defense. If declarer wanted to cover that situation, he could have said "Play the CA, barring the discard of the HA, discard the HK, blah, blah, blah..." 2. If you assume that declarer thinks that all spades are good and that the HK is good (e.g. let's assume that he had S-AKQJT and HK), then (s)he assumes all cards are equal and could easily discard the HK even seeing the HA. I've also seen many careless players play this way (ala the "Oh S**T" situation) and then say "oh, it doesn't matter, they're all good anyways" The point is that if declarer assumes that all cards are equally good, they are equally likely to throw any card away. L70A specifically states "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer" The statement makes it clear that declarer assumes all cards are equal and *would* lose to S-Txxxx. Also, the play of the HK is careless (assuming declarer thinks that they are all equal) and not only irrational. I've seen many careless players do the same. Since the footnote to L70 specifically includes careless, I would award only 5 tricks. As a TD, I've found that careless claims actually slow the game down a lot. When you are running a 60 table weekly game and you get three contested claims, it can and has slowed the game down. So IMHO, attempting to discourage careless claims is a good thing. -Ted. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Dec 23 21:01:21 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:01:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <014c01c2aac6$72564c60$769423d9@pbncomputer> Here is a question: AKQJ8 K None None 109732 64 A None None AKQ None 2 5 None 5432 A South: "I have the ace of clubs and five spade tricks." West: "But I have 109732 of spades" (showing these cards to South). South: "Oh. Then you get the last trick." The board is scored accordingly. Has West acted illegally? David Burn London, England From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Mon Dec 23 21:14:48 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 22:14:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> <002401c2aa9f$96f5d350$78fef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003b01c2aac8$58e9e5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, Dear Herman, There are a couple of issues here. 1. First of all declarer made a very clear statement, CA and then 5 spades which implies a HK discard on the CA. This is not irrational if declarer thinks the spades are good. This is how I might claim the position myself if (I think that) the spades are good. As I said before I think it is silly to take over from declarer and play the hand for him. You actually stop him to execute his stated line of play. Why? Even under the current laws (which I consider inadequate for serious tournament bridge) there is IMHO no support for the TD overruling the player on a clearly stated line of play. OK, the laws are so vague that almost any stance can be defended by a lawyer with some talent ('we first decide what we want and then find a law' is more than a joke). So I want to remind Herman that I am neither wrong or right, I just happen to have another view than Herman does. 2. Because a lot of prominent TD's don't seem to buy the above I maybe have to make clear why the HK discard is less 'irrational' as it seems. For weak players (my friend Herman can be considered as such) I agree with Herman. A King is much higher than an 8 so more likely to make a trick etc. Besides players like Herman and Mrs. G hardly bother to plan the play, they don't count their tricks, and they often miscount a suit. From that context I understand the arguments that is 'irrational' to discard the HK. The riposte is that for this level of player it is 'irrational' to claim at this stage and they should be discouraged to claim the board before it is claimable. Now we consider a good player. He makes a plan and before the first trick is played he will count the spades for FOUR tricks. Now this player is very unlikely to claim this hand latter on for five spade tricks. He might do so if he has a full count where the spades cannot be 5-1 (or 5-2 or whatever). But of course he might have made a mistake counting the hands. Another reason might be that he thinks the S109 are gone (black on black, C10 -> S10 or so). Ton wrote: > You shouldn't, because you shouldn't accept the assumption that declarer was > sure to make 5 spade tricks. I am a bit surprised > that Jaap is supporting this idea, because I thought our bridge worlds to > have some common grounds. If declarer claims 5 spade tricks from this holding why should you not accept that? As I said above, he can have a very good reason to think the spades are good in the ending (he miscounted the opps hands, he saw the S10 which was the C10, he thinks that whoever had 5 spades is already squeezed out of them, etc.). Now of course we all know that something went wrong inside his head but that is part of bridge. To KIS (keep it simple) I prefer not even to bother to find out what went wrong. Life is so much easier when you let somebody who claims 5 spades, try to cash them. PLEASE don't try to be smarter than declarer is. I have opps (even good ones, even myself) seen doing things far more stupid than thinking AKQJ8 is good for 5 tricks. I would hate the TD for interfering. 3. The basic issue here is, do we (TD) play the hand from the claim on in a somewhat 'normal' way regardless of what claimer said or is the claimer responsible for his claim and his state of mind at the moment of the claim. It is obvious from the above I have a very strong view about this issue. 4. Ton hates declarer playing out all the cards. Well Ton I happen to hate incorrect claims much more than some people not claiming. You can always concede against Mrs. G you know. And I don't agree with the argument. Declarer should do what we all do, play the Ace, wait for the discard, and then claim. I don't buy that 'penalizing' the guy for claiming this position means he won't claim anymore at all. I think the effect of a 'penalty' (= giving 5 tricks only) next time he will claim one trick later. Exactly what I want, and probably you as well. Remember Ph-3. I bet this Chinese girl next time will claim the same hand at the same time but now while mentioning the outstanding trump (at least in the States but probably everywhere after this experience), exactly what the ACBL wants. Besides we might do some research on what is more unpopular, faulty claims (= with some logical error) or no claims. If we take a random sample of the Dutch or French federation I bet you a bottle of wine that I win this one with a vote of at least 2 to 1 (most players are weak players and they don't like claims anyway because they lack the abstraction to understand but the simplest of them like the rest in Aces and trumps). But I agree with you that claiming should not be discouraged too much (or at all !). For this reason I tend to be lenient about the wording. Most players tend to claim only when it is 'obvious' to them, and 'obvious' is a hard concept to explain. For this reason I am probably not really with David Burn. I prefer people to claim simple endings even if they don't know the right words. For me it is far more important that the claim is 'correct' from a 'bridge' point of view. This type of claims (simple endings when the bridge is done, in my words when the hand is claimable) are almost always accepted when simply showing ones hand which makes a discussion about the wording rather pointless. BUT this applies only to simple claims at a reasonable level of bridge. Or maybe more precise the position should be simple (read obvious) given the players involved. Unfortunately what we claim and how we claim is very level dependent (which makes writing universal laws so difficult). But that is another discussion. 5. Weighted claims. Heaven forbids. Here I agree completely with Ton. We should solve the problem with writing good laws and establishing good guidelines. Not by splitting every problem down the middle. Besides claiming is a substitute for card play, and card play penalties (revoke, out of turn) are 'never' weighted. Lets keep it like that (and I don't mind the odd exception once a year). Ton wrote: > I don't like this. It's saying that we don't know, so let's split the > difference and everyone is a bit happy. I believe we should be taking > a stand. Richard does not believe throwing the HK is absolutely > certain, I agree 100% Ton wrote: > so he would rule 5 tricks. Jaap as well. I would rule 6 tricks. > If the three of us are in an AC together, I would simply bow to the > majority and rule 5 tricks. I agree 100%, if I was the minority and the majority would offer me a weighted score I would probably think they should not be on the AC. It is 5 tricks or 6, not 5.3 or whatever. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims > > > > 1. Declarer has claimed thinking that the > > > AKQJ8 of spades are five winners, with the K > > > of hearts loser being discarded on the A of > > > clubs. > > > > > > 2. When the A of hearts is discarded by LHO > > > on the A of clubs, declarer now thinks dummy > > > has six winners, and now thinks that a > > > winner has to be discarded. > > > > It happens quite often in this group that I feel amazed about the reactions, > wondering whether we are living in two or more different worlds of bridge as > far as experience is involved. In my bridge world the player who points to > AKQJ8 for 5 tricks realizes quite well that if the spades are 5-2 between > opponents he will loose another trick. And he should say so, but not making > this statement can't lead to the conclusion that he can't count. In my > bridge world it is simply wrong to assume that this declarer was sure to > have 5 spade tricks. It is even wrong to assume that he hoped to find a > sleepy opponent not being aware of his fifth spade making a trick. He just > was shortcutting play. Once more: he was just shortcutting play. As he would > holding the AKQJ8 as the last 5 cards himself. As a defender there is one > thing I really hate (more than the most terrible misexplanation): declarer > slowly playing the ace, the king, the queen, the jack, tension getting > higher and higher (ha, ha) and then the eight looking surprised when the ten > shows up. > > Now LHO discards his heart ace. In my bridge world declarer at that moment > is 100% sure to make all tricks, even if he can't produce the word squeeze. > So in my bridge world the TD thinking of awarding a weighted score would not > be asked to do the job again. > > ton > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, declarer will discard the 8 of > > > spades 50% of the time and the K of hearts > > > 50% of the time. > > not in my bridge world > > > > > > > > 4. Discarding the K of hearts is objectively > > > irrational, but not subjectively irrational > > > if the remaining cards are thought to be > > > winners. > > that might be true, but the 'if'' statement is an irrational one > > > > > > > > > 5. Ruling that it would *always* be > > > irrational for declarer to discard the K of > > > hearts removes a percentage of a trick from > > > the defenders. Ruling that declarer would > > > *always* carelessly or inferiorly discard > > > the K of hearts removes a percentage of a > > > trick from declarer. This particular claim > > > is an exemplar of when weighted scores for > > > claims would be most useful - when an > > > unexpected circumstance occurs which > > > modifies the previously stated claim line. > > > > > > > > > I don't like this. It's saying that we don't know, so let's split the > > difference and everyone is a bit happy. I believe we should be taking > > a stand. Richard does not believe throwing the HK is absolutely > > certain, > > you mean the small spade ?? > > so he would rule 5 tricks. Jaap as well. I would rule 6 tricks. > > If the three of us are in an AC together, I would simply bow to the > > majority and rule 5 tricks. > > You shouldn't, because you shouldn't accept the assumption that declarer was > sure to make 5 spade tricks. I am a bit surprised > that Jaap is supporting this idea, because I thought our bridge worlds to > have some common grounds. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 23 22:06:25 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:06:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? In-Reply-To: <002801c2a889$c187e5d0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021223165320.026c8c50@pop.starpower.net> At 07:41 PM 12/20/02, Nancy wrote: >At the club today, NLM team game. > >The hands were: > S dlr Q96 > All vul KJ986 > 7 > A643 > K A87432 > T Q4 > KQT953 A6 > KQT52 J87 > JT5 > A7532 > J42 > 9 >The bidding: >P - 2D - 2H - 2S 2 diamonds described as weak. >3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S (A) " I think I should alert that bid as Gerber" >P - 5D - P - P >D all pass. >The director was called after the statement about Gerber with the >complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber >explanation". >I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid according to >what the bid their partner made meant to them. East should respond to >a "Gerber" bid and West must bid according to what his understanding >of his partner's bid was without the Gerber explanation. West was not >playing "Gerber when obvious" and East thought they were playing >that. There were no convention cards on the table as this club has no >rules regarding convention cards. N and S both claimed that they had >been damaged because West's bid was not a weak two and was too >strong. East thought it weak and explained it as such. I tried to >explain that a player can deviate from their partnership agreements at >any time as long as his partner was unaware of the deviation. They >had a huge problem understanding this and continue to say W should be >penalized. (very typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and >West very easily made 5 D doubled. N/S are still complaining , S >saying she would have bid 5 hearts had she known 2D was not weak. >(this makes no sense to me). I allowed the bid to stand. I also >received very strong objections to the fact that there were no >opponent's convention cards and how difficult it was to find out what >they were playing without asking and creating a UI scenario. (I agree >but it is not my club). Following a discussion of the situation with >another director, more advanced than I, it was stated that the bid >should be rolled back to 4 Spades, down 1. Stating that West having >heard partner bid spades twice and failing to support his 6-5 or 6-4 >minor suit hand with the singleton spade king he should pass the 4 >spade bid. Further discussion with a third director would have done >what I did and allow the 5D doubled to stand but suggested a >procedural penalty to N/S for not knowing their system. Lots of >feathers were ruffled. What is the correct solution to this >problem???? I would go along with the first director Nancy consulted. Without the "Gerber" alert, W would normally assume that he has shown his two-suiter (of whatever strength he thought he showed when he opened 2D), and that partner's 4S is suggesting a contract. Passing 4S is an LA, and is clearly counter-suggested by the UI from E's explanation. I do not accept S's contention that she would have bid 5H "knowing" that 2D was not weak when she did not do so thinking it was weak, whether misinformed or not. And a penalty to E-W (I assume the "N/S" above is in error) "for not knowing their system" has no basis in the laws. Perhaps E-W should be penalized for E's unsolicited explanation of 4C as Gerber, but I would think a gentle lesson on the correct form of an alert ("Alert." Period.) would serve in an NLM event. 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 Dec 23 23:29:52 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:29:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: <4A256C98.007F75EC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >Here is a question: > AKQJ8 > K > None > None >109732 64 >A None >None AKQ >None 2 > 5 > None > 5432 > A > >South: "I have the ace of clubs and >five spade tricks." >West: "But I have 109732 of spades" >(showing these cards to South). >South: "Oh. Then you get the last >trick." > >The board is scored accordingly. Has >West acted illegally? > >David Burn West has not infracted Law 72A2: >>A player must not knowingly accept >>either the score for a trick that >>his side did not win or the >>concession of a trick that his >>opponents could not lose. since, obviously, declarer could have lost the fifth spade trick to West. However, West may have infracted Law 71C: >>A concession must stand, once made, >>except that within the correction >>period established in accordance with >>Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a >>concession if a player has conceded a >>trick that cannot be lost by any >>normal play of the remaining cards. [snip] >>the Director shall cancel the >>concession of a trick that could not >>have been lost by any normal play of >>the remaining cards. But for West to have infracted Law 71C, two facts have to be established: a) it would not be "normal" for declarer to discard the king of hearts after the ace of hearts is played by West, and, b) Law 71C is a Law that West must abide by, rather than merely a Law which is an exclusive instruction to the Director (such as Law 81 is). Further complications are caused if West has inadvertently infracted Law 71C (for example, by West incorrectly evaluating what is "normal"), since Law 72B3 specifically allows West to conceal their inadvertent infraction. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 24 00:41:49 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:41:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: <4A256C99.000236CB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Jaap wrote: [big snip] >card play penalties (revoke, out of turn) are >'never' weighted. [big snip] Revoke penalties *can* be weighted. Law 64C allows the TD to "assign an adjusted score" after a revoke. Assigned adjusted scores (Law 12C2) can subsequently be weighted (Law 12C3). Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 24 01:13:37 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:13:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] I like Ike Message-ID: <4A256C99.00051F9C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman wrote: [big snip] >Playing on is an illustration and as such it is >permitted and should remain to be so. While I agree that playing on illustratively should be permitted in 2005, I disagree with Herman's assertion that such playing on is permitted under the 1997 Laws. Law 68D states: >>After any claim or concession, play ceases... On the other hand, Sven's idea of declarer claiming by rapidly showing cards sequentially one-by-one I would *not* describe as playing on, and as TD I would therefore rule that Sven had used a type of claim which is legal under the 1997 Laws. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 24 00:29:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:29:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C98.007F75EC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <016a01c2aae3$94846d40$769423d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: AKQJ8 K None None 109732 64 A None None AKQ None 2 5 None 5432 A South: "I have the ace of clubs and five spade tricks." West: "But I have 109732 of spades" (showing these cards to South). South: "Oh. Then you get the last trick." The board is scored accordingly. Has West acted illegally? > West has not infracted Law 72A2: >A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. > since, obviously, declarer could have lost the fifth spade trick to West. Not if you're Herman, he couldn't. But what do the words in Law 72 mean? Could not lose by normal play? Could not lose by legal play? Here is another case where the former Propriety is not very helpful as a Law. > However, West may have infracted Law 71C: >A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, > [snip] >the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Clever snip, Richard - you just happen to have excised the important words "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends", which mean that even if West has acted illegally, his opponents cannot obtain redress except within a very short period of time. > But for West to have infracted Law 71C No player can break Law 71C. Law 71C does not say what a player must, shall, should, should not, may not, or must not do. What concerns me is this: a West who was simply wool-gathering, or a poor player who did not realise that he would be squeezed by the ace of clubs, might simply say to South: "I have five spades"; a similarly distrait or inexperienced South who did not know what a squeeze was would then give West a trick. You may say that this South and this West deserve each other, and you may be right. But a West who knew perfectly well that he would be squeezed by the ace of clubs might - and I'm very sorry to have to tell Herman this - not actually explain to South that he had just brought off a clever squeeze and could have his six tricks after all. He might - and it may be a good time to tell Herman that Father Christmas doesn't exist either, because these shocking disillusionments are better handled all at once - just do, in his villainy, what the innocent West did in the natural order of things. And *he should be entitled to the same number of tricks as that innocent West*, for the Laws cannot enforce "sportsmanship" any more than they can designate a creature who shall be known as the Tooth Fairy (another being, Herman, that does not actually... but enough is enough). Now, here is how this incident continues, first in Herman's Claim Utopia: North (after the session is over) "You realise you didn't have to give him that spade trick? He was squeezed, you know." South: "But I'd claimed - I had to follow my statement, didn't I?" North: "No. This is Herman's Claim Utopia. However stupid you have been, a Director will come along and make it all right." South: "The villain! Where is the Tournament Director? Where is the National Guard? I want my trick back!" Director: "Er... sorry, but Law 71C says that once you'd bid on the next board, it was too late. I can only give you your trick back if you couldn't lose it by any legal play. And since not even the Great Ton, the God of Herman's Claim Utopia, has made it illegal to discard a heart on a club when dummy doesn't have any clubs, I'm afraid..." South: "But this is monstrous! I demand to see a lawyer! I demand to see the Pope! I demand..." (He is bound, gagged, and led off to a dungeon) In Burn's Inferno, of course, North's second utterance is: "Yes. Once you'd misclaimed, you'd lost that trick" and there is an end to all discussion. What there is also an end to, of course, is South's (and the world's) sense of monstrous injustice. No one will cross West off their Christmas card list ("there's the fellow who accepted a concession when..."), there will be no acrimonious debates ("that was irrational" - "no, it was careless" "are you saying I wouldn't know the eight of spades was good?"). No one will have to judge competence, motive, intent, propriety; no one will have to cast aspersions or impute dishonesty to acts of simple clumsiness. It's amazing what you can do when you know the rules. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 24 01:33:10 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:33:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <4A256C99.0006EA95.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: [snip] >>as TD - I would use the claim statement as the >>only reliable starting point for determining the >>claimer's intent *at the time of the claim*. Any >>questioning of the claimer about their intent by >>the TD would get data about the claimer's intent >>that was possibly corrupted by second thoughts. Tim replied: >I am not sure what this means. I have claimed >before now with "I can untangle the rest". >Opponents have taken this to mean "I have >registered the fact that I need to be careful >with entries/unblocking and I will take that care." >This has never caused a problem. [snip] Indeed it should not. The use of the word "untangle" in your claim shows that you were aware *at the time of the claim* of entries/unblocking difficulties. Recently, I disputed a declarer's claim under the outstanding trump provisions of Law 70C. I was lucky to oppose a truthful declarer who freely admitted to the TD that she had forgotten about my outstanding trump. But some claimers would instinctively tell the TD that, "Of course I was about to draw the last trump." This is why the TD should be cautious using second thoughts data from the claimer about the claimer's original intent. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 24 00:52:05 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:52:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <014c01c2aac6$72564c60$769423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <018601c2aae6$addc6f60$769423d9@pbncomputer> I wrote: [snip of familiar diagram] > South: "I have the ace of clubs and five spade tricks." > West: "But I have 109732 of spades" (showing these cards to South). > South: "Oh. Then you get the last trick." > The board is scored accordingly. Has West acted illegally? The answer to this, of course, is "Yes", for he and everyone else at the table are in breach of Law 68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. But this does not happen. I would think that the majority of contested claims follow the scenario I have described: "I've got these tricks"; "No you haven't, because I've got this one"; "Oh, all right then". Law 68D is probably the most frequently broken Law in bridge apart from Law 7B2, which is broken every time the game is played by very nearly everybody who plays it. I draw no particular conclusion from this - I see no way in which Law 68D could be better enforced. It is a consequence of it that, whereas there are doubtless very, very many more claims contested at the table than ruled upon by directors, most cases are settled amicably by agreement among the players themselves. Only the difficult cases come to the notice of officials. I would also say this, though: that it is extremely likely in my opinion that the settlement of contested claims by players probably gives rise to a large number of wrong claim adjustments, because not only do the players not know L68D, they do not know any other laws either. In Burn's Inferno, *all* dodgy claims will come to the attention of officials. This will lead to the officials' having to do some work for once - but this is Hell, so what do you expect? But after a while, there will be a marked decrease in the number of dodgy claims... David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 24 01:02:32 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 01:02:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx In-Reply-To: <200212232016.gBNKGvo00354@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <3E02F532.3060401@skynet.be> <200212232016.gBNKGvo00354@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: In article <200212232016.gBNKGvo00354@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Ted Ying writes > >Hmmm...well, several years ago, I used to teach and direct >novice games. I'll tell you that quite a few novices >especially those with no previous card skills (we ran some >games pre-EasyBridge which were designed for people who had >never played any card game let alone bridge-like games like >spades or whist) actually had no concept of playing it right. >I had a whole mini-lesson on playing cards from the short >side first. I've seen new players who learn one lesson and >use a high card to cross back to hand to take another play >(like repeating a finesse) only to block the suit. > >Yes, I think that there are novice players who will get this >wrong. After 10 years of teaching novices, I had seen quite >a few get this type of problem wrong! and would any of them have the temerity to claim? cheers john > > -Ted. > >> From: Herman De Wael -- 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 Tue Dec 24 01:06:30 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 01:06:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: <018601c2aae6$addc6f60$769423d9@pbncomputer> References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <014c01c2aac6$72564c60$769423d9@pbncomputer> <018601c2aae6$addc6f60$769423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <018601c2aae6$addc6f60$769423d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >I wrote: > >[snip of familiar diagram] > >> South: "I have the ace of clubs and five spade tricks." >> West: "But I have 109732 of spades" (showing these cards to South). >> South: "Oh. Then you get the last trick." > >> The board is scored accordingly. Has West acted illegally? > >The answer to this, of course, is "Yes", for he and everyone else at the >table are in breach of Law 68D: > snip > But after a while, there will be a >marked decrease in the number of dodgy claims... Optimist :P > >David Burn >London, England > -- 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 Tue Dec 24 02:13:21 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:13:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] I like Ike Message-ID: <4A256C99.000A979C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >>>So where's the relevance to BLML? This is the same Al Gruenther known >>>to bridge historians as the referee for the Culbertson-Lenz match 71 >>>years ago. That match will be re-enacted next month at the >>>Waldorf-Astoria hotel in NYC. For more info see >>> >>>http://www.acbl.org/bridgeweek/bw.htm >>> >>>-- >>>Adam Wildavsky The ACBL website stated: [snip] >>Mark your calendar now to play in the week-long series of events >>featuring deals from the Culbertson-Lenz match, the same deals which >>will be played in New York. [snip] An interesting promotional idea, but how can the ACBL enforce Zero Tolerance for Law infractions on its members, when the ACBL itself is hypocritically violating Law 6D2? That Law clearly states: >No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted >deck or if the deal had previously been played in a different session. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 24 04:38:35 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 14:38:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: <4A256C99.0017E33D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] I wrote: >>However, West may have infracted Law 71C: >> >>A concession must stand, once made, except that >>within the correction period established in >>accordance with Law 79C, >> >>[snip] >> >>the Director shall cancel the concession of a >>trick that could not have been lost by any >>normal play of the remaining cards. David Burn replied: >Clever snip, Richard - you just happen to have >excised the important words "Until the conceding >side makes a call on a subsequent board, or >until the round ends", which mean that even if >West has acted illegally, his opponents cannot >obtain redress except within a very short period >of time. [snip] Merry Christmas David. Merry Christmas also to the WBF Laws Commission, which left a gift to TDs and players inside a locked filing cabinet stored in a disused lavatory bearing the sign "Beware of the Leopard". The WBF LC realised soon after the 1997 Laws were published that the snipped words in Law 71C were an error. Rather than republish the Laws, the WBF LC merely filed an interpretation that the snipped words in Law 71C were overruled by the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. Merry Christmas to all blmlers, Richard From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Tue Dec 24 04:41:38 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:41:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Dec 24, 2002 01:02:32 AM Message-ID: <200212240441.gBO4fc409421@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 01:02:32 +0000 > > In article <200212232016.gBNKGvo00354@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Ted > Ying writes > > > >Hmmm...well, several years ago, I used to teach and direct > >novice games. I'll tell you that quite a few novices > >especially those with no previous card skills (we ran some > >games pre-EasyBridge which were designed for people who had > >never played any card game let alone bridge-like games like > >spades or whist) actually had no concept of playing it right. > >I had a whole mini-lesson on playing cards from the short > >side first. I've seen new players who learn one lesson and > >use a high card to cross back to hand to take another play > >(like repeating a finesse) only to block the suit. > > > >Yes, I think that there are novice players who will get this > >wrong. After 10 years of teaching novices, I had seen quite > >a few get this type of problem wrong! > > and would any of them have the temerity to claim? > > cheers john TY: No...none of them would. In the article that I responded to, I didn't see the reference to a claim, only "would even Mrs. G get this one wrong?" I didn't realize that the reference from the earlier thread (not quoted in the article) was regarding claims. Sorry. -Ted. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 24 09:06:57 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:06:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <002801c2a889$c187e5d0$6401a8c0@hare> <3E06D25E.6010004@skynet.be> <002301c2aac0$65873e00$dea8193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3E0823B1.2050901@skynet.be> Grattan, this one is not funny. grandeval wrote: > Grattan Endicott ======================================= > "A comedian can only last till he takes himself > serious or his audience takes him serious." > (Will Rogers) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > > > >>Of course there are two rulings to make here. >> >>- regarding the "weak" nature of the 2Di opening. This hand is surely >>worth a 1Di opener. A player is allowed to deviate from his system, >>but not in such a way as to encroach into another one. I would >>certainly rule this as MI, like this : "if you explain something using >>just one word, the opponents are correct in assuming you mean the >>standard meaning of that word. They have read books about this and >>assume you have as well. If you have not read those books, or other >>books, you should have said so". >> >>So rulings based on taking away the double or allowing 5He to be bid >>are certainly on. >> >> > +=+ General Alert. > All readers please avoid impetuous responses. This is > just Herman's little seasonal joke and is quite unconnected > with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, I have never shied away from saying what I believe to be the correct ruling. I have often been told my ruling was wrong and in some instances I have had to admit that this was the case. If you prefer that I don't answer to the questions raised by others I shall go and join David on some private channel. I did not see any response from you. Season's greetings. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 24 09:08:59 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:08:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> <002401c2aa9f$96f5d350$78fef1c3@LNV> <003b01c2aac8$58e9e5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E08242B.6020509@skynet.be> Dear Jaap, let me be very brief: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Dear Ton, Dear Herman, > > There are a couple of issues here. > > 1. First of all declarer made a very clear statement, CA and then 5 spades > which implies a HK discard on the CA. This is not irrational if declarer > thinks the spades are good. This is how I might claim the position myself if > (I think that) the spades are good. > > As I said before I think it is silly to take over from declarer and play the > hand for him. You actually stop him to execute his stated line of play. Why? > Even under the current laws (which I consider inadequate for serious > tournament bridge) there is IMHO no support for the TD overruling the player > on a clearly stated line of play. Yes there is. If the stated line becomes irrational, the claimer is no longer held to it. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 24 09:16:37 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:16:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> one Yes and one No, Ted, Ted Ying wrote: > > TY: Sorry...I'm dropping into this discussion late and apologize > if I missed something that was already discussed. > > 2 points: > > 1. If the claim was made "Play the CA, discard the HK, then > a spade to the board (with AKQJ8), then that is what is > required. Laws 68 and 70 require that the remaining trick > be granted to the defense. If declarer wanted to cover that > situation, he could have said "Play the CA, barring the discard > of the HA, discard the HK, blah, blah, blah..." > no, no, no, no, NO. A claimer is NOT to be held to the claim statement if the stated line is deemed irrational. > 2. If you assume that declarer thinks that all spades are good > and that the HK is good (e.g. let's assume that he had S-AKQJT > and HK), then (s)he assumes all cards are equal and could > easily discard the HK even seeing the HA. I've also seen many > careless players play this way (ala the "Oh S**T" situation) > and then say "oh, it doesn't matter, they're all good anyways" > > The point is that if declarer assumes that all cards are > equally good, they are equally likely to throw any card away. > L70A specifically states "the Director adjudicates the result > of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any > doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer" The > statement makes it clear that declarer assumes all cards are > equal and *would* lose to S-Txxxx. > > Also, the play of the HK is careless (assuming declarer thinks > that they are all equal) and not only irrational. I've seen > many careless players do the same. Since the footnote to L70 > specifically includes careless, I would award only 5 tricks. > yes, yes, yes, yes, YES. IF you find that the discard of the HK, after declarer notices the discard of the HA, is merely careless, then please do award only 5 tricks. I happen to believe it is irrational, but I have never said that this is any more than a personal view. > As a TD, I've found that careless claims actually slow the > game down a lot. When you are running a 60 table weekly game > and you get three contested claims, it can and has slowed the > game down. So IMHO, attempting to discourage careless claims > is a good thing. > > -Ted. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 24 09:18:52 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:18:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <014c01c2aac6$72564c60$769423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E08267C.8070004@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Here is a question: > > AKQJ8 > K > None > None > 109732 64 > A None > None AKQ > None 2 > 5 > None > 5432 > A > > South: "I have the ace of clubs and five spade tricks." > West: "But I have 109732 of spades" (showing these cards to South). > South: "Oh. Then you get the last trick." > > The board is scored accordingly. Has West acted illegally? > If I am West, NO. If you are West, YES. meaning merely that I would fail to spot the squeeze while you would have spotted it so long ago that the situation would certainly not arise. I doubt if you would have accepted so easily a trick that you knew you could not make on any normal line of play. And I would give back the trick as well. > David Burn > London, England > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Tue Dec 24 09:33:46 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:33:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C99.000236CB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004601c2ab2f$90b9bf20$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Richard, I know as well that sometimes even card play problems can lead to a weighted score. For this reason I wrote 'never' rather than never. The point I want to make (which I am sure you understand very well despite your smart ass reaction) is that revokes, play out of turns etc. carry 'automatic penalties' rather than that an TD/AC tries to make some kind of 'reasonable' ruling which is quite common in UI and tempo problems during the bidding. Since claims belong in the card play department it seems a good idea to me to handle claim stupidities like card play stupidities. If you could only react to the real issue rather than a minor detail, the discussion might actually get anywhere. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims > > > Jaap wrote: > > [big snip] > > >card play penalties (revoke, out of turn) are > >'never' weighted. > > [big snip] > > Revoke penalties *can* be weighted. Law 64C > allows the TD to "assign an adjusted score" > after a revoke. Assigned adjusted scores (Law > 12C2) can subsequently be weighted (Law 12C3). > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 22 23:41:17 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:41:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The reason of full-disclosure References: <001001c2a9ae$091a08e0$cf85fea9@compaq> Message-ID: <001b01c2aa13$9f9c33f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C2AA1C.010F95C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kees van der Weijden=20 To: [blml]=20 Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:34 PM Subject: [blml] The reason of full-disclosure I have a fundamental question. I have always understand that the fundamental REASON of = full-disclosure is: to SHOW the opps(the world) that you don't have used = UI.=20 Q: Is this interpretation correct? A: NO, that cannot be correct. The reason has always been that = opponents shall know as much as you do about your agreements with your = partner. You must always afterwards can explain why you came to that specific = contract or that specific counterplay. And therefore you must announce = this by (pre)alerting and convention card and have the opps the right to = ask. Comment: ????????? =3D=3D=3D Explanation/background:=20 If this is the case, let's consider the right to ask. That right also = exists to perform full-disclosure. But I think that sometimes this right = is used with no other reason than to provoke UI (opps maybe don't have = concrete agreements in that particular situation), because it is used in = situations wherein a player don't want to bid, and when he needs the = information for the counterplay, he can ask after the auction also. I = feel strong that provoking UI in such a manner is a main violation of = the rules, for it is not used for the reason of full-disclosure. So, = let's at least tell the world the reason of full-disclosure, so that = provoking UI by abusing the right to ask becomes a main violation of the = rules.=20 A: It is already a violation to ask questions for any other purpose = than to get explanations of opponents' agreements. If this interpretation is not correct, well, tell me why, and than I = have learned. Many TD's in the Netherlands seemes to think you always = must ask after an alert with bad cards also, to avoid the UI to the = partner that you are not interested. With the negative effect of = misguiding future leader and generating UI. A: There is always a danger of creating UI to partner from asking or = not asking questions. You are NOT allowed to ask question(s) to which = you know the answer if your purpose is to "alert" your partner of those = answers. If opponents alert a call and you know why, for instance = because the same call was alerted and explained in a previous board then = I would say (and rule) that asking for the same answer again is not = legitimate but harassment in violation of Law 74A2. Consequently any = kind of regulation that you should always ask after alerts cannot be = correct, but the UI that might follow from asking or not asking is your = partner's responsibility as specified in Law 16A. Sorry for my bad english, Well, I had problems understanding one place, but I hope I gave = reasonable comments to the rest. Kees van der Weijden, Netherlands. regards Sven ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C2AA1C.010F95C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kees van der = Weijden=20
To: [blml]
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 = 12:34=20 PM
Subject: [blml] The reason of=20 full-disclosure

I have a fundamental = question.
 
I have always understand that=20 the fundamental REASON of full-disclosure is: to SHOW = the=20 opps(the world) that you don't have used UI.
 
Q: Is this interpretation = correct?
 
A: NO, that cannot be correct. The reason has always been that = opponents=20 shall know as much as you do about your agreements with your=20 partner.
 
You must always afterwards can = explain why=20 you came to that specific contract or that specific counterplay.=20 And therefore you must announce this by (pre)alerting and = convention card=20 and have the opps the right to ask.
 
Comment: ?????????
 
=3D=3D=3D
 
Explanation/background: 
If this is the = case, let's=20 consider the right to ask. That right also exists to perform = full-disclosure.=20 But I think that sometimes this right is used with no other = reason than=20 to provoke UI (opps maybe don't have concrete agreements in = that=20 particular situation), because it is used in situations wherein a = player don't=20 want to bid, and when he needs the information for the counterplay, he = can ask after the auction also. I feel strong that provoking UI = in such a=20 manner is a main violation of the rules, for it is not used for the = reason of=20 full-disclosure. So, let's at least tell the world the = reason of=20 full-disclosure, so that provoking UI by abusing the right = to ask=20 becomes a main violation of the rules. 
 
A: It is already a violation to ask questions for any other = purpose than=20 to get explanations of opponents' agreements.
 
If this interpretation is not = correct, well,=20 tell me why, and than I have learned. Many TD's in the = Netherlands seemes=20 to think you always must ask after an alert with bad cards also, to = avoid the=20 UI to the partner that you are not interested. With the negative = effect of=20 misguiding future leader and generating UI.
 
A: There is always a danger of creating UI to partner from  = asking=20 or not asking questions. You are NOT allowed to ask question(s) = to which=20 you know the answer if your purpose is to "alert" your partner of = those=20 answers. If opponents alert a call and you know why, for instance = because the=20 same call was alerted and explained in a previous board then I would = say (and=20 rule) that asking for the same answer again is not legitimate but = harassment in violation of Law 74A2. Consequently any kind of = regulation that=20 you should always ask after alerts cannot be correct, but the UI that = might=20 follow from asking or not asking is your partner's = responsibility as=20 specified in Law 16A.
 
Sorry for my bad = english,
 
Well, I had problems understanding one place, but I hope I gave=20 reasonable comments to the rest.
 
Kees van der Weijden, = Netherlands.
 
regards Sven
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C2AA1C.010F95C0-- From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Dec 23 05:10:52 2002 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 05:10:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <000901c2a98a$472c6cf0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000c01c2aa41$aa3d1080$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2AA41.AA10A950 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 7:18 AM Subject: [blml] Ruling??? ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: Ruling??? At the club today, NLM team game.=20 The hands were: =20 S dlr Q96 All vul KJ986 7 A643 K A87432 T Q4 KQT953 A6 KQT52 J87 JT5 A7532 J42 9 =20 The bidding: P - 2D - 2H - 2S 2 diamonds described as weak. 3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S (A) " I think I should alert that bid as = Gerber" P - 5D - P - P D all pass. =20 The director was called after the statement about Gerber with the = complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber = explanation". I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid according to = what the bid their partner made meant to them. East should respond to a = "Gerber" bid and West must bid according to what his understanding of = his partner's bid was without the Gerber explanation. West was not = playing "Gerber when obvious" and East thought they were playing that. = There were no convention cards on the table as this club has no rules = regarding convention cards. N and S both claimed that they had been = damaged because West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong. East = thought it weak and explained it as such. I tried to explain that a = player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as long = as his partner was unaware of the deviation. They had a huge problem = understanding this and continue to say W should be penalized. (very = typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very easily made = 5 D doubled. N/S are still complaining , S saying she would have bid 5 = hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this makes no sense to me). I = allowed the bid to stand. I also received very strong objections to the = fact that there were no opponent's convention cards and how difficult it = was to find out what they were playing without asking and creating a UI = scenario. (I agree but it is not my club). Following a discussion of = the situation with another director, more advanced than I, it was stated = that the bid should be rolled back to 4 Spades, down 1. Stating that = West having heard partner bid spades twice and failing to support his = 6-5 or 6-4 minor suit hand with the singleton spade king he should pass = the 4 spade bid. Further discussion with a third director would have = done what I did and allow the 5D doubled to stand but suggested a = procedural penalty to N/S for not knowing their system. Lots of = feathers were ruffled. What is the correct solution to this problem???? = =20 Thanks,=20 Nancy =20 It seems to me that your first director friend was on the right lines = here - ie we should not allow the 5D bid. As director I do need to ask = West some questions - Why she opened 2D if that was weak ? and Why she = bid 5D? but I dont expect to allow 5D. =20 If as I imagine he thought 4C was natural then over 4S surely there = are 3 possible calls Pass 5C 5D I can imagine a weak player telling me that with 6-5 it was obvious to = call 5C but I dont think I'd allow even that - partner has heard me show = at least 6-4 in the minors and has tried 4S - I have a singleton Honour = much more than I might have why not pass?? 5D on the other hand makes flagrant use of the UI from partner's = alert/remark about Gerber. Despite your efforts Nancy this player has = not understood his obligation to bid as if he has not heard the = alert/remark. I would adjust and try again to explain mike =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2AA41.AA10A950 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 = 7:18=20 AM
Subject: [blml] Ruling???

 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy T = Dressing=20
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: Ruling???

At the club today, NLM team game.
 
The hands were:     
  S=20 = dlr           &nbs= p;Q96
  All=20 vul         KJ986
=
           &n= bsp;          7
=
           &n= bsp;          A643
     =20 = K            =             &= nbsp;   A87432
     =20 = T            =             &= nbsp;   =20 Q4
     =20 = KQT953           &= nbsp;    =20 A6
     =20 = KQT52           &n= bsp;      =20 J87
=
           &n= bsp;          =20 JT5
=
           &n= bsp;          =20 A7532
=
           &n= bsp;           J42=
=
           &n= bsp;           9&n= bsp;       
The bidding:
P -    2D -     2H -=20 2S     2 diamonds described as weak.
3H - 4C (A) - P - 4S    (A) " I think I should = alert that=20 bid as Gerber"
P  -   5D      - =20 P -  P
D   all pass.    
The director was called after the statement about Gerber = with the=20 complaint that Partner is not allowed to know about the "Gerber=20 explanation".
I explained that this is UI and that each player must bid = according=20 to what the bid their partner made meant to them.  East = should respond to a "Gerber"  bid and West  must = bid=20 according to what his understanding of his partner's bid was = without=20 the Gerber explanation.  West was not playing "Gerber when = obvious"=20 and East thought they were playing that.  There were no = convention=20 cards on the table as this club has no rules regarding convention = cards.   N and S both claimed that they had = been damaged=20 because West's bid was not a weak two and was too strong.  East = thought=20 it weak and explained it as such.  I tried to explain = that a=20 player can deviate from their partnership agreements at any time as = long as=20 his partner was unaware of the deviation.  They had a huge = problem=20 understanding this and continue to say W should be = penalized.  =20 (very typical beginner feeling.) The play continued and West very = easily=20 made 5 D doubled.  N/S are still complaining , S = saying she=20 would have bid 5 hearts had she known 2D was not weak. (this = makes=20 no sense to me).   I allowed the bid to stand.  I also = received=20 very strong objections to the fact that there were no=20 opponent's convention cards and how difficult it was to find out = what=20 they were playing without asking and creating a UI scenario. (I = agree but=20 it is not my club).  Following a discussion of the situation = with=20 another director, more advanced than I, it was stated that = the bid=20 should be rolled back to 4 Spades, down 1.  Stating = that West having=20 heard partner bid spades twice and failing to support his 6-5 or 6-4 = minor=20 suit hand with the singleton spade king he should pass the 4 = spade=20 bid.  Further discussion with a third director would have done = what=20 I did and allow the 5D doubled to stand but suggested a = procedural=20 penalty to N/S for not knowing their system.  Lots of feathers = were=20 ruffled.  What is the correct solution to this problem????=20      
Thanks, 
Nancy  
 
It seems to me that your first director friend was on the = right=20 lines here - ie we should not allow the 5D bid.=20 As director   I do need to ask West some questions = - Why=20 she opened 2D if that was weak ?  and Why she bid 5D? but I dont = expect=20 to allow 5D. 
 
If as I imagine he thought 4C  was natural then = over 4S=20 surely there are 3 possible calls
 
Pass
5C
5D
 
I can imagine a weak player telling me that with 6-5 it was = obvious to=20 call 5C but I dont think I'd allow even that - partner has heard me = show=20 at least 6-4 in the minors and has tried 4S - I have a singleton = Honour=20 much more than I might have why not pass??
 
5D on the other hand makes flagrant use of the UI from partner's=20 alert/remark about Gerber.  Despite your efforts Nancy this = player has=20 not understood his obligation to bid as if he has not heard the=20 alert/remark.  I would adjust and try again to explain
 
=
mike          &nbs= p; 
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2AA41.AA10A950-- From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 24 10:16:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <4A256C99.00078C60.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard wrote: > In Orstraya we speak Strine, and use the words > "good", "high" and "winners" interchangeably. It sounds like all three might used of hands where the order of play is significant (such as playing a suit from the top). Is there some other word that indicates that order is unimportant? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 24 10:16:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <4A256C99.0006EA95.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >I am not sure what this means. I have claimed > >before now with "I can untangle the rest". > >Opponents have taken this to mean "I have > >registered the fact that I need to be careful > >with entries/unblocking and I will take that care." > >This has never caused a problem. > > Indeed it should not. The use of the word "untangle" > in your claim shows that you were aware *at the time > of the claim* of entries/unblocking difficulties. OK, we are on the same page then. > Recently, I disputed a declarer's claim under the > outstanding trump provisions of Law 70C. I was lucky > to oppose a truthful declarer who freely admitted to > the TD that she had forgotten about my outstanding > trump. But some claimers would instinctively tell > the TD that, "Of course I was about to draw the last > trump." This is why the TD should be cautious using > second thoughts data from the claimer about the > claimer's original intent. Slight difference here. I would regard myself as extremely unlucky to be facing a declarer who lied (rather than lucky to be facing one who didn't). If I thought declarer had lied a report to the L&E committee would be forthcoming in short order. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 24 10:16:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx In-Reply-To: <200212232016.gBNKGvo00354@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Ted Ying wrote: > Hmmm...well, several years ago, I used to teach and direct > novice games. I'll tell you that quite a few novices > especially those with no previous card skills (we ran some > games pre-EasyBridge which were designed for people who had > never played any card game let alone bridge-like games like > spades or whist) actually had no concept of playing it right. > I had a whole mini-lesson on playing cards from the short > side first. I've seen new players who learn one lesson and > use a high card to cross back to hand to take another play > (like repeating a finesse) only to block the suit. > > Yes, I think that there are novice players who will get this > wrong. After 10 years of teaching novices, I had seen quite > a few get this type of problem wrong! > I tend to agree. However in deciding how to rule against these novice claimers it is, IME, an entirely theoretical exercise. They don't claim this suit even after playing KQ and leading the third. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 24 12:22:56 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:22:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: <003b01c2aac8$58e9e5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> <002401c2aa9f$96f5d350$78fef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224132110.00abe8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:14 23/12/2002 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Besides we might do some research on what is more unpopular, faulty claims >(=3D with some logical error) or no claims. If we take a random sample of= the >Dutch or French federation I bet you a bottle of wine that I win this one >with a vote of at least 2 to 1 (most players are weak players and they= don't >like claims anyway because they lack the abstraction to understand but the >simplest of them like the rest in Aces and trumps). AG : you might well win your bet. However, I'm reluctant about the idea of= =20 asking their opinion about faulty claims to people who don't know what a=20 correct claim is :-=A7 From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 24 12:42:58 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:42:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: <4A256C98.007F75EC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224133803.02449750@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:29 24/12/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: South: "I have the ace of clubs and >five spade tricks." >West: "But I have 109732 of spades" >(showing these cards to South). >South: "Oh. Then you get the last >trick." > >The board is scored accordingly. Has >West acted illegally? >two facts have to be established: > >a) it would not be "normal" for > declarer to discard the king of > hearts after the ace of hearts is > played by West, and, > >b) Law 71C is a Law that West must > abide by, rather than merely a Law > which is an exclusive instruction > to the Director (such as Law 81 is). > >Further complications are caused if >West has inadvertently infracted Law >71C (for example, by West incorrectly >evaluating what is "normal"), since >Law 72B3 specifically allows West to >conceal their inadvertent infraction. AG : another element : at the moment he accepts the concession, it is possible that West had not realized he was squeezed. In this case he has not infracted anything. The main reason I'm not at ease with the idea of being compelled to signal one's own infraction (eg a revoke) when one sees it is that it is always posible for the player not to have seen it. To decide that he did is to pretend being able to read the player's mind. Not for me, thanks. Here the case is very much similar. When West accepts, I'm unable to know whether he did or didn't see that declarer had, in fact, all the tricks. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Dec 24 12:34:48 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:34:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <01c101c2ab45$e78a7860$b84c003e@mycomputer> Message-ID: <3E085468.30108@skynet.be> Hello Israel, and I'm happy to see you've succeeded in rejoining. Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >>game down. So IMHO, attempting to discourage careless claims >>is a good thing. >> >> > I have been running about 60 tables daily ,and agree with you entirely. > Besides the bridge world of at least 90 % of duplicate club bridge players > is worlds apart from the bridge world of Ton. > Best wishes > Israel > Probably quite true, but that does not mean we should not know how to rule in Ton's world. > > >>-Ted. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Tue Dec 24 13:01:22 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 14:01:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] AJxx opp KQx In-Reply-To: References: <200212232016.gBNKGvo00354@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224135756.0244e180@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:16 24/12/2002 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Ted Ying wrote: > > > Hmmm...well, several years ago, I used to teach and direct > > novice games. I'll tell you that quite a few novices > > especially those with no previous card skills (we ran some > > games pre-EasyBridge which were designed for people who had > > never played any card game let alone bridge-like games like > > spades or whist) actually had no concept of playing it right. > > I had a whole mini-lesson on playing cards from the short > > side first. I've seen new players who learn one lesson and > > use a high card to cross back to hand to take another play > > (like repeating a finesse) only to block the suit. > > > > Yes, I think that there are novice players who will get this > > wrong. After 10 years of teaching novices, I had seen quite > > a few get this type of problem wrong! > > > >I tend to agree. However in deciding how to rule against these novice >claimers it is, IME, an entirely theoretical exercise. They don't claim >this suit even after playing KQ and leading the third. AG : they usually don't know what claims are about. Last saturday, in a torunament with a very mixed field, after having taken an unexpected fifth trick, ann seeing there was no hope for a sixth, I said "I resign" ("j'abandonne"). Declarer turned at me with a stare and asked : "is that permitted ?" From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 24 13:03:56 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:03:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <00b701c2a93e$68a36380$8f7abc3e@oemcomputer> References: <4A256C93.00075FBC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021224075614.026cc0c0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:15 PM 12/21/02, James wrote: >[Richard Hills:] > > > I agree that a careless statement is > > demonstrable evidence of a careless mind. > > > > So, therefore, I agree that if declarer did > > not specifically state the careful play in > > this suit: > > > > Declarer Dummy > > A10xx KQ9xx > > > > then if declarer's RHO holds Jxxx, as TD I > > would rule that a declarer of any skill level > > would lose a trick. > >Or if declarer's LHO held the same, surely? Not so. "The Director shall [] accept... [an] unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card [if] an opponent... would subsequently fail to follow to the suit of that card on any normal line of play..." (L70E). It is the generalization of this law to a principle which allows a claimer to "see" the cards that an opponent would be forced to play after the claim that justifies giving declarer the rest after he "cashes" the DA opposite AKQJ8/K/-/- with LHO holding 10xxxx/A/-/-. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 24 13:41:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: <000101c2aab7$91e2eb60$902e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > My point was not so much what the percentage is but that it > varies depending on the amount of information available and > that there are 50-50 situations where anything above 50% is > logical and anything below 50% is illogical. And my point was that such balanced situations are as rare as icebergs in the Sahara. > You have illustrated another reason why the percentage may > vary. And while 60/40 may be a good place to draw the line > for a pair that is behind that might not be a good criterion > for a pair that is well ahead with perfect information. Firstly information is seldom perfect. But assuming some sort of barometer arrangement, and that there are only 3 pairs that could overtake you then those 3 pairs also have perfect information - they are likely to be facing the same decision. If you believe that 2 of those pairs will take the inferior punt there is a case for doing the same (you will come 1st or second, the "superior" action will mean you come 1st or 3rd). I'm not saying I would *never* accept an argument that knowingly taking a slightly inferior action was illogical, just that I think things are seldom that clear-cut. Tim From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Tue Dec 24 13:57:59 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 14:57:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> There is some discussion about whether claimer is bound by his statement or not. See the AKQJ8 + K case. I and others support the view that if the guy claims 5 spade tricks it is his problem. If he wants to play the hand like that, well he happens to be in charge. Herman and others support the view that this is irrational and irrational play is not allowed after a claim. So they overrule the claimer on his stated line of play. I don't want to indulge in word games like what exactly means irrational. Actually I have no real problem with the TD applying some judgement in imperfect wording cases. I have this tendency myself as AC. If somebody makes a normal claim although slightly imperfect (TD judgement) I think it should be resolved in a 'normal' way and the current law supports this view (and should IMO). But if somebody makes an irrational claim IMHO the claim should be resolved in an irrational way. The laws maybe don't really support this but then the law fails to make a difference between completely crazy claims and slightly imperfect claims. The law only uses the concept that opps don't agree. This IMHO should be changed in future laws. Some years ago we had in Holland a famous case. Declarer plays 5C* off the first two tricks and the club King. He leads a club from dummy and RHO shows out. Now he claims for one down conceding a trick to CK. But he had a 7-5 fit which was discovered in time (anyway that issue never came up). Now declarer (or his team or his captain) wanted his trick back because ducking a club would be irrational. There was a TD ruling and a ruling by a local AC and in the end the Dutch national AC had to make a final ruling. Using Herman logic he should be given his contract. If after a claim Herman takes over as TD I am sure he would rule it as irrational to duck a club. Which of course it is. Irrational lines are not considered after a claim so 5C duly made. According to Herman c.s. When I first got this case (at least one of the previous decisions gave 11 tricks) I carefully read the laws. Now my first impression was that according to the text of the laws I had to give 11 tricks. At this moment I really thought 'fuck the law', I am going to apply some fancy legal logic only lawyers are capable of, and if it comes to a vote I am voting for 10. Because whatever the lawmakers had in mind, to award 11 tricks after this claim, has nothing to do with bridge anymore. Besides finding a plausible legal argument isn't that difficult given the 'quality' of the laws. When we actually convened there was no vote. Most members felt more or less the same as I did (the majority of the national Dutch AC is good players rather than lawyers, officials or TD's) and we decided without much discussion that 5C was one down. I have forgotten what we used as the formal argument in the end. But if I remember correctly Ton Kooijman was present. And as far as I remember Ton also supported 5C-1 (but I am not sure on both accounts). Maybe Ton can check if I got the story right. Anyway if you agree to 5C-1 in this case (irrational claim deserves irrational resolve) I don't see a good argument why in the AKQJ8 + K case you should give the claimer the trick that he claimed away. Or maybe that claim is less irrational than 5C-1? But then the degree of irrationality is not supposed to be an argument if you apply Herman logic because this logic forbids any form of irrationality once a hand is claimed. OK, I admit I try to make a little bit of fun out of it. But my basic point should be clear. Crazy claims don't deserve protection by an overzealous interpretation of the law. For me a crazy (irrational, faulty, erroneous, pick a word) claim is any claim where it is clear claimer got something really wrong (miscounting tricks or a suit, missing a card, stated line of play makes no sense, etc.). Whether or not a claim is 'crazy' remains a judgement of course (and there is definitely something in between a correct claim and a crazy claim). But in crazy claim cases claimer should get what he deserves which is the minimum number of tricks which 'normal' play would produce GIVEN his state of mind, and never more than what he claimed. 'Normal' meaning anything that is conceivable in the perception of the player at that moment (probably native English speakers can improve on this). He still plays his suits from the top etc. But if he thinks the DQ is already gone it will pop up at the most inconvenient moment. If he claims 8 tricks when he has actually 9 or 7 he gets 8 and 7 respectively independent of any break or whatever. Etc. This approach makes ruling crazy cases much easier and discourages crazy errors when claiming. Isn't that what we all want? My views have been called extreme before. Are they? Happy Xmas by the way. Jaap van der Neut From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Tue Dec 24 13:58:28 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 14:58:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> <002401c2aa9f$96f5d350$78fef1c3@LNV> <003b01c2aac8$58e9e5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E08242B.6020509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003c01c2ab54$ed5ea2c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, Herman wrote: > Yes there is. > If the stated line becomes irrational, the claimer is no longer held > to it. 1. Yours is an opinion only (like mine by the way). 2. The laws 'support' almost any view (this is why there are so many opinions and we never agree on anything). 3. If you want to play with words, in my opinion the stated line cannot become irrational because it already is. About irrational claims see my mail '12 clubs'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims > Dear Jaap, > > let me be very brief: > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Dear Ton, Dear Herman, > > > > There are a couple of issues here. > > > > 1. First of all declarer made a very clear statement, CA and then 5 spades > > which implies a HK discard on the CA. This is not irrational if declarer > > thinks the spades are good. This is how I might claim the position myself if > > (I think that) the spades are good. > > > > As I said before I think it is silly to take over from declarer and play the > > hand for him. You actually stop him to execute his stated line of play. Why? > > Even under the current laws (which I consider inadequate for serious > > tournament bridge) there is IMHO no support for the TD overruling the player > > on a clearly stated line of play. > > > Yes there is. > If the stated line becomes irrational, the claimer is no longer held > to it. > > > > > > -- > 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 jvdneut@xs4all.nl Tue Dec 24 14:18:35 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:18:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> <002401c2aa9f$96f5d350$78fef1c3@LNV> <5.1.0.14.0.20021224132110.00abe8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00ac01c2ab57$5b08c100$25b54351@noos.fr> AG: > AG : you might well win your bet. However, I'm reluctant about the idea= of > asking their opinion about faulty claims to people who don't know what = a > correct claim is :-=A7 > I think I am sure to win the bet because for Ton to have a change I proba= bly have to give him 10 to 1 if not much more. I understand your objection. But then the issue is not really correctness here. The issue is the appreciation of the opponents of a) not being clai= med against when declarer could or should and b) being claimed against when t= hey don't get it so don't like it (which includes faulty claims but also lots= of claims that can be considered correct). Please give me a quote at which y= ou accept the bet. Or do I have to offer 20 to 1 to win my bottle of wine Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims > At 22:14 23/12/2002 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > >Besides we might do some research on what is more unpopular, faulty claims > >(=3D with some logical error) or no claims. If we take a random sample= of the > >Dutch or French federation I bet you a bottle of wine that I win this = one > >with a vote of at least 2 to 1 (most players are weak players and they don't > >like claims anyway because they lack the abstraction to understand but the > >simplest of them like the rest in Aces and trumps). > > AG : you might well win your bet. However, I'm reluctant about the idea= of > asking their opinion about faulty claims to people who don't know what = a > correct claim is :-=A7 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Dec 24 18:06:22 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:06:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001d01c2ab77$616bae20$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" . > > My views have been called extreme before. Are they? > I suppose the majority will say so, but I'm with you. A claimer says, "My plan is to trump this trick, pull trumps, and the rest are high." But trumping the trick is a revoke, and it has been argued here that illegal plays embraced by a claim statement are not to be accepted. I can't find that in the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 25 08:22:54 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 08:22:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Wishful thinking. Message-ID: <002701c2abee$edbbcff0$a81ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Valerie Rippon" ; ; "Patricia Davidson" ; "Maurice Endicott" ; "lynn hunt" ; ; "Endicott, Paul, DC" ; "Dana Hunt" ; ; ; "Cathrina Endicott" ; "cathie ritchie" Cc: "Virgil Anderson" ; ; "Richard Grenside" ; "Richard Fleet (home)" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "David Stevenson" ; "David Martin" ; "David Burn" ; "Christine Francin" ; "Christina Mac Eachen" ; "bridge laws mailing list" ; "Antonio Riccardi" ; "Anthony Ching" ; "Anna Gudge" Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:32 AM Subject: Wishful thinking. > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "How beautiful upon the mountains are the > feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that > publisheth peace. " > > ================================== > Christmas morning. > To family and friends, and to those likewise who do > not account me so, I send warm wishes for your > health, safety and peace now and in the year to > come. May you not fear and may the one God to > Whom all look protect you. > > > From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 25 09:24:53 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:24:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <4A256C97.007ECD6B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3E06D3CD.60905@skynet.be> <002401c2aa9f$96f5d350$78fef1c3@LNV> <003b01c2aac8$58e9e5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E08242B.6020509@skynet.be> <003c01c2ab54$ed5ea2c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E097965.2020601@skynet.be> Sorry Jaap, to have to disagree with you so violently as this. I have great respect for you and your views, and I like you very much - but here you are completely and utterly wrong. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > Herman wrote: > >>Yes there is. >>If the stated line becomes irrational, the claimer is no longer held >>to it. >> > > 1. Yours is an opinion only (like mine by the way). No, this is a well-established principle. The overruff is a clear example, and it has not been rescinded in any of the official channels. I'm certain Ton will say the same. > 2. The laws 'support' almost any view (this is why there are so many > opinions and we never agree on anything). True, but here the view is also supported by years and years of practice from directors. > 3. If you want to play with words, in my opinion the stated line cannot > become irrational because it already is. > That is where we differ. When claimer states his line, it is perfectly rational. There is no other way to play this hand than by throwing the HA on the CA and hoping the S8 will become high. Perfectly rational. Only when the HA appears does it become irrational to throw the HK. Granted, IMO - but you are wrong in saying that the stated line was irrational all along. > About irrational claims see my mail '12 clubs'. > Of which I have already read my personal copy and to which I have good answers. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 25 09:28:21 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:28:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <001d01c2ab77$616bae20$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3E097A35.3060400@skynet.be> I'll reply to Marv's suggestion first: Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "Jaap van der Neut" . > >>My views have been called extreme before. Are they? >> >> > I suppose the majority will say so, but I'm with you. > > A claimer says, "My plan is to trump this trick, pull trumps, and the rest are > high." But trumping the trick is a revoke, and it has been argued here that > illegal plays embraced by a claim statement are not to be accepted. I can't > find that in the Laws. > Nor can I. If a declarer started with only 12 cards and states that he is going to ruff (= revoke) then that is what he'll do. This would indeed be an "irrational" line, but declarers intention was perfectly rational. So it is not an irrational line. Totally different from the dutch case. Throwing the HK is rational, but throwing the HK after the HA has been discarded is not. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 25 09:57:17 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:57:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E0980FD.9030803@skynet.be> Hello Jaap. Very nice post, quite correct, and I'm hoping that I'll be able to show you why your example is different enough from the HK case. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > There is some discussion about whether claimer is bound by his statement or > not. See the AKQJ8 + K case. > > I and others support the view that if the guy claims 5 spade tricks it is > his problem. If he wants to play the hand like that, well he happens to be > in charge. I have no quarrels with that. If claimer says "I'll throw the HK, even if you discard the HA before that" then he's held to that. But that is not what he said. > Herman and others support the view that this is irrational and irrational > play is not allowed after a claim. So they overrule the claimer on his > stated line of play. > Indeed that is what we believe the laws say. If a line, stated or not, becomes irrational, a claimer cannot be held to it. > I don't want to indulge in word games like what exactly means irrational. That is indeed a side issue. I may not absolutely certain that claimer will indeed realize what is happening (yes I am), but it is not the answer to the question that we are concerned about here, rather the nature of the question itself. The question that the Director must ask himself, that is. IMO, that question is "would this declarer, within the mindset that I guess for him, be likely to throw the HK anyway, if he sees the HA being discarded before he can do so". I believe this declarer would never do this. > Actually I have no real problem with the TD applying some judgement in > imperfect wording cases. I have this tendency myself as AC. If somebody > makes a normal claim although slightly imperfect (TD judgement) I think it > should be resolved in a 'normal' way and the current law supports this view > (and should IMO). I know you and I know that you do this and that your views are generally sensible and quite correct. > But if somebody makes an irrational claim IMHO the claim > should be resolved in an irrational way. The laws maybe don't really support > this but then the law fails to make a difference between completely crazy > claims and slightly imperfect claims. The law only uses the concept that > opps don't agree. This IMHO should be changed in future laws. > I even agree with this. If someone makes a statement that contains a truely irrational line of play, then I also believe he should be held to this. But not out of some principle, but because to him that line is NOT irrational. After all, he stated it, so it must be rational. if nothing happens in between his saying so and the opportunity for him to act it out, then the line is rational. May I give a counter-example. If dummy holds AKQJ8 and the HK, with this HK being already high, and declarer claims stating he'll take a club and 5 spades, then to him it is not irrational to throw that high heart. I'm certainly sticking him with that one. But that is not the same as the case we're talking of. There, the HK is not high, so stating that you're going to discard it is quite rational. But then something happens that changes the nature of that line from rational to irrational (IMO). So to recap, you are right - if a claimer states an "irrational" line and he really means it, then that line is rational to him and he's held to it. > Some years ago we had in Holland a famous case. Declarer plays 5C* off the > first two tricks and the club King. He leads a club from dummy and RHO shows > out. Now he claims for one down conceding a trick to CK. But he had a 7-5 > fit which was discovered in time (anyway that issue never came up). Now > declarer (or his team or his captain) wanted his trick back because ducking > a club would be irrational. There was a TD ruling and a ruling by a local AC > and in the end the Dutch national AC had to make a final ruling. > > Using Herman logic he should be given his contract. If after a claim Herman > takes over as TD I am sure he would rule it as irrational to duck a club. > Which of course it is. Irrational lines are not considered after a claim so > 5C duly made. According to Herman c.s. > No I would not. Claimer was in some mindset in which he believed there to be 2 clubs out, one of which would certainly make a trick. In that mindset it is not irrational to duck this trick. I cannot imagine what could happen between the utterance of the claim statement and the execution of the line to make this rational line suddenly become irrational in claimer's eye. We should never judge "lines" as rational or irrational. We must always judge the players' mindsets. A line that is irrational per se (such as ducking when you hold 11 to the AK) becomes "rational" for a declarer who cannot count. Bad example, because we will never assume that a bridge player cannot count. Better example: holding 10 to AK, a declarer plays A and then says "you get your queen". Although both opponents followed suit, we can now assume that declarer did not notice one of them and so to him the "irrational" line of ducking the next trick is in fact rational. > When I first got this case (at least one of the previous decisions gave 11 > tricks) I carefully read the laws. Now my first impression was that > according to the text of the laws I had to give 11 tricks. At this moment I > really thought 'fuck the law', I am going to apply some fancy legal logic > only lawyers are capable of, and if it comes to a vote I am voting for 10. > Because whatever the lawmakers had in mind, to award 11 tricks after this > claim, has nothing to do with bridge anymore. Besides finding a plausible > legal argument isn't that difficult given the 'quality' of the laws. > > When we actually convened there was no vote. Most members felt more or less > the same as I did (the majority of the national Dutch AC is good players > rather than lawyers, officials or TD's) and we decided without much > discussion that 5C was one down. I have forgotten what we used as the formal > argument in the end. But if I remember correctly Ton Kooijman was present. > And as far as I remember Ton also supported 5C-1 (but I am not sure on both > accounts). Maybe Ton can check if I got the story right. > > Anyway if you agree to 5C-1 in this case (irrational claim deserves > irrational resolve) I don't see a good argument why in the AKQJ8 + K case > you should give the claimer the trick that he claimed away. Or maybe that > claim is less irrational than 5C-1? But then the degree of irrationality is > not supposed to be an argument if you apply Herman logic because this logic > forbids any form of irrationality once a hand is claimed. > I do accept 5C-1, and I do agree with the principle that an irrational claim deserves an irrational resolve. But I believe that the AKQJ8+K case is not an irrational claim. The stated line is eminently rational. It only becomes irrational after the HA discard, something the laws tell us that claimer is deemed to notice. > OK, I admit I try to make a little bit of fun out of it. But my basic point > should be clear. Crazy claims don't deserve protection by an overzealous > interpretation of the law. For me a crazy (irrational, faulty, erroneous, > pick a word) claim is any claim where it is clear claimer got something > really wrong (miscounting tricks or a suit, missing a card, stated line of > play makes no sense, etc.). Whether or not a claim is 'crazy' remains a > judgement of course (and there is definitely something in between a correct > claim and a crazy claim). I agree, and I simply don't believe this is a crazy claim. Tell me Jaap, do you believe from this story that claimer actually truely believed he would make 5 spade tricks? Or do you agree with me that it might simply be a case of "there's nothing more I can do about spades - I'll probably make 5 tricks - anyway I'm throwing that heart loser". Then suddenly that heart loser is quite clearly no longer a loser. > But in crazy claim cases claimer should get what > he deserves which is the minimum number of tricks which 'normal' play would > produce GIVEN his state of mind, and never more than what he claimed. Yes indeed. But this is not a crazy claim. And also no. the number of claimed tricks is immaterial. Suppose this claimer would have stated "CA, and 5 spade tricks unless someone has 5 to the 10". That would, in effect, be a claim for 5 tricks. Do you really believe this case to be different from the one in which he claimed for 6. I believe declarer should get 6 both times, you may believe he should get 5 both times. But the number of tricks actually claimed should not matter. > 'Normal' meaning anything that is conceivable in the perception of the > player at that moment (probably native English speakers can improve on > this). He still plays his suits from the top etc. But if he thinks the DQ is > already gone it will pop up at the most inconvenient moment. If he claims 8 > tricks when he has actually 9 or 7 he gets 8 and 7 respectively independent > of any break or whatever. Etc. This approach makes ruling crazy cases much > easier and discourages crazy errors when claiming. Isn't that what we all > want? > Crazy errors need not be discouraged by directors. Partners will do that for us. > My views have been called extreme before. Are they? > No, really not - you are completely correct in your principles - just wrong in your classification of this case. > Happy Xmas by the way. > And, since I'm leaving tomorrow for a week, Happy New Year as well. > Jaap van der Neut > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 25 09:59:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:59:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <01c101c2ab45$e78a7860$b84c003e@mycomputer> <3E085468.30108@skynet.be> <001001c2ab5c$565ef5c0$b84c003e@mycomputer> Message-ID: <3E09817C.1090906@skynet.be> Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > Hello Herman > But maybe you'd also agree that we should have different books to rule by > for these so different worlds. > Israel No, I don't. I have absolutely no problem in using the same book, and in having to decide whether some action is a normal one for a particular player. After all, we do that with LA's as well, don't we? Some call might well be a LA for Mrs Guggenheim, but Meckstroth would never even consider it. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 25 09:44:53 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 09:44:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 1:57 PM Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > There is some discussion about whether > claimer is bound by his statement or not. > See the AKQJ8 + K case. > +=+ I consider that all NBOs that have adhered to the conditions of membership of the WBF are bound by the following official interpretation: "The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and take account of what he would see." [WBFLC, 30 Oc 01] - making what they will of it. The ruling protects, in my opinion, the TD who awards six tricks. +=+ > > My views have been called extreme before. > Are they? > +=+ They might be accounted less harsh in a World Championship than in a duplicate at the Much Toping Bridge Club. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 25 09:48:01 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 09:48:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Your message to blml awaits moderator approval References: <20021225013605.13696.14230.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000c01c2abfc$30f66e80$201fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:36 AM Subject: Your message to blml awaits moderator approval > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > Wishful thinking. > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for > approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Too many recipients to the message > +=+ Too many recipients for a message of great joy? +=+ From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Dec 25 12:12:43 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 06:12:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: blml Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 03:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "How beautiful upon the mountains are the > feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that > publisheth peace. " > > ================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; > "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 1:57 PM > Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > > > There is some discussion about whether > > claimer is bound by his statement or not. > > See the AKQJ8 + K case. > > > +=+ I consider that all NBOs that have adhered > to the conditions of membership of the WBF are > bound by the following official interpretation: > "The committee discussed Law 70E. It was > agreed that it is assumed declarer would see > cards as they would be played and take account > of what he would see." [WBFLC, 30 Oc 01] > - making what they will of it. The ruling protects, > in my opinion, the TD who awards six tricks. +=+ Does this attach to what would be seen subsequent to the claim? Or does it in addition attach to what was seen before the claim? As I read the report of the LC comment it refers solely to the former. iirc in the case the claimer had already seen the defender show out before conceding one trick specifically to the trump K. To me this is conclusive that claimer believed that there were at least two trumps out behind the ace and it would be careless, but not irrational, to force out the CK on the first round before pulling the rest. regards roger pewick > > My views have been called extreme before. > > Are they? > > > +=+ They might be accounted less harsh in > a World Championship than in a duplicate at > the Much Toping Bridge Club. +=+ From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Wed Dec 25 12:49:36 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 13:49:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <003601c2ac14$e84d5220$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Grattan, Thanks for your reaction. You raise some interesting issues. G: > +=3D+ I consider that all NBOs that have adhered > to the conditions of membership of the WBF are > bound by the following official interpretation: > "The committee discussed Law 70E. It was > agreed that it is assumed declarer would see > cards as they would be played and take account > of what he would see." [WBFLC, 30 Oc 01] > - making what they will of it. The ruling protects, > in my opinion, the TD who awards six tricks. +=3D+ I guess 'we' are bound to whatever you say we are bound to (no pun intended). In reality 'we' don't have access to WBFLC minutes. So as long= as there is no well maintained website the WBFLC can be considered an isolat= ed ivory tower (no pun intended). Don=92t worry, being member of the Dutch national AC I have no illusion about the extend to which lower ranking AC= =92s take us serious. The French have an even better solution to evade central authority. In France they use the French version of the laws (of course) = and there are some funny translations, which I cannot consider unintentional (pun intended but it is not a joke). But now 70E where you say declarer is supposed to see what happens (which= I tend to agree with in normal cases but I strongly disagree with in cases where claimer has gone berserk). 70E is about unstated lines of play. I don=92t see why =91= we=92 have to apply 70E at all. Declarer in the AKQJ8+K case made a perfectly clear statement how he was going to play the hand (if only all claimers would be so clear, David Burn would be very happy). I really don=92t see = any ground why the guy is allowed to adopt another line of play, let alone th= at a TD is forcing it upon him. If the guy thinks the spades are good than i= s not irrational to discard the HK even after seeing the HA because a winne= r is only a winner after all (for mrs. G. this might be different because e= ven if she is sure the S8 is good, she is never sure of herself, but then mrs. G. is smart/stupid enough not to claim at all). But I agree that the above is using legal wrangling that I hate (well I l= ove the legal game but it is completely detached from reality) and should not= be part of bridge. As soon as we get down to this kind of word games it is clear that something is very wrong with the laws because there is no way = you are ever going to explain our little word games to 99.99% of the bridge population. > +=3D+ They might be accounted less harsh in > a World Championship than in a duplicate at > the Much Toping Bridge Club. +=3D+ I hope I have made myself perfectly clear that I was discussing cases whe= re claimer has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was not connected to t= he reality anymore. To me these cases should be treated different from claim= s that leave something to be desired. As far as I know I tend to be more lenient ruling =91normal=92 claims than average so I don=92t like to be c= onsidered =91harsh=92. I prefer 'clear' or 'straight'. But now Grattan the real question for you. What do you think of my basic point that 1. beyond a certain threshold a claim should be considered to = be =91crazy=92 (I am sure you of all people will find the perfect word for i= t), and 2. =91crazy=92 claims should be resolved in a less friendly way than =91n= ormal=92 claims. Jaap From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Dec 24 12:27:12 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:27:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <014c01c2aac6$72564c60$769423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000401c2ac17$33409150$2dc7f1c3@LNV> > Here is a question: > > AKQJ8 > K > None > None > 109732 64 > A None > None AKQ > None 2 > 5 > None > 5432 > A > > South: "I have the ace of clubs and five spade tricks." > West: "But I have 109732 of spades" (showing these cards to South). > South: "Oh. Then you get the last trick." > > The board is scored accordingly. Has West acted illegally? I started posting this claim with the remark that west better had not showed his ace of hearts. So my answer is '' no'' that would not be illegal. Who knows about sqeezes? But after accepting the result becoming 5 tricks, when south later understands that west has to discard a winning card, there is still some time to restore when south asks for a ruling. ton > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 25 14:15:13 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 15:15:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> <003601c2ac14$e84d5220$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E09BD71.9010402@skynet.be> Jaap is totally correct. Absolutely. But for one small point. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > But now 70E where you say declarer is supposed to see what happens (which I > tend to agree with in normal cases but I strongly disagree with in cases > where claimer has > gone berserk). 70E is about unstated lines of play. I don't see why 'we' > have to apply 70E at all. Declarer in the AKQJ8+K case made a perfectly > clear statement how he was going to play the hand (if only all claimers > would be so clear, David Burn would be very happy). I really don't see any > ground why the guy is allowed to adopt another line of play, let alone that > a TD is forcing it upon him. If the guy thinks the spades are good than is > not irrational to discard the HK even after seeing the HA because a winner > is only a winner after all (for mrs. G. this might be different because even > if she is sure the S8 is good, she is never sure of herself, but then mrs. > G. is smart/stupid enough not to claim at all). > 70E is about unstated lines. It does not matter whether there were stated ones or not. Discarding the S8 is an unstated line, and as such subject to L70E. It is my consideration that any other line is irrational. > But I agree that the above is using legal wrangling that I hate (well I love > the legal game but it is completely detached from reality) and should not be > part of bridge. As soon as we get down to this kind of word games it is > clear that something is very wrong with the laws because there is no way you > are ever going to explain our little word games to 99.99% of the bridge > population. > "unless failure to adopt this line of play is irrational" is a sentence which I am quite happy to explain to the bridge population. > > I hope I have made myself perfectly clear that I was discussing cases where > claimer has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was not connected to the > reality anymore. To me these cases should be treated different from claims > that leave something to be desired. As far as I know I tend to be more > lenient ruling 'normal' claims than average so I don't like to be considered > 'harsh'. I prefer 'clear' or 'straight'. > This is the part I agree with Jaap about. Absolutely. And I am certain that I am not alone. > But now Grattan the real question for you. What do you think of my basic > point that 1. beyond a certain threshold a claim should be considered to be > 'crazy' (I am sure you of all people will find the perfect word for it), and > 2. 'crazy' claims should be resolved in a less friendly way than 'normal' > claims. > This too is perfectly allright. However, where Jaap is wrong is in his assumption that the claim proves declarer is crazy. No sane declarer would claim 5 tricks from AKQJ8, says Jaap, therefor declarer must be crazy. That is too harsh. I find this completely rational. Declarer has made his plan at the beginning of the hand. He has seen the spades and counted 5 tricks from them, or 4 if they are 5-1. He has seen that he cannot do anything about that fifth trick. It's either there or it isn't. Chances are great it is so discarding the S8 will not be done. Nor will he tackle the spades himself, since he wants to keep his entries. That part of the puzzle is solved. The hearts are another piece of the puzzle. I don't know what happened to them, but declarer knows the HK is not good. He is in hand with 6 tricks to go, has a CA to cash and the spades come at the end. The hand is over. He will make 6 tricks, or only 5 if spades are 5-1. So he claims. And of course he will discard the HK. All perfectly sane, nothing crazy about it. So you see Jaap, that while I completely agree with you that crazy claims must be dealt with crazily, this is NOT a crazy claim. And claimer should be allowed to play along normal lines. > Jaap > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 25 14:43:17 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 15:43:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> <003601c2ac14$e84d5220$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E09C405.4050803@skynet.be> A thought just occured to me: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > I hope I have made myself perfectly clear that I was discussing cases where > claimer has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was not connected to the > reality anymore. To me these cases should be treated different from claims > that leave something to be desired. As far as I know I tend to be more > lenient ruling 'normal' claims than average so I don't like to be considered > 'harsh'. I prefer 'clear' or 'straight'. > > But now Grattan the real question for you. What do you think of my basic > point that 1. beyond a certain threshold a claim should be considered to be > 'crazy' (I am sure you of all people will find the perfect word for it), and > 2. 'crazy' claims should be resolved in a less friendly way than 'normal' > claims. > It is as if you believe, Jaap, that claimer is so 'not connected to reality anymore' that he thinks AKQJ8 are high, not merely good. In that case the correct ruling should be not six tricks to claimer, not 5, but just the one! Club ace (HK discard), spade to the eight, losing the last tricks to the bare nine and 4 good hearts. If you believe that to be silly, then you must agree that claimer was not in the impression that his eight was high. Consider then the rationality of a claimer who has to discard from AKQJ8+K when the ace to that king has just appeared on the table. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Wed Dec 25 16:23:09 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:23:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> <003601c2ac14$e84d5220$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E09C405.4050803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008c01c2ac31$ebedcb40$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, 1. Good or high spades. Please don't start this kind of nonsense. I tend to use them as synonyms like everybody does (which should have been obvious from the context). Of course suits will be played from the top unless otherwise stated. If you are going to use this kind of subtle differences nobody can claim anything anymore. 2. S8 discard not irrational. I have always assumed that declarer claimed FIVE spade tricks which implies for me that he is convinced they will be good/high for whatever reason I don 't want to know. In this context discarding the HK even after seeing the HA is not irrational because it is just another winner. This view has been supported by others (so it can hardly be irrational even if you don't agree). 3. S8 discard irrational. You mention somewhere that it is only logical to discard the HK because declarer only hopes that the S8 will become a winner. Well this is true in the case where declarer claims FOUR spade tricks only (plus one if the are breaking) giving clear evidence he doesn't consider S8 a winner. As I said above I have never considered this case. And after rereading Ton's original mail it has declarer claiming 'five spade tricks'. 2+3. What did he claim. If somebody in this position says 'five spade tricks' and doesn't mention a possible squeeze it is IMHO the end of any discussion. This late in the play any sane player should have at least a strong indication who has the HA and who has five spades (if they are 5-x). If you have this for anything more than an overtrick at imps it is inconceivable for me that you don't consider the squeeze option. The only explanation (other than the player being a complete zero) is that he miscounted something. Which is consistent with the way he claimed (as Ton wrote it). 4. 70E and 70D The language of these articles is hopeless, contradictionary and open to any interpretation you like. 70D uses 'not embraced in'. This can easily been argued to exclude lines of play which violate the original stated line (only clarification of unmentioned issues allowed). In the Dutch version I am rather sure of this, but ask an English lawyer if I am right (I only claim that it can be argued, I don't exclude other interpretations). 70E is clearly written with 'finesse or drop in mind'. Now even if you exclude the header it can easily be argued that the whole of 70E is not relevant to this case. Because a) if the last ten words or so of 70E are so important why are they not an independent article rather than being in the scope of all kind of limiting conditions. Because b) if this is really about unstated lines in general why doesn't it say so and why does 70D exist? Maybe I should go to law school one day. I am sure I have some talent. 5. Crazy claim. This claim is a crazy claim by any standard. If claimer claims FIVE spades this is a serious error. IF claimer claims FOUR spades with mentioning a possible 5th but not mentioning the squeeze then it is clear he has no idea what he is doing (and not messing up the wording). This is ok with me but he should not get more tricks than he is capable of visualising himself. And yes this is why IMHO there should be no play after a claim, also not by TD, and this is why the laws should change. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > A thought just occured to me: > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > I hope I have made myself perfectly clear that I was discussing cases where > > claimer has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was not connected to the > > reality anymore. To me these cases should be treated different from claims > > that leave something to be desired. As far as I know I tend to be more > > lenient ruling 'normal' claims than average so I don't like to be considered > > 'harsh'. I prefer 'clear' or 'straight'. > > > > But now Grattan the real question for you. What do you think of my basic > > point that 1. beyond a certain threshold a claim should be considered to be > > 'crazy' (I am sure you of all people will find the perfect word for it), and > > 2. 'crazy' claims should be resolved in a less friendly way than 'normal' > > claims. > > > > > It is as if you believe, Jaap, that claimer is so 'not connected to > reality anymore' that he thinks AKQJ8 are high, not merely good. > In that case the correct ruling should be not six tricks to claimer, > not 5, but just the one! Club ace (HK discard), spade to the eight, > losing the last tricks to the bare nine and 4 good hearts. > If you believe that to be silly, then you must agree that claimer was > not in the impression that his eight was high. Consider then the > rationality of a claimer who has to discard from AKQJ8+K when the ace > to that king has just appeared on the table. > > > > > > > > -- > 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 jvdneut@xs4all.nl Wed Dec 25 17:50:18 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:50:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] weighted claim? References: Message-ID: <001601c2ac3e$176c0460$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton, Am I correct that this mail is about 71? Isn't it much more simple to scrap 71 altogether and simply say that the non-claiming side doesn't lose any rights to contest the claim during the correction period. Of course establishing the facts can become more difficult and doubt resulting from this problem is obviously ruled against the non-claimer. Given this stick non-claimers will not be encouraged to accept claims any more than they do now. Reason. The whole point in claiming is to speed up proceedings. Almost all claims are made by declarer who at all but the top level tends to have a better idea about the situation than defenders. So at the moment of the claim defenders might easily miss something when declarer misses something. This is usually discovered when comparing scores or seeing hand records. In my opinion it is fair that claimer is still responsible for his 'error'. If not I can only advise players always to call the director when claimed against given the slightest of doubt. That of course is not what we want. Do we? A bonus advantage is that the law will be simpler because all claim resolving will be governed by the same rules. By the way, I don't think that weigted/split scores is the way to go. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 11:51 AM Subject: [blml] weighted claim? > > I tried to explain why weighted results in a claim should not be given. I > mentioned that nobody gave any signal that in assigning scores TD's are too > severe for the claimer. > Now Grattan did. Well, we need some discussion in our drafting group. > > But I still feel room for weighted scores involving claims. > I myself think that claimers are treated too generously and their opponents > too severe once they have reached acquiescence in a doubtful claim. Now the > burden is on the opponents who only get a trick back when it would have been > made in any normal play. That approach I don't like. Claimer for sure gets > too much in my opinion, it is less clear that opponents get too little. > > Room for a split score? Or a weighted score? > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 25 23:29:15 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:29:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: <008c01c2ac31$ebedcb40$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> <003601c2ac14$e84d5220$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E09C405.4050803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021225174502.028e24f0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:23 AM 12/25/02, Jaap wrote: >If somebody in this position says 'five spade tricks' and doesn't >mention a >possible squeeze it is IMHO the end of any discussion. This late in >the play >any sane player should have at least a strong indication who has the >HA and >who has five spades (if they are 5-x). If you have this for anything more >than an overtrick at imps it is inconceivable for me that you don't >consider >the squeeze option. The only explanation (other than the player being a >complete zero) is that he miscounted something. Which is consistent >with the >way he claimed (as Ton wrote it). ... >This claim is a crazy claim by any standard. If claimer claims FIVE spades >this is a serious error. IF claimer claims FOUR spades with mentioning a >possible 5th but not mentioning the squeeze then it is clear he has no >idea >what he is doing (and not messing up the wording). This is ok with me >but he >should not get more tricks than he is capable of visualising himself. And >yes this is why IMHO there should be no play after a claim, also not >by TD, >and this is why the laws should change. I don't know the level at which Jaap plays, but it must be higher than that of anyone I know (and I know many who are considered among the best in the world) if he finds it "inconceivable... that you don't consider the squeeze option". The wildest "irrationality" yet offered in this thread is the idea that someone saving time by claiming on what appears to be a straightforward deal who overlooks mention of a possible squeeze must be either "a complete zero" or "crazy". Herman and Grattan have this one right. We don't have the full deal, but we can imagine that 99% of the time either declarer will finish the first eight tricks and get the last five with his spades, or attempt to get them but fail when the spades don't break. He will not get the benefit of any unlikely or obscure possibilities which he fails to mention because it is not abnormal to overlook them -- unless their success materializes in front of his face before he can do anything to preclude them, as in this case. That is exactly what "failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" in L70E means. Jaap seems to arguing that for declarer to believe the HK to be a loser after the HA is placed on the table is somehow "less crazy" than believing that five outstanding spades will not break 5-0. As Herman has pointed out, if, as Jaap seems to believe, failing to mention the squeeze makes it "clear he has no idea what he's doing" and therefore it must be presumed that he would have played the remainder of the hand out with no idea what he's doing, then we must presume that, whether or not the HA would have appeared, he would lead a spade to the 8 at trick 9, and give the last five tricks to the defense, which I don't believe even David would find anything but absurd. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Dec 25 23:53:02 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 00:53:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> <003601c2ac14$e84d5220$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E09C405.4050803@skynet.be> <008c01c2ac31$ebedcb40$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E0A44DE.6050702@skynet.be> Hello Jaap, probably my last contribution to this discussion this year, so please don't think I've given up if you don't receive more about this. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > 1. Good or high spades. > Please don't start this kind of nonsense. I tend to use them as synonyms > like everybody does (which should have been obvious from the context). Of > course suits will be played from the top unless otherwise stated. If you are > going to use this kind of subtle differences nobody can claim anything > anymore. > I like it when people start saying "of course". That's usually the end of the discussion. Of course he did not think his 8 was good. > 2. S8 discard not irrational. > I have always assumed that declarer claimed FIVE spade tricks which implies > for me that he is convinced they will be good/high for whatever reason I don > 't want to know. In this context discarding the HK even after seeing the HA > is not irrational because it is just another winner. This view has been > supported by others (so it can hardly be irrational even if you don't > agree). > Yes declarer said he would play the five spade tricks, and we are (of course) assuming that he shall play them top-down. As for how many tricks he claimed, I don't believe that should matter. I don't think the ruling should be any different in all these four cases: - I'm cashing six winners - I'm cashing five winners - I'm cashing the spades - how many tricks do I have ? In all three cases declarer will originally concede that he should in fact lose a spade. Then ask for his sixth trick back. We know what he intended. If you want to deduce from his statement that he thinks the S8 is the fifth highest in the book, then I'd prefer it if you asked Ton for a more complete story. I am convinced there was nothing like that there, since both the TD and the AC should have checked on this and they reported nothing of the sort. I don't believe this claimer was irrationally under the impression that the spades would always yield five tricks. > 3. S8 discard irrational. > You mention somewhere that it is only logical to discard the HK because > declarer only hopes that the S8 will become a winner. Well this is true in > the case where declarer claims FOUR spade tricks only (plus one if the are > breaking) giving clear evidence he doesn't consider S8 a winner. As I said > above I have never considered this case. And after rereading Ton's original > mail it has declarer claiming 'five spade tricks'. > Well, I don't believe that this is important. Maybe you might be influenced in your decision about the rationality of the discard of the HK by what he actually said, but I've already stated that this decision is one we can have different opinions about. But when you say that he must discard the HK because that is what he stated, you are wrong in principle. > 2+3. What did he claim. > If somebody in this position says 'five spade tricks' and doesn't mention a > possible squeeze it is IMHO the end of any discussion. This late in the play > any sane player should have at least a strong indication who has the HA and > who has five spades (if they are 5-x). If you have this for anything more > than an overtrick at imps it is inconceivable for me that you don't consider > the squeeze option. The only explanation (other than the player being a > complete zero) is that he miscounted something. Which is consistent with the > way he claimed (as Ton wrote it). > It may be inconceivable for you to not consider the squeeze option, it certainly is not for me. So if you next do this, we shall rule against you because not noticing the possibility of a squeeze is some indication that you miscounted spades. While if this happens to me, no such indication exists. You are putting a lot of confidence into a very small report of a case. But anyway, we have at least managed to get the discussion of the principles and onto the actual decision that needs to be taken. Is it conceivable, with what we know of declarer's state of mind, that he would discard the HK after noticing the HA being thrown. I fail to see that you can find this in any way conceivable. A player sees AKQJ8 and effectively A. And he does not discard the 8 and points at all the high cards on the table? > > 5. Crazy claim. > This claim is a crazy claim by any standard. If claimer claims FIVE spades > this is a serious error. IF claimer claims FOUR spades with mentioning a > possible 5th but not mentioning the squeeze then it is clear he has no idea > what he is doing (and not messing up the wording). This is ok with me but he > should not get more tricks than he is capable of visualising himself. And > yes this is why IMHO there should be no play after a claim, also not by TD, > and this is why the laws should change. > I have explained at length why this need not be a crazy claim. We don't actually know what declarer said at the time. Spades have not been played yet. Would you rule differently if claimer had claimed for 5 or 6 tricks depending on the spades? Why should you rule differently here? Do you really think that someone who fails to count before claiming is crazy? Careless, certainly, but crazy? > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 3:43 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > > >>A thought just occured to me: >> >>Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>I hope I have made myself perfectly clear that I was discussing cases >>> > where > >>>claimer has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was not connected to >>> > the > >>>reality anymore. To me these cases should be treated different from >>> > claims > >>>that leave something to be desired. As far as I know I tend to be more >>>lenient ruling 'normal' claims than average so I don't like to be >>> > considered > >>>'harsh'. I prefer 'clear' or 'straight'. >>> >>>But now Grattan the real question for you. What do you think of my basic >>>point that 1. beyond a certain threshold a claim should be considered to >>> > be > >>>'crazy' (I am sure you of all people will find the perfect word for it), >>> > and > >>>2. 'crazy' claims should be resolved in a less friendly way than >>> > 'normal' > >>>claims. >>> >>> >> >>It is as if you believe, Jaap, that claimer is so 'not connected to >>reality anymore' that he thinks AKQJ8 are high, not merely good. >>In that case the correct ruling should be not six tricks to claimer, >>not 5, but just the one! Club ace (HK discard), spade to the eight, >>losing the last tricks to the bare nine and 4 good hearts. >>If you believe that to be silly, then you must agree that claimer was >>not in the impression that his eight was high. Consider then the >>rationality of a claimer who has to discard from AKQJ8+K when the ace >>to that king has just appeared on the table. >> >> >>> >> >>-- >>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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 26 00:18:35 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 00:18:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] I like Ike References: Message-ID: <000b01c2ac74$7f95c220$73a1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I like Ike > Richard wrote: > > > Since one of the principles in designing > > a set of rules, is to have the rules that > > players want and will abide by, should > > the "play it out" option for a disputed > > claim become legal in the 2005 Laws? > > Heh, just like it was in 75 (I think) > +=+ No. Not in the 75 Laws, not in the 63 Laws.+=+ From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Dec 26 00:27:56 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 19:27:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Dec 26, 2002 12:53:02 AM Message-ID: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 00:53:02 +0100 > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > This claim is a crazy claim by any standard. If claimer claims FIVE spades > > this is a serious error. IF claimer claims FOUR spades with mentioning a > > possible 5th but not mentioning the squeeze then it is clear he has no idea > > what he is doing (and not messing up the wording). This is ok with me but he > > should not get more tricks than he is capable of visualising himself. And > > yes this is why IMHO there should be no play after a claim, also not by TD, > > and this is why the laws should change. > > > > > I have explained at length why this need not be a crazy claim. We > don't actually know what declarer said at the time. Spades have not > been played yet. > Would you rule differently if claimer had claimed for 5 or 6 tricks > depending on the spades? > Why should you rule differently here? > Do you really think that someone who fails to count before claiming is > crazy? Careless, certainly, but crazy? > > Hmmm...I'm getting confused here who thinks what, but on this point I have the following contribution. I don't believe that the claim is crazy. But I do believe that it is conceivable that the person did not consider the squeeze and in any event, once claimed without stating the squeeze as a possibility that (s)he should not be entitled to take advantage of the squeeze. It is also possible that declarer would not notice the discard since (s)he didn't mention that in the claim. I've seen this happen so many times that unless it was a high level event, I would not rule this out. Many players get so set on their line of play that they don't consider watching for falling honors that would change their line of play. This is careless. Isn't this also the basis of the "oh S**T" ruling? Both of these (not considering the squeeze and not paying attention to a discard of the HA) would be careless in my terminology and not irrational. Players should not be given the benefit of the doubt in any case that is careless and I think that both of the above fall into careless. -Ted. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 26 09:05:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 10:05:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> Hi Ted, Ted Ying wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >>Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 00:53:02 +0100 >> >> > > Hmmm...I'm getting confused here who thinks what, but on this point > I have the following contribution. > > I don't believe that the claim is crazy. But I do believe that it > is conceivable that the person did not consider the squeeze and in > any event, once claimed without stating the squeeze as a possibility > that (s)he should not be entitled to take advantage of the squeeze. > Not even when the squeeze is as automatic as this one? Claimer need not even realize why defender throws the HA - he cannot fail to realize his HK is now high. > It is also possible that declarer would not notice the discard since > (s)he didn't mention that in the claim. I've seen this happen so > many times that unless it was a high level event, I would not rule > this out. Many players get so set on their line of play that they > don't consider watching for falling honors that would change their > line of play. This is careless. Isn't this also the basis of the > "oh S**T" ruling? > Sorry Ted, but the laws preclude us from considering this possibility. Yes I know, people sometimes fail to notice the exact cards discarded, but claimers are always deemed to notice the discards. Which does not exclude the possibility that they don't realize what the discard means, of course - which is why the ruling is only correct with the HA discard before the HK on the table. > Both of these (not considering the squeeze and not paying attention > to a discard of the HA) would be careless in my terminology and not > irrational. Players should not be given the benefit of the doubt > in any case that is careless and I think that both of the above fall > into careless. > True, but the one carelessness is not to be considered, and the other is not at all careless IMO. > -Ted. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 26 09:30:55 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:30:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > > Both of these (not considering the squeeze and not paying attention > > to a discard of the HA) would be careless in my terminology and not > > irrational. Players should not be given the benefit of the doubt > > in any case that is careless and I think that both of the above fall > > into careless. > True, but the one carelessness is not to be considered, and the other > is not at all careless IMO. Well, what is it to be "careless"? My dictionary says "without care, heedless, unconcerned". Now, suppose that instead of SAKQJ8 and HK, dummy's cards were SAKQJ10 and HK. Declarer leads CA, intending to throw HK and cash the spades. West light-heartedly throws HA, for he as well as South can see that the spades are high. "I don't care", says South, "throw HK anyway". It is in exactly this state of mind that South has claimed CA and "five spade tricks". To him, the S8 is as good a card as the S10; he does not care about the trick-taking potential of HK when he claims, and continues not to care even when West throws HA. A man who thinks (carelessly) that the spades are bound to run will not care that HK is also good, and might discard it. David Burn London, England From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Dec 26 10:34:11 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:34:11 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Irrationality: A Christmas Claim Message-ID: This is a true story from last night. Really, it is. I apologize for the lack of fresh Laws content in this post. But I just got to see, firsthand, an example of something we have discussed recently on the list: a declarer claiming in a notrump contract who thinks she is in clubs. Here is twenty-six imps of missed opportunity in one deal, proof that I was in the Christmas spirit and giving generously. IMPs, North dealer, both vul. .----------------------------------------------------. | ===North======== | | S: Q97532 | | H: T9 | | D: Q92 | | C: K3 | |===West========= ===East========= | |> [censored] .----------. > Me | |S: AK | | S: 8 | |H: A8643 | | H: 75 | |D: 73 | | D: AK854 | |C: J875 .----------. C: AQT42 | | | | ===South======== | | S: JT64 | | H: KQJ2 | | D: JT6 | | C: 96 | .----------------------------------------------------. The first 13 IMPs were for stopping in 3NT instead of looking for the laydown six clubs. BIDDING: West North East South Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass And then there was the play. Opening lead was a somewhat offbeat TH. Partner won in hand... and led the ace of spades. I knew at once she thought clubs were trump, and bit my tongue. Then came the king of spades, pitching a heart. Then a successful finesse of the queen of clubs. I am biting my tongue harder now: not only has partner forgotten it's 3NT, she has also prevented herself from repeating the finesse if clubs are 3-1. The clubs fall under the ace, and I heave a sigh of relief: we've gotten away with it, we still have ten tricks. But no! Now come the diamonds. Partner still hasn't woken up. Everyone follows to the ace and king of diamonds, and on the third round, partner plays the jack of clubs... and claims all the rest, silencing North, who was about to do exactly the same thing. There was no dispute over the claim, of course (once West was told what the contract was): NS have plenty of major winners to cash to take all the rest. But just think of all the fun we could have had here on BLML if partner had claimed while she still had one or two of the side suits stopped! GRB From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Dec 26 12:11:18 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:11:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> Yes David, now you are at the correct place in the puzzle. David Burn wrote: > >>True, but the one carelessness is not to be considered, and the other >>is not at all careless IMO. >> > > Well, what is it to be "careless"? My dictionary says "without care, > heedless, unconcerned". > > Now, suppose that instead of SAKQJ8 and HK, dummy's cards were SAKQJ10 > and HK. Declarer leads CA, intending to throw HK and cash the spades. > West light-heartedly throws HA, for he as well as South can see that the > spades are high. "I don't care", says South, "throw HK anyway". > True. So we need to know what is going on in the mind of claimer. Did he see the S8 as being a S10 ? Did he think spades had already been played one round ? Or did he simply forget to add "unless spades are 5-1" to his claim for six tricks ? > It is in exactly this state of mind that South has claimed CA and "five > spade tricks". To him, the S8 is as good a card as the S10; he does not > care about the trick-taking potential of HK when he claims, and > continues not to care even when West throws HA. A man who thinks > (carelessly) that the spades are bound to run will not care that HK is > also good, and might discard it. > Your answer to the question is the first or second possibility. My answer to the question is the third one. We really should be asking this of claimer, not hypothesize. But I agree with you David, that if the answer to the question is 1 or 2, then a ruling of 5 tricks is correct. I simply cannot believe that this is the correct answer. I believe nr 3. Would you agree with me, David, that if the answer to the question is 3 (claimer forgot to say "or just 5 if spades don't drop") then the correct ruling is the one given by the dutch AC ? Then we have finally arrived at some common understanding of how the claim laws function. I shall propose a toast in Funchal Harbour to a highly successful year for all contributors on blml. > 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 Dec 26 12:16:56 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:16:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrationality: A Christmas Claim References: Message-ID: <3E0AF338.6070100@skynet.be> Now we know where Santa Claus lives these days. He's moved from Rovaniemi to Fairbanks. Glad to see that even in the farthest North bridge is alive and well in december. Do you manage to get a complete game in daylight these days ? Gordon Bower wrote: > This is a true story from last night. Really, it is. > I believe you! > [snip] > > There was no dispute over the claim, of course (once West > was told what the contract was): NS have plenty of major > winners to cash to take all the rest. But just think of > all the fun we could have had here on BLML if partner had > claimed while she still had one or two of the side suits > stopped! > Or even better - if partner claims after the lead ! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Thu Dec 26 12:19:46 2002 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 14:19:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] TRIAL Message-ID: <010c01c2acd9$14f6e240$e74d003e@mycomputer> HI From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Thu Dec 26 13:03:42 2002 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:03:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <014f01c2acdf$38f41540$e74d003e@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > Yes David, now you are at the correct place in the puzzle. > > David Burn wrote: > > > > >>True, but the one carelessness is not to be considered, and the other > >>is not at all careless IMO. > >> > > > > Well, what is it to be "careless"? My dictionary says "without care, > > heedless, unconcerned". > > > > Now> > > > > > > > Your answer to the question is the first or second possibility. > My answer to the question is the third one. > We really should be asking this of claimer, not hypothesize. > But I agree with you David, that if the answer to the question is 1 or > 2, then a ruling of 5 tricks is correct. > I simply cannot believe that this is the correct answer. > I believe nr 3. > Would you agree with me, David, that if the answer to the question is > 3 (claimer forgot to say "or just 5 if spades don't drop") then the > correct ruling is the one given by the dutch AC ? > If a player with J98 in trumps FORGETS that the 10 is still out and plays the 9 he loses the trick and possibly the game. To err is human so is to FORGET.In CLAIMING the words in their simplest meaning are tantamount to playing. With best wishes for the New Year Israel (and I hope TOU haven't come to a common understanding) > Then we have finally arrived at some common understanding of how the > claim laws function. > > I shall propose a toast in Funchal Harbour to a highly successful year > for all contributors on blml. > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Thu Dec 26 15:53:15 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:53:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> Wonderful there is some kind of conclusion. But Herman contradicts himself. A couple of mails earlier he said it didn't matter what or how declarer claimed (like there is no law 68). Which of course is nonsense because if you don't know what declarer thinks about S8 even Herman cannot judge if HK discard is irrational (neither can I but claimer should be responsible so he should pay the bill). But in this latest mail he seems to agree that it does matter in the end. Still Herman wants to have it his way by deciding/believing that the claimer claimed what Herman wants him to claim. But IMHO it is insane that the ruling should depend on the choice of words of claimer (if there is no material difference). The laws are just plain crazy if you have to give a trick to a guy who is incapable of visualizing that trick. I don't know why the WBFLC has decided that a claimer is supposed to notice discards etc and take interferences from them in resolving a claim. Now I can imagine situations where that makes sense. I have been on AC's often enough to know that there will always be insolvable problems and then you have to make do. But once a claimer has given evidence that he doesn't know what he is doing why the hell do you assume he is going to do something clever. Don't you realize the enormity of a bunch of TD's awarding a trick on a squeeze claimer probably doesn't understand (if he does I cannot imagine the claim) on the basis of an contested interpretation of the laws? The more I think about all this the less I understand why the laws and certain TD's want to help/protect people making silly claims. Silly claims are terrible. They slow down the game. They irritate opponents. What is the point to be so lenient with them? And once more, this is about incorrect claims, not about language mix-up's and the like. Jaap van der Neut From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 26 16:13:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Irrationality: A Christmas Claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I hope you apologised to partner for putting the clubs down in the trump position. Tim From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Dec 26 16:42:20 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:42:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Dec 26, 2002 01:11:18 PM Message-ID: <200212261642.gBQGgKL22826@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:11:18 +0100 > > > Now, suppose that instead of SAKQJ8 and HK, dummy's cards were SAKQJ10 > > and HK. Declarer leads CA, intending to throw HK and cash the spades. > > West light-heartedly throws HA, for he as well as South can see that the > > spades are high. "I don't care", says South, "throw HK anyway". > > > > > True. So we need to know what is going on in the mind of claimer. > Did he see the S8 as being a S10 ? > Did he think spades had already been played one round ? > Or did he simply forget to add "unless spades are 5-1" to his claim > for six tricks ? > > > > It is in exactly this state of mind that South has claimed CA and "five > > spade tricks". To him, the S8 is as good a card as the S10; he does not > > care about the trick-taking potential of HK when he claims, and > > continues not to care even when West throws HA. A man who thinks > > (carelessly) that the spades are bound to run will not care that HK is > > also good, and might discard it. > > > > Your answer to the question is the first or second possibility. > My answer to the question is the third one. > We really should be asking this of claimer, not hypothesize. > But I agree with you David, that if the answer to the question is 1 or > 2, then a ruling of 5 tricks is correct. > I simply cannot believe that this is the correct answer. > I believe nr 3. > Would you agree with me, David, that if the answer to the question is > 3 (claimer forgot to say "or just 5 if spades don't drop") then the > correct ruling is the one given by the dutch AC ? > TY: From my interpretation of the laws, #3 is similar enough to something in the laws to not be protected. In L70C, it states that if he failed to mention a trump and probably was unaware of the trump, then he loses to an outstanding trump if possible. I think this is similar. If a person fails to mention an outstanding piece of information, that is critical to the hand, then the person should not be entitled to take advantage of it. I think that forgetting to mention "unless spades are 5-1" is an example of carelessness and one that shouldn't be protected. I think the answer to all three should be 5 tricks and not 6 tricks. > Then we have finally arrived at some common understanding of how the > claim laws function. > > I shall propose a toast in Funchal Harbour to a highly successful year > for all contributors on blml. > -Ted. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Dec 26 16:55:42 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:55:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Dec 26, 2002 10:05:46 AM Message-ID: <200212261655.gBQGtgo23326@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 10:05:46 +0100 > > Hi Ted, > TY: I hope (for those who celebrate) that everyone had a nice Christmas. For those who celebrate, I hope you had a nice and peaceful day of rest. > Ted Ying wrote: > > >>From: Herman De Wael > >>Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 00:53:02 +0100 > > > > I don't believe that the claim is crazy. But I do believe that it > > is conceivable that the person did not consider the squeeze and in > > any event, once claimed without stating the squeeze as a possibility > > that (s)he should not be entitled to take advantage of the squeeze. > > > > Not even when the squeeze is as automatic as this one? > > Claimer need not even realize why defender throws the HA - he cannot fail to realize his HK is now high. > TY: No, not even when the claim is as automatic as this one. L70D specifically states "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." And this includes careless. Either (1) the player is at a level where a squeeze is frequently a consideration and to not mention it is careless and hence not protected; or (2) the player is at a level where a squeeze is sometimes considered, in which case not considering is inferior for the class of player; or (3) a squeeze is never considered (squeeze? what's a squeeze?) in which case, play of the HK would be normal if they considered all six cards to be cashing. All three conditions of which are covered in the footnote. All of this is careless. And a player should not be allowed to play an alternate line of play that is caused by being reminded of it by a discard. -Ted. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 26 10:40:05 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 10:40:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> <003601c2ac14$e84d5220$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000801c2ad14$cb53c090$5b0fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. Grattan: > +=+ I consider that all NBOs that have adhered > to the conditions of membership of the WBF are > bound by the following official interpretation: > "The committee discussed Law 70E. It was > agreed that it is assumed declarer would see > cards as they would be played and take account > of what he would see." [WBFLC, 30 Oc 01] > - making what they will of it. The ruling protects, > in my opinion, the TD who awards six tricks. +=+ JvdN: In reality 'we' don't have access to WBFLC minutes. > G: +=+ Each NBO has access since they stand part of the minutes of the WBF Executive. The WBFLC does not control what goes on web sites (to which the minutes are available). I will have a further think about ways of helping. +=+ > JvdN: 70E is about unstated lines of play. I don’t see why ‘we’ have to apply 70E at all. > G: +=+ 70E is about adoption of a line of play that was not included in the original statement of clarification. It says specifically that such a line is to be followed if it would be irrational not to follow it. (In which there is no referral to the class of player involved.) Any player may deduce that the discard of the AH is to protect a holding in the Spade suit; in my view (supported by the WBFLC minute) it would be irrational then to discard the KH rather than the small Spade. For the reasons already expressed I do not believe personally that it is an option for the TD to award fewer than six tricks. +=+ > JvdN: > As soon as we get down to this kind of word > games it is clear that something is very wrong > with the laws because there is no way you are > ever going to explain our little word games to > 99.99% of the bridge population. > G: +=+ I do not need to add to my previously stated views on simplification of the language of the laws. However, much of what we talk about in our esoteric cultish exchanges is not needed to be understood by players at large, but only by the TD who must apply the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 26 11:47:15 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:47:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212232042.gBNKgnb00416@whitedwarf.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0825F5.6000405@skynet.be> <003b01c2ab54$ec846f60$25b54351@noos.fr> <000b01c2abfc$2f768540$201fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <000901c2ad14$ccceeee0$5b0fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > > > > +=+ I consider that all NBOs that have adhered > > to the conditions of membership of the WBF are > > bound by the following official interpretation: > > "The committee discussed Law 70E. It was > > agreed that it is assumed declarer would see > > cards as they would be played and take account > > of what he would see." [WBFLC, 30 Oc 01] > > - making what they will of it. The ruling protects, > > in my opinion, the TD who awards six tricks. +=+ > > > Does this attach to what would be seen subsequent > to the claim? > +=+ Specifically what would be seen in the execution of the claim. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 24 13:12:05 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:12:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] The reason of full-disclosure In-Reply-To: <001001c2a9ae$091a08e0$cf85fea9@compaq> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021224080633.026c0690@pop.starpower.net> --=====================_1740383==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 06:34 AM 12/22/02, Kees wrote: >I have always understand that the fundamental REASON of >full-disclosure is: to SHOW the opps(the world) that you don't have >used UI. > >Q: Is this interpretation correct? No. The fundamental reason for full disclosure is so that the opponents can use the information to help them in selecting their own calls. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_1740383==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 06:34 AM 12/22/02, Kees wrote:

I have always understand that the fundamental REASON of full-disclosure is: to SHOW the opps(the world) that you don't have used UI.
 
Q: Is this interpretation correct?

No.  The fundamental reason for full disclosure is so that the opponents can use the information to help them in selecting their own calls.

Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_1740383==.ALT-- From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 25 01:32:39 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 01:32:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wishful thinking. Message-ID: <001901c2abb5$b90a85a0$9100e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Teams nil vs vul on OKBridge west east S Ax S x H AQ H Kxx D AKxx D Qxxxx C AKJ9x C xxxx bidding N E S W 2C(1) P 4S 4NT P 6D(2) P 7D All Pass (1) Majors 4+/4+ 2-10 or <=4 losers (2) Notable pause 7D made. Ok a few points (1) I was South and felt that 7D was completely out of order when it was bid. (2) On seeing dummy I was even more convinced. (3) Afterwards I realised I should have refused to play the board OR if it is doable software wise (which I dont think it is at the moment) appeal and get the score changed to 6D+1. Just an example of possible problems for these new laws relating to online play. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Dec 27 03:51:42 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:51:42 +1300 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <3e0bba40.17e2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c2ad5b$4817be60$732f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Karel > Sent: Friday, 27 December 2002 3:26 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > > Teams nil vs vul on OKBridge > > west east > S Ax S x > H AQ H Kxx > D AKxx D Qxxxx > C AKJ9x C xxxx > > bidding > N E S W > 2C(1) P 4S 4NT > P 6D(2) P 7D > All Pass > > (1) Majors 4+/4+ 2-10 or <=4 losers > (2) Notable pause > > 7D made. Ok a few points > > (1) I was South and felt that 7D was completely out of order > when it was bid. > > > (2) On seeing dummy I was even more convinced. I think that 7d is standout if partner jumps to 6d and I have all the aces and both minor kings and some... I am not sure I would have bid 6d on the east hand but given that happened I think 7d is relatively normal. > > (3) Afterwards I realised I should have refused to play the > board OR if it > is doable software wise (which I dont think it is at the > moment) appeal and > get the score changed to 6D+1. There is an obvious problem when there is no director this is a major weakness of OKBridge (and others) when the play is competitive for ratings or whatever. > > > Just an example of possible problems for these new laws > relating to online play. > From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Fri Dec 27 04:31:00 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:31:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <3e0bba40.17e2.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3e0bba40.17e2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 02:26:08 GMT, Karel wrote: > >Teams nil vs vul on OKBridge > >west east >S Ax S x >H AQ H Kxx >D AKxx D Qxxxx >C AKJ9x C xxxx > >bidding >N E S W >2C(1) P 4S 4NT >P 6D(2) P 7D >All Pass > >(1) Majors 4+/4+ 2-10 or <=4 losers >(2) Notable pause > Before you try to make any point about online delays, I assume you checked the pings? How had they been through the game to date? Net hiccups are a known "feature" of online play, and generally ignored (at least on OKBridge) unless they are especially blatant. Even the best net connection can suffer an occasional lost packet, which will result in a delay of a few seconds (the exact number depends on the timeout/retry settings, and the default for that varies with the operating system that the player is running). >7D made. Ok a few points > >(1) I was South and felt that 7D was completely out of order when it was bid. > > >(2) On seeing dummy I was even more convinced. > What's the least you think that East could have for a jump to 6D on that sequence? I make no claims about being an expert (far from it) but I'd have bid the grand after a 6D response too. What would have been your reaction if West had passed over 6D with that moose to find that you got a poor score because your opps were one of the few pairs *not* to bid a grand? >(3) Afterwards I realised I should have refused to play the board ...in which case, my guess is that OKBridge would quite rightly have told you about what constitutes acceptable behaviour while using their service, had your opponents felt strongly enough to complain about it. Complain about it afterwards (see below) by all means, but once you start a hand, you're supposed to finish it. If you had refused to play the hand then (at least as I understand OKBridge's current rules) your opponents would have been entitled to disconnect you and then have dummy take your seat and play it out for you. >OR if it >is doable software wise (which I dont think it is at the moment) appeal and >get the score changed to 6D+1. > If you think that your opponents have committed some misdemeanour during non-tournament play on OKBridge, you can always write to protest@okbridge.com for general conduct problems or ethicsdirector@okbridge.com for ethical problems. In the tournaments, of course, you just call the TD. I think OKBridge have said in the past that they won't change the score on a non-tournament board because of a complaint, but that may have changed now they've introduced this idea of assigning scores on appeal for uncompleted (competitive) boards. > >Just an example of possible problems for these new laws relating to online play. > Any code of laws that don't take into account the vagaries of net connections will be laughed out of court by the online bridge community, and quite rightly too IMO. Brian. From jrmayne@mindspring.com Fri Dec 27 04:50:00 2002 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 20:50:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: <3e0bba40.17e2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3E0BDBF8.30109@mindspring.com> Karel wrote: > Teams nil vs vul on OKBridge > > west east > S Ax S x > H AQ H Kxx > D AKxx D Qxxxx > C AKJ9x C xxxx > > bidding > N E S W > 2C(1) P 4S 4NT > P 6D(2) P 7D > All Pass > > (1) Majors 4+/4+ 2-10 or <=4 losers > (2) Notable pause > > 7D made. Ok a few points > > (1) I was South and felt that 7D was completely out of order when it was bid. I don't think the pause is helpful as to level -- 6D may be compromise between 5 and 6, eh? In fact, looking at W's monster, it seems *considerably* more likely that E's pause is based on doubt that slam is right, rather than doubt about missing a grand. > > > (2) On seeing dummy I was even more convinced. > And I, less. 6D is a pretty serious reach; pard's 4N (for most) doesn't have to be close to this strong. I think 7D is auto. > (3) Afterwards I realised I should have refused to play the board OR if it > is doable software wise (which I dont think it is at the moment) appeal and > get the score changed to 6D+1. It's against OKb regs to refuse to play the hand if your opponents don't consent to a skip. OKb's *software* permits appeals of partly played and fully played hands. What actually happens is long and boring, but the short version is that partly played hands in open play can and will be adjusted if there's a refusal to play or skip, and fully played hands in open play are very seldom adjusted or even reviewed. (Tournaments are handled differently.) I will say with some confidence that the OKb appeals chair would be extremely unlikely to roll back this contract at any table with this information only. --JRM From cmesa@ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 27 05:31:36 2002 From: cmesa@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:31:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006f01c2ad69$888e6580$09a8e943@ix.netcom.com> David Burn wrote: | Herman wrote: | | > > Both of these (not considering the squeeze and not paying attention | > > to a discard of the HA) would be careless in my terminology and not | > > irrational. Players should not be given the benefit of the doubt | > > in any case that is careless and I think that both of the above fall | > > into careless. | | > True, but the one carelessness is not to be considered, and the other | > is not at all careless IMO. | | Well, what is it to be "careless"? My dictionary says "without care, | heedless, unconcerned". | | Now, suppose that instead of SAKQJ8 and HK, dummy's cards were SAKQJ10 | and HK. Declarer leads CA, intending to throw HK and cash the spades. | West light-heartedly throws HA, for he as well as South can see that the | spades are high. "I don't care", says South, "throw HK anyway". | | It is in exactly this state of mind that South has claimed CA and "five | spade tricks". To him, the S8 is as good a card as the S10; he does not | care about the trick-taking potential of HK when he claims, and | continues not to care even when West throws HA. A man who thinks | (carelessly) that the spades are bound to run will not care that HK is | also good, and might discard it. Agreed. Sometimes after my claim, someone will remark that there is some other way or two to take all of the tricks. Sometimes even I know this, but who cares? I have stated one way, intended to work regardless of the opponents' actions. Why waste energy finding all possible ways? OK, suppose W throws the heart ace in the case we are given. The idea that I would *surely* wake up, had I made this bad claim, and use my promoted heart king instead of following my plan by cashing my "good" fifth spade is absurd. To me, there is no incentive to change my plan, so why assume that I would? But Grattan writes: | +=+ 70E is about adoption of a line of play that | was not included in the original statement of | clarification. It says specifically that such a line | is to be followed if it would be irrational not to | follow it. (In which there is no referral to the class | of player involved.) Any player may deduce that | the discard of the AH is to protect a holding in | the Spade suit; in my view (supported by the | WBFLC minute) it would be irrational then to | discard the KH rather than the small Spade. | For the reasons already expressed I do | not believe personally that it is an option for the | TD to award fewer than six tricks. +=+ I cannot argue with Grattan on the WBFLC's interpretation of Law 70E, but as for the future procedure with the new laws, if there is to be any notion of waking up, I would rather that it occur only after the shock of an unexpected loss of a trick. Until that shock occurs, a claimer is logically and rationally indifferent when new ways to take the same number of tricks materialize. It is irrational to waste energy deducing new facts when one already expects all of the rest of the tricks. Further, the deduction Grattan gives is flawed, the discard proves nothing, as all opponents' actions seem equally rational to claimer, since all are equally futile. It would be silly of me to blame anyone but myself if my stated line leads to the loss of one trick. Jerry Fusselman Chicago From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 27 08:50:14 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 08:50:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <006f01c2ad69$888e6580$09a8e943@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <003001c2ad86$a47acf50$7454e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 5:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > I cannot argue with Grattan on the WBFLC's > interpretation of Law 70E, but as for the future > procedure with the new laws, if there is to be > any notion of waking up, I would rather that it > occur only after the shock of an unexpected > loss of a trick. > +=+ My personal hope is that we will find something more prescriptive. I am also inclined to moderate the effects across the field of an unduly favourable result given to a side by an opponent's imperfect claim. +=+ > .> Further, the deduction Grattan gives is flawed, > the discard proves nothing, as all opponents' > actions seem equally rational to claimer, since > all are equally futile. > +=+ The spectacular nature of the discard leads me to the opinion that the WBFLC ruling is to be implemented - the claimer would observe the fall of the card and "would .... take account of what he would see". This allows that he may draw an obvious conclusion. My statement is not based upon a deduction but upon my understanding of the WBFLC decision. Neither in the laws themselves nor in the authorized interpretation of them is any regard given to the claimer's judgement of his opponent's state of mind. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 27 09:00:54 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:00:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: <3e0bba40.17e2.0@esatclear.ie> <3E0BDBF8.30109@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <003101c2ad86$a5942e90$7454e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > I will say with some confidence that the OKb > appeals chair would be extremely unlikely to > roll back this contract at any table with this > information only. > > --JRM > +=+ This would be my expectation also. It seems to me that only evidence that the 6D bid was based upon extraneous knowledge could call the result into question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Fri Dec 27 09:21:48 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:21:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: <3e0bba40.17e2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <001f01c2ad89$7bbe7780$919590d4@rabbit> "Karel" wrote: > Teams nil vs vul on OKBridge > > west east > S Ax S x > H AQ H Kxx > D AKxx D Qxxxx > C AKJ9x C xxxx > > bidding > N E S W > 2C(1) P 4S 4NT > P 6D(2) P 7D > All Pass > > (1) Majors 4+/4+ 2-10 or <=4 losers > (2) Notable pause > > 7D made. Ok a few points > > (1) I was South and felt that 7D was completely > out of order when it was bid. 1. Bidding 7D seems normal if partner can bid 6 and I have all the aces, and both kings in the key suits. West has plenty of extras for his 4NT bid. 2. E's presumed hesitation does not "demonstrably" suggest bidding 7D. In fact, holding all keycards in his own hand, W can be quite sure that E was not thinking about bidding the grand. You have it all backwards, you should have congratulated W for bidding 7D despite E's hesitation. Thomas From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Dec 27 11:34:48 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:34:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. Message-ID: <3136609.1040988888827.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Grattan wrote: > Any player may deduce that > the discard of the AH is to protect a holding in > the Spade suit; in my view (supported by the > WBFLC minute) it would be irrational then to > discard the KH rather than the small Spade. He may. But another possible deduction would be that the spades would run anyway (after all, that is what one would "deduce" if dummy's spades were AKQJ10). I am not sure that a player who has made a claim of five spade winners should be considered to make the former deduction and not the latter. I don't think that WBF minute should be applied to squeeze positions. I can imagine that it applies to overruff positions, but that's about it. After all, a player may notice a card played without necessarily being able to draw any conclusions as to the reason for its appearance. If there is some evidence that a claimer is not in touch with reality when he claims five tricks from AKQJ8 facing singleton, it is not for a TD or an AC to remedy the player's inadequacies. David Burn London, England From mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au Fri Dec 27 12:15:29 2002 From: mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 23:15:29 +1100 (EST) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <3e0bba40.17e2.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Karel wrote: > (1) I was South and felt that 7D was completely out of order when it > was bid. "Out of order" is not an appropriate expression to use in a bridge-legal context. In context I assume you mean that 7D was demonstrably suggested on authorized information from the perceived break in tempo. If anything, the 7D bidder's hand demonstrates that their partner was *not* considering bidding a grand, and if partner found the extras to bid slam when we hold these cards then not bidding 7D is an unthinkably egregious error. That said, my kitchen-bridge-playing father and brother passed 6D out of fear :-) It seems to me your perception that this was "out of order" is consistent with the totally erroneous concept that one must always pass after a hesitation. If so, please get someone knowledgable to explain it to you properly! If anything I wonder if pass is a logical alternative suggested by the extraneous information and thus is not allowed (he wasn't thinking about 7D, so he has a marginal 6D bid, maybe he doesn't have enough for his bid, so we won't have enough for 7D...) > (2) On seeing dummy I was even more convinced. Of what? > (3) Afterwards I realised I should have refused to play the board OR if it > is doable software wise (which I dont think it is at the moment) appeal and > get the score changed to 6D+1. You refusing won't achieve anything in the current OKbridge implementation unless you are the server (and can impose your will in the matter, subject to the opponents subsequently lodging a protest) or can get the server to act in agreement with you (and hopefully the others). You certainly could lodge a protest at protest@okbridge.com as I have done on numbers of occasions, but the likelihood of score adjustment is very low in general, and zero here in my opinion. > Just an example of possible problems for these new laws relating to > online play. What is the problem this illustrates? :) Mark From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Dec 27 11:35:13 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:35:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> > Wonderful there is some kind of conclusion. > > But Herman contradicts himself. A couple of mails earlier he said it didn't > matter what or how declarer claimed (like there is no law 68). Which of > course is nonsense because if you don't know what declarer thinks about S8 > even Herman cannot judge if HK discard is irrational (neither can I but > claimer should be responsible so he should pay the bill). But in this latest > mail he seems to agree that it does matter in the end. Still Herman wants to > have it his way by deciding/believing that the claimer claimed what Herman > wants him to claim. But IMHO it is insane that the ruling should depend on > the choice of words of claimer (if there is no material difference). The > laws are just plain crazy I left this discussion for a while, X-mas, family etc., other priorities for a couple of days per year. It is said that Dutch people are among the most straight forward and undiplomatic specimen and I left hardly any doubt about the truth of that statement, but Jaap is known to beat me in this quality. So nothing special with 'insane' and 'plain crazy', wait till he becomes angry. Allow me to make a summary on this claim issue (my personal summary that is) following this message > if youhave to give a trick to a guy who is > incapable of visualizing that trick. why? You are in a hurry and solve it by claiming a board. That is not the time to make some sophistic analysis in which all possible holdings are mentioned. Declarer plays 3NT and has made 8 tricks. Still K5 of diamonds in dummy with J8 in hand that suit being played once the ace winning the trick. Declarer claims a trick with the K starts writing down the result and discovers that everybody made 10 tricks. Now he asks his opponenets whether the Q of diamonds was bare and yes it was. Should he not be allowed to make 10 tricks as well? Did he not visualize that trick? He was shortening the game!!!! Not loosing time to mention a possibity that the diamonds were split 5 -2 with the Q in the doubleton, a chance of less than 9%. In the case we discussed the chance of spades 5- 2 combined with the heart ace with that five card is probably much less. The player wasn't incapable of visualizing, he just didn't,sparing his energy and your time for the next board. > > I don't know why the WBFLC has decided that a claimer is supposed to notice > discards etc and take interferences from them in resolving a claim. That is a too strong statement as far as I think what the WBFLC wanted to say. Claimer is supposed to notice an unexpected card and not necessarily a diamond 3 in stead of a heart 5 when discarded. But the heart ace or the diamond queen yes. Yes I was in the AC when it took the case with 12 clubs conceding a trick to the K. And I did not find it irrational to do so, the play of a club being from dummy towards the ace and a discard from RHO. The reason is easy. We refuse to include irrational play when deciding about a claim where the statement is insufficient. But we accept 'irrational' play when declarer includes such play in his statement. So we assume declarer to be ableto count to 12 and to draw relevant conclusions from that. But when he did not count to 12 or drew a wrong conclusion we have to accept that. And is ducking to the K irrational? Not in my opinion. ton From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Fri Dec 27 17:52:49 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:52:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002801c2add0$c7854d00$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, I hope you are not too offended but if necessary I can translate 'plain crazy' (which actually is playful slang) in more 'polite' words which make the message way meaner. Besides I found a length thread about you and Herman calling each other names, so I had the impression that blml could stand some use of colloquial language. But you come with a new example. Kx opp Jx, declarer claiming one trick. And yes I think this is another very good example why the current laws are 'plain crazy' or 'inadequate for serious use' if you prefer such a qualification. Just claiming 1 trick in this position is rather strange. Mrs. G. would never claim, and always play the K and hope the Q would drop. A good player nine times out of ten would know by now the exact position and would play accordingly. He will play the K if the Q is or could be singleton (or he might claim stating 'play K'). But if he is sure the Q is doubleton (very often there is only one suit left in this kind of ending) he will play small to the J (or he tries the J if he is in dummy). It doesn't matter of course but sometimes opponents err (this kind of ruse works more often than you might think). So how are you going to resolve this one? You say he plays 'of course' the K and sees the Q : two tricks. But you might also state that the claim indicates that he is sure the Q is doubleton = he miscounted = careless = crazy = !?. Somebody who is sure of Qx might (actually should) play small to the J : zero tricks. Because the guy claimed it is impossible to decide what he was thinking and would have done. Was he too weak or too tired to think of this? Did he think his opponents would not fall for it. Your guess is as good as mine. But given your 'TD plays the hand from the claim on' approach IMHO there is quite a strong case for ruling 0 tricks in this ending. A lot of people will consider this as 'plain crazy', which it is in any normal logic. But this is IMO the consequence of using some kind of ill conceived arcane logic in resolving silly claims. In your interpretation of the rules you can give people more tricks than they claim for, but the consequence is that sometimes they get less (that can happen if you overrule their line of play). Try to explain this to the world at large. A funny quote of Grattan Endicott (maybe a tiny little bit out of context): GE: > However, much of what we talk about in our esoteric cultish exchanges is not needed > to be understood by players at large, but only by the TD who must apply the laws. But if players don't need to understand the laws how are they supposed to follow them? Why don't you consider my proposal for simplifying this mess? We should get rid of all this 'what would the guy have done, what was he thinking' and also what is 'rational, normal' etc. This only creates endless discussion and in the end nobody takes the rules serious anymore. Would you as a player if you get a different opinion from any TD or AC member if you ask? MY LAW 68. 68: Claims should be clear (implicit or explicit) about the number of tricks claims, which tricks, and how you go about to make them in case of technical difficulties. I know this leaves plenty of scope for discussion but the real issue here that claims should be clear about the tricks you want to take. A line of play is an explanation in this context. You cannot just state a line of play and then let TD decide how many tricks you take (let the TD count your squeeze for you ....). That said I also assume a reasonable willingness to understand claimers language (if not you cannot claim). So if with Kx opp. Jx somebody claims 'play K' this 'of course' means one or two depending on Q dropping. MY LAW 70 (resolving). 70-1: A claimer never gets more tricks than he claimed for. This might be harsh but solves lots of problems. To start with claimer or partner cannot contest his own claim anymore (which saves lots of TD-time and opp-irritation). And it makes resolving claims very easy in lots of cases. Like the above example. He claims 1 trick. Does he have (at least) 1 top trick? Yes so the claim is 'correct'. 70-2: In case of a logical error (a card is still out, miscounting) the minimum number of tricks conceivable given a 'normal' continuation where the error will cause maximum damage. This requires of course some clarification but the idea is simple. If you claim thinking the DQ is gone it will pop up at the most inconvenient moment. Now you have called this extreme before. I don't see it. All normal claims are not affected. The rules are easier to understand. The rules are easier to apply. In all your examples you say 'the guy only wants to speed up the play'. Well I don't care. Actually I do care because this incorrect claims slow play down. A good claim wins very often only a couple of seconds. A TD call easily cost a couple of minutes. Why should we put up with that? I think you are afraid that stricter claim rules will discourage claims. I don't think so. Most players only claim obvious endings and they will continue to do so. I think that stricter claim laws will induce players to claim more precise, avoiding problems, and yes winning time. Someone put it quite nice, when claiming you should cross the t's and dot the i's. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > > > > Wonderful there is some kind of conclusion. > > > > But Herman contradicts himself. A couple of mails earlier he said it > didn't > > matter what or how declarer claimed (like there is no law 68). Which of > > course is nonsense because if you don't know what declarer thinks about S8 > > even Herman cannot judge if HK discard is irrational (neither can I but > > claimer should be responsible so he should pay the bill). But in this > latest > > mail he seems to agree that it does matter in the end. Still Herman wants > to > > have it his way by deciding/believing that the claimer claimed what Herman > > wants him to claim. But IMHO it is insane that the ruling should depend on > > the choice of words of claimer (if there is no material difference). > > > > The > > laws are just plain crazy > > > I left this discussion for a while, X-mas, family etc., other priorities for > a couple of days per year. It is said that Dutch people are among the most > straight > forward and undiplomatic specimen and I left hardly any doubt about the > truth of that statement, but Jaap is known to beat me in this quality. So > nothing special with 'insane' and 'plain crazy', wait till he becomes angry. > > Allow me to make a summary on this claim issue (my personal summary that > is) following this message > > > > if > youhave to give a trick to a guy who is > > incapable of visualizing that trick. > > why? You are in a hurry and solve it by claiming a board. That is not the > time to make some sophistic analysis in which all possible holdings are > mentioned. Declarer plays 3NT and has made 8 tricks. Still K5 of diamonds in > dummy with J8 in hand that suit being played once the ace winning the trick. > Declarer claims a trick with the K starts writing down the result and > discovers that everybody made 10 tricks. Now he asks his opponenets whether > the Q of diamonds was bare and yes it was. Should he not be allowed to make > 10 tricks as well? Did he not visualize that trick? He was shortening the > game!!!! Not loosing time to mention a possibity that the diamonds were > split 5 -2 with the Q in the doubleton, a chance of less than 9%. > > In the case we discussed the chance of spades 5- 2 combined with the heart > ace with that five card is probably much less. The player wasn't incapable > of visualizing, he just didn't,sparing his energy and your time for the next > board. > > > > > > > > > I don't know why the WBFLC has decided that a claimer is supposed to > notice > > discards etc and take interferences from them in resolving a claim. > > > That is a too strong statement as far as I think what the WBFLC wanted to > say. Claimer is supposed to notice an unexpected card and not necessarily a > diamond 3 in stead of a heart 5 when discarded. But the heart ace or the > diamond queen yes. > > Yes I was in the AC when it took the case with 12 clubs conceding a trick to > the K. And I did not find it irrational to do so, the play of a club being > from dummy towards the ace and a discard from RHO. The reason is easy. We > refuse to include irrational play when deciding about a claim where the > statement is insufficient. But we accept 'irrational' play when declarer > includes such play in his statement. So we assume declarer to be ableto > count to 12 and to draw relevant conclusions from that. But when he did not > count to 12 or drew a wrong conclusion we have to accept that. And is > ducking to the K irrational? Not in my opinion. > > ton > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 27 19:19:07 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:19:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. Message-ID: <200212271919.OAA10133@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ My personal hope is that we will find something > more prescriptive. A hope widely shared. > I am also inclined to moderate > the effects across the field of an unduly favourable > result given to a side by an opponent's imperfect > claim. +=+ I'm not sure where this is going, but at first glance I don't care for the sound of it. Why can't we settle on a result at the one table in question and let the effect on the field be what it is? So far, we don't even seem to have much consensus on ruling one table at a time. > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Why don't you consider my proposal for simplifying this mess? We should get > rid of all this 'what would the guy have done, what was he thinking' and > also what is 'rational, normal' etc. So far so good. > MY LAW 68. > > 68: Claims should be clear (implicit or explicit) about the number of tricks > claims, which tricks, and how you go about to make them in case of technical > difficulties. As long as there's a clear line of play, why do you need anything else? > You cannot just state a line of play > and then let TD decide how many tricks you take If the line of play is clear, it will usually be obvious to the players at the table how many tricks will result. The problem comes when the intended line of play is unclear. > if with Kx opp. > Jx somebody claims 'play K' this 'of course' means one or two depending on Q > dropping. Exactly. > Most players only claim obvious endings and they will continue to do so. That is the problem. It would be better if players would claim whenever there is only a single line of play. We -- or at least some of us -- don't want to punish them for doing that. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Dec 27 19:39:23 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:39:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: from "Ton Kooijman" at Dec 27, 2002 12:35:13 PM Message-ID: <200212271939.gBRJdNf17048@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Ton Kooijman" > Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:35:13 +0100 > > > if > youhave to give a trick to a guy who is > > incapable of visualizing that trick. > > why? You are in a hurry and solve it by claiming a board. That is not the > time to make some sophistic analysis in which all possible holdings are > mentioned. Declarer plays 3NT and has made 8 tricks. Still K5 of diamonds in > dummy with J8 in hand that suit being played once the ace winning the trick. > Declarer claims a trick with the K starts writing down the result and > discovers that everybody made 10 tricks. Now he asks his opponenets whether > the Q of diamonds was bare and yes it was. Should he not be allowed to make > 10 tricks as well? Did he not visualize that trick? He was shortening the > game!!!! Not loosing time to mention a possibity that the diamonds were > split 5 -2 with the Q in the doubleton, a chance of less than 9%. > > In the case we discussed the chance of spades 5- 2 combined with the heart > ace with that five card is probably much less. The player wasn't incapable > of visualizing, he just didn't,sparing his energy and your time for the next > board. > TY: Hmmm...in my view, when you claim, you claim to speed things up. That means making your claim clear to the opponents so they don't have to sit and look and waste time figuring out any complicated line of play. If your claim isn't clear, then either the opponents will call for the director, or they will spend time arguing with you both of which will take more time than playing one or two tricks to make it clear will take. The problem I have is with "lazy claimers" who claim sometimes with only half an idea of what they are claiming and expect the opponents to figure it out. Many times, the opponents see something that the declarer missed and it keeps declarer from making a mistake. In the original example hand, the correct way to claim would be to play one extra trick and see if the squeeze materialized and if not, claim the spade suit, but declarer didn't. Since declarer didn't either mention the squeeze, or play the extra trick to look for it, means that declarer didn't see it or didn't think it important enough. In either case, you are talking about a careless play or claim. If in doubt--and I think the disparity of opinions here express doubt on whether or not declarer was aware or considered cards high, etc--L70A specifically say that they should be resolved against the claimer. Then, it would be up to the offender to appeal this to an AC and present his/her arguments for why (s)he made a careless claim and to try to substantiate what (s)he was thinking. It may be more apparent in a 10-20 minute appeal the correct situation rather than in a 2-5 minute TD ruling. > > > > I don't know why the WBFLC has decided that a claimer is supposed to > notice > > discards etc and take interferences from them in resolving a claim. > > > That is a too strong statement as far as I think what the WBFLC wanted to > say. Claimer is supposed to notice an unexpected card and not necessarily a > diamond 3 in stead of a heart 5 when discarded. But the heart ace or the > diamond queen yes. > > Yes I was in the AC when it took the case with 12 clubs conceding a trick to > the K. And I did not find it irrational to do so, the play of a club being > from dummy towards the ace and a discard from RHO. The reason is easy. We > refuse to include irrational play when deciding about a claim where the > statement is insufficient. But we accept 'irrational' play when declarer > includes such play in his statement. So we assume declarer to be ableto > count to 12 and to draw relevant conclusions from that. But when he did not > count to 12 or drew a wrong conclusion we have to accept that. And is > ducking to the K irrational? Not in my opinion. > > ton > And in this case, we expect declarer to be able to count to 13 and to know that with 6 outstanding spades, that they could break 5-1 or 6-0, or to draw inferences from the breaking of other suits, but when he didn't or drew the wrong conclusion by stating that he would run spades, does not imply that (s)he feels all the spades are equivalent and good or that they will fall. That is a wrong conclusion IMHO and shoudl be treated the same. In fact, I have more sympathy for awarding the trick to the claimer in the 12 clubs hand than this one. -Ted. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 27 22:04:07 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 17:04:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: <002801c2add0$c7854d00$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021227165723.026eaeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:52 PM 12/27/02, Jaap wrote: >70-1: A claimer never gets more tricks than he claimed for. > >This might be harsh but solves lots of problems. To start with claimer or >partner cannot contest his own claim anymore (which saves lots of TD-time >and opp-irritation). And it makes resolving claims very easy in lots of >cases. Like the above example. He claims 1 trick. Does he have (at >least) 1 >top trick? Yes so the claim is 'correct'. This might be harsh but creates lots of problems. Declarer, in NT, holding A/A/-/7 lays down his hand and says, "I'll take my two aces and give up the high club." But he has not noticed that during the previous play his opponents have discarded all of their clubs; his 7 is the only one left. Perhaps Jaap will argue that he does not deserve the trick, on the grounds that he is "plain crazy" and therefore doesn't deserve squat. But will Jaap argue that his opponents *do* deserve the trick, or that the rest of his field, in the same contract, each deserve an extra half matchpoint, or that the rest of the opposite field each deserve to lose a half matchpoint? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 22:22:37 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:22:37 -0600 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Ton Kooijman To: Jaap van der Neut ; Herman De Wael ; blml Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 05:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > Allow me to make a summary on this claim issue (my personal summary that > is) following this message > > > > if > youhave to give a trick to a guy who is > > incapable of visualizing that trick. > > why? You are in a hurry and solve it by claiming a board. That is not the > time to make some sophistic analysis in which all possible holdings are > mentioned. Speaking of bridge players I presume? Actually, it is the time, among others, to analyze as correctly as one is able. Where action is evidence of 'the analysis'. > Declarer plays 3NT and has made 8 tricks. Still K5 of diamonds in > dummy with J8 in hand that suit being played once the ace winning the trick. > Declarer claims a trick with the K Has claimer specified what card was to be led to 'T12'? If he has then surely it is settled. It seems in the absence of suc statement that what would be the issue is whether or not it would be merely inferior or careless to lead the jack when claimer has specified one trick, but.... notably there are two legitimate ways to two tricks [1] by force playing for the stiff Q with the lead of small and [2] by swindle leading the jack for a Chinese finesse. regards roger pewick > ton From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 27 23:38:24 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 23:38:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002901c2ae01$2c558e40$4d5b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > That is a too strong statement as far as I think what the WBFLC wanted to > say. Claimer is supposed to notice an unexpected card and not necessarily > a diamond 3 in stead of a heart 5 when discarded. But the heart ace or > the diamond queen yes. > +=+ Obviously if opponent fails oor would fail to follow suit the information that he has no more of the suit may be acted upon. This is basic to 70E. The appearance of significant cards may also be acted upon under the WBFLC interpretation of 70E. +=+ > > Yes I was in the AC when it took the case with 12 clubs conceding a trick > to the K. And I did not find it irrational to do so, the play of a club > being from dummy towards the ace and a discard from RHO. The reason > is easy. We refuse to include irrational play when deciding about a claim > where the statement is insufficient. But we accept 'irrational' play when > declarer includes such play in his statement. So we assume declarer to be > able to count to 12 and to draw relevant conclusions from that. But when > he did not count to 12 or drew a wrong conclusion we have to accept that. > And is ducking to the K irrational? Not in my opinion. > +=+ I have no difficulty here. We do not consider claimer's specified legal line to be irrational. And the incomplete or insufficient statement falls under 70E which the statement that specifies a ridiculous but legal play does not. ~ G ~ +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Dec 28 02:06:27 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 17:06:27 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Ton Kooijman wrote: > why? You are in a hurry and solve it by claiming a board. That is not the > time to make some sophistic analysis in which all possible holdings are > mentioned. Declarer plays 3NT and has made 8 tricks. Still K5 of diamonds in > dummy with J8 in hand that suit being played once the ace winning the trick. > Declarer claims a trick with the K starts writing down the result and > discovers that everybody made 10 tricks. Now he asks his opponenets whether > the Q of diamonds was bare and yes it was. Should he not be allowed to make > 10 tricks as well? Did he not visualize that trick? He was shortening the > game!!!! Not loosing time to mention a possibity that the diamonds were > split 5 -2 with the Q in the doubleton, a chance of less than 9%. If you can't be bothered to look for 10% chances for overtricks, you deserve bad scores on the boards where the overtrick is available. Seems pretty simple to me. In your actual case it may well be that it's impossible not to see the queen fall under the king. But in general, I think it's a very important principle that a claim is only appropriate when you know what will happen regardless of how the opposing cards lie. I don't have a problem with "cashing out; either the missing honour falls or it doesn't" as a valid claim statement. But things like claiming 5 winners from AKQJ9 without testing first for a 5-0 break is wrong, and I am happy to see people who make such claims punished (by, for instance, making them take a losing finesse of the nine when the suit is 3-2 or 4-1). > In the case we discussed the chance of spades 5- 2 combined with the heart > ace with that five card is probably much less. The player wasn't incapable > of visualizing, he just didn't,sparing his energy and your time for the next > board. Oh, I am *capable* of playing bridge as well as Hamman or Meckstroth does. I just spare myself the trouble of doing so, and blow three boards (usually the fairly easy ones, too, not the tricky ones) almost every session I play. So why hasn't the WBF sent me a gold medal yet? GRB From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Dec 28 07:36:46 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 02:36:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another claim question Message-ID: The recent thread on claims has reminded me of one which caused quite a stink at club level a few years back, and I'm just interested to see what BLML makes of it given the current discussions. I'm obviously inventing the exact hands, since it's too long ago for me to remember the spot cards, but the basic layout and principle is correct. Should anyone think it matters, this hand was played under English regulations sometime in 1996, and all four of the players at the table had at least 20 years experience and had previously won county level open events or better. They all knew that, too. The hand was played in the club championship pairs, which might explain a lot. North S QJ109 H AKJ D Q32 C AK2 South S K876 H 32 D AKJ C QJ109 The contract is 6NT by South on the sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, opps silent. A small club is led, South takes one look at dummy, and immediately shows his hand with the words "Give you the Ace of Spades". East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. The CTD resigned the job after the decision went against him, along with much adverse comment about his views, which is why I remember it so well. No, that doesn't mean I was the CTD. ;-) Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? Brian. From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sat Dec 28 08:50:01 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:50:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212271919.OAA10133@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002501c2ae4f$51971360$25b54351@noos.fr> Steve, Thanks for the reaction. You are right, I mixed up my thoughts a little. Of course it should be: BOTH #tricks etc. AND line of play SHOULD BE CLEAR. The Kx opp. Jx case is an example of clear on tricks and unclear on line of play. The AKQJ8+K case is an example of clear on line of play and unclear on which tricks. In the first case, I really think it is much easier to accept this type of claim at face value. He wants 1 trick, he has 1 trick, he gets 1 trick. Think of rubber bridge where this might easily make sense. Just for fun. Even if you let him cash DK then he basically has instructed dummy 'doesn't matter'. So if RHO has singleton Q, LHO still makes a trick I guess. In the second case it is unclear what the S8 means to declarer. So it cannot be decided if HK discard is irrational (but I want to get rid of this kind of judgement). Obviously this should be ruled against claimer who created the problem. A more general easy rule is that declarer has to stick to his line of play no matter what. Another way of stating is that we hold him to the least favorable version of his claim (= he thinks S8 will be/become good) I am inviting attacks/improvement on this issue, because that is the only way to get the concept straight, if you like the concept that is. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ My personal hope is that we will find something > > more prescriptive. > > A hope widely shared. > > > I am also inclined to moderate > > the effects across the field of an unduly favourable > > result given to a side by an opponent's imperfect > > claim. +=+ > > I'm not sure where this is going, but at first glance I don't care for > the sound of it. Why can't we settle on a result at the one table in > question and let the effect on the field be what it is? So far, we > don't even seem to have much consensus on ruling one table at a time. > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > Why don't you consider my proposal for simplifying this mess? We should get > > rid of all this 'what would the guy have done, what was he thinking' and > > also what is 'rational, normal' etc. > > So far so good. > > > MY LAW 68. > > > > 68: Claims should be clear (implicit or explicit) about the number of tricks > > claims, which tricks, and how you go about to make them in case of technical > > difficulties. > > As long as there's a clear line of play, why do you need anything else? > > > You cannot just state a line of play > > and then let TD decide how many tricks you take > > If the line of play is clear, it will usually be obvious to the players > at the table how many tricks will result. The problem comes when the > intended line of play is unclear. > > > if with Kx opp. > > Jx somebody claims 'play K' this 'of course' means one or two depending on Q > > dropping. > > Exactly. > > > Most players only claim obvious endings and they will continue to do so. > > That is the problem. It would be better if players would claim whenever > there is only a single line of play. We -- or at least some of us -- > don't want to punish them for doing that. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sat Dec 28 09:25:18 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:25:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20021227165723.026eaeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003601c2ae53$85fd8c20$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Eric, Thanks for the reaction. Steve made already clear that I got something 'wrong', BOTH #tricks etc. AND line of play should be clear. Eric: > > This might be harsh but creates lots of problems. Declarer, in NT, > holding A/A/-/7 lays down his hand and says, "I'll take my two aces and > give up the high club." But he has not noticed that during the > previous play his opponents have discarded all of their clubs; his 7 is > the only one left. > You don't comment on my statement that my approach solves a lot of problems. I still think so. But of course every fundamental change in approach creates new problems as well. Now I like your example because it poses a real problem. But I disagree with you for the moment that this example shows that my approach creates 'a lot of' problems. Yes I feel that for simplicities sake we should accept claims on face value if declarer claims #tricks without line of play. This might give some silly results (but only after very silly claims), but then we also allow 7S made on a revoke missing SA. In your actual example claimer also stated a clear line of play. This line of play leads to three tricks. So it boils down to an interesting question. What to do if the CLEARLY stated line of play doesn't match the CLEARLY stated #tricks. I would say the minimum of the two (easy and putting the blame for the mess with claimer) but I have no problem with a clause like the minimum unless all legal continuations lead to the maximum. But I don't care too much about this kind of anomalies. I am happy to pay a price for simple and strict (in the sense of clear) laws. I don't see why we should protect claimers who make logical errors. It creates a hell of a lot of problems. And I hope that beeing more strict will improve the quality of the claims out there. The trump issue is a good example. With the ACBL being rather strict on mentioning outstanding trumps I am sure the Americans have learned to claim more precise than Europeans. Nothing wrong with that. Eric: > > Perhaps Jaap will argue that he does not deserve the trick, on the > grounds that he is "plain crazy" and therefore doesn't deserve > squat. But will Jaap argue that his opponents *do* deserve the trick, > or that the rest of his field, in the same contract, each deserve an > extra half matchpoint, or that the rest of the opposite field each > deserve to lose a half matchpoint? > You use an argument I have used myself quite often in UI cases and the like. But in real life bridge is about taking advantage of opps errors. If they revoke against me, or make a ridiculous error against me, I also get a good score which I don't deserve in a way, and which is also not exactly fair for the rest of the field. So as long as you are not forced to award some artificial or substitute scores (sorry for the wording, I have no English rules at hand) I prefer to decide on a balanced score (EW = -NS). From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sat Dec 28 09:28:58 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20021227165723.026eaeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003c01c2ae53$9b1294c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Eric, Thanks for the reaction. Steve made already clear that I got something 'wrong', BOTH #tricks etc. AND line of play should be clear. Eric: > > This might be harsh but creates lots of problems. Declarer, in NT, > holding A/A/-/7 lays down his hand and says, "I'll take my two aces and > give up the high club." But he has not noticed that during the > previous play his opponents have discarded all of their clubs; his 7 is > the only one left. > You don't comment on my statement that my approach solves a lot of problems. I still think so. But of course every fundamental change in approach creates new problems as well. Now I like your example because it poses a real problem. But I disagree with you for the moment that this example shows that my approach creates 'a lot of' problems. Yes I feel that for simplicities sake we should accept claims on face value if declarer claims #tricks without line of play. This might give some silly results (but only after very silly claims), but then we also allow 7S made on a revoke missing SA. In your actual example claimer also stated a clear line of play. This line of play leads to three tricks. So it boils down to an interesting question. What to do if the CLEARLY stated line of play doesn't match the CLEARLY stated #tricks. I would say the minimum of the two (easy and putting the blame for the mess with claimer) but I have no problem with a clause like the minimum unless all legal continuations lead to the maximum. But I don't care too much about this kind of anomalies. I am happy to pay a price for simple and strict (in the sense of clear) laws. I don't see why we should protect claimers who make logical errors. It creates a hell of a lot of problems. And I hope that beeing more strict will improve the quality of the claims out there. The trump issue is a good example. With the ACBL being rather strict on mentioning outstanding trumps I am sure the Americans have learned to claim more precise than Europeans. Nothing wrong with that. Eric: > > Perhaps Jaap will argue that he does not deserve the trick, on the > grounds that he is "plain crazy" and therefore doesn't deserve > squat. But will Jaap argue that his opponents *do* deserve the trick, > or that the rest of his field, in the same contract, each deserve an > extra half matchpoint, or that the rest of the opposite field each > deserve to lose a half matchpoint? > You use an argument I have used myself quite often in UI cases and the like. But in real life bridge is about taking advantage of opps errors. If they revoke against me, or make a ridiculous error against me, I also get a good score which I don't deserve in a way, and which is also not exactly fair for the rest of the field. So as long as you are not forced to award some artificial or substitute scores (sorry for the wording, I have no English rules at hand) I prefer to decide on a balanced score (EW = -NS). Jaap From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 28 09:38:05 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:38:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another claim question References: Message-ID: <000901c2ae54$d2c70760$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 8:36 AM Subject: [blml] Another claim question > > The recent thread on claims has reminded me of one which caused > quite a stink at club level a few years back, and I'm just > interested to see what BLML makes of it given the current > discussions. I'm obviously inventing the exact hands, since it's > too long ago for me to remember the spot cards, but the basic > layout and principle is correct. Should anyone think it matters, > this hand was played under English regulations sometime in 1996, > and all four of the players at the table had at least 20 years > experience and had previously won county level open events or > better. They all knew that, too. The hand was played in the club > championship pairs, which might explain a lot. > > North > > S QJ109 > H AKJ > D Q32 > C AK2 > > > South > > S K876 > H 32 > D AKJ > C QJ109 > > The contract is 6NT by South on the sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, > opps silent. A small club is led, South takes one look at dummy, > and immediately shows his hand with the words "Give you the Ace > of Spades". > > East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South > should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. For Heaven's sake: On what ground????? Sven > > The CTD resigned the job after the decision went against him, > along with much adverse comment about his views, which is why I > remember it so well. No, that doesn't mean I was the CTD. ;-) > > Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sat Dec 28 09:56:11 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:56:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another claim question References: Message-ID: <004501c2ae57$5b79ec60$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Brian, I am not a 'claim hawk'. I am more of a 'rule hawk'. I think the current rules for resolving faulty claims are 'plain crazy'. Maybe I should not have chosen those words but by now they stand I guess. Your case. Seems a good idea to me that this CTD resigned. I hate people contesting this kind of claim this way. Of course it could have been worded more carefully but this claim clearly translates to 'I give you SA after which I have 12 tricks'. Which happens to be correct and there is no problem whatsoever cashing those tricks. As I said before, without reasonable willingness to understand claimers language, claiming is impossible. I would claim this myself like that and I expect my opponents to claim like that. Of course you have to assume some level of play. Against Mrs. G it might be quicker to knock out SA first (and maybe discard HJ on C9) and then claim. I know people don't like to admit it but claim reality is very much level dependent. But then this CTD could be expected to be a class or two above mrs. G. the way you present the case. But now I will become a hawk. Suppose there where only 11 tricks (C9 = H4). In that case I would always want to give 1 down regardless. I know it is contrary to current rules. But now we are discussing a faulty claim. And I don't think the TD should even bother to analyse if the hearts are favorable enough for declarer to succeed on any conceivable line of play (here it is easy but if I change a couple of small cards, introducing some alternate chances, it becomes a hell of a job and should not be done). Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 8:36 AM Subject: [blml] Another claim question > > The recent thread on claims has reminded me of one which caused > quite a stink at club level a few years back, and I'm just > interested to see what BLML makes of it given the current > discussions. I'm obviously inventing the exact hands, since it's > too long ago for me to remember the spot cards, but the basic > layout and principle is correct. Should anyone think it matters, > this hand was played under English regulations sometime in 1996, > and all four of the players at the table had at least 20 years > experience and had previously won county level open events or > better. They all knew that, too. The hand was played in the club > championship pairs, which might explain a lot. > > North > > S QJ109 > H AKJ > D Q32 > C AK2 > > > South > > S K876 > H 32 > D AKJ > C QJ109 > > The contract is 6NT by South on the sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, > opps silent. A small club is led, South takes one look at dummy, > and immediately shows his hand with the words "Give you the Ace > of Spades". > > East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South > should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. > > The CTD resigned the job after the decision went against him, > along with much adverse comment about his views, which is why I > remember it so well. No, that doesn't mean I was the CTD. ;-) > > Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Dec 28 12:15:14 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:15:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> <002801c2add0$c7854d00$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001001c2ae6a$c92644d0$7fdef1c3@LNV> > Dear Ton, > > I hope you are not too offended but if necessary I can translate 'plain > crazy' (which actually is playful slang) in more 'polite' words which make > the message way meaner. I am not offended at all. The first reason being that I know you and can interpret what you are saying. The second being that I feel hardly ever offended. But I know some readers in blml who are less lenient when 'norms and values' are involved (this is the only issue we talk about in the Netherlands nowadays). My example with Kx opposite Jx was of course not with just 2 cards left, dear Jaap. Make it 4 and still 5 diamonds left between opponents and no clue that the queen might be bare now, though I don't need those facts for my decision. But it makes yours less easy. ton From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Sat Dec 28 20:00:05 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:00:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> <002801c2add0$c7854d00$25b54351@noos.fr> <001001c2ae6a$c92644d0$7fdef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002701c2aeab$b8e5be20$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, I am a little surprised by your reaction, although knowing you quite well maybe I am not. I have to think about that. Anyway: Ton: > My example with Kx opposite Jx was of course not with just 2 cards left, > dear Jaap. Make it 4 and still 5 diamonds left between opponents and no clue > that the queen might be bare now, though I don't need those facts for my > decision. But it makes yours less easy. Your examples keep changing all the time. Becomes a difficult target that way (not really, this one is still too easy). But I am surprised. Don't you need facts anymore to make decisions? Sounds a little bit like Wolff who didn't need laws anymore to take certain decisions. So much for the basic idea that TD's are supposed to establish the facts before taking a decision. But your changed example doesn't change anything. Your example is now: the guy claims 1 trick rather than that he states a line of play in a 4 card ending with Kx opp. Jx with still 5 diamonds out including the Q. In this position it is quite normal to exit with one of your losers. There might well be a legal endplay and you cannot lose the DK. If he claims without stating a line you cannot decide why he decided not to try for an extra trick, and you cannot decide which line for the second trick he would have chosen. So why do you give him that extra trick while there still is a plausible if not better line other than playing DK to get that extra trick. And with the diamonds 4-1 that alternate line produces only one trick. I am afraid Ton that using current rules your ruling is just plain wrong. But I can imagine your problem. Resolving problems using current logic is extremely difficult and so is finding good examples. Once more I can only advise you to get rid of the concept that the TD/AC should try to guess what is going on inside the mind of players that produce stupid claims. Anyway, are you trying to say that you are happy with people continue to make all kind of unclear claims 'just because they want to speed things up', slowing things down in the process. Are you really happy with the (concept of) the current laws where there is hardly ever anything resembling consensus over even the simplest of cases? I agree that in a way it is more fun for TD's and AC's (and blml) that way, but it makes no sense if you pretend bridge is a serious sport. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > > > Dear Ton, > > > > I hope you are not too offended but if necessary I can translate 'plain > > crazy' (which actually is playful slang) in more 'polite' words which make > > the message way meaner. > > > I am not offended at all. The first reason being that I know you and can > interpret what you are saying. The second being that I feel hardly ever > offended. But I know some readers in blml who are less lenient when 'norms > and values' are involved (this is the only issue we talk about in the > Netherlands nowadays). > > > My example with Kx opposite Jx was of course not with just 2 cards left, > dear Jaap. Make it 4 and still 5 diamonds left between opponents and no clue > that the queen might be bare now, though I don't need those facts for my > decision. But it makes yours less easy. > > ton > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Dec 28 21:25:31 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:25:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another claim question References: Message-ID: <01a401c2aeb7$ab9f7ec0$369490d4@rabbit> "Brian Meadows" wrote: > The recent thread on claims has reminded me of one which caused > quite a stink at club level a few years back, and I'm just > interested to see what BLML makes of it given the current > discussions. I'm obviously inventing the exact hands, since it's > too long ago for me to remember the spot cards, but the basic > layout and principle is correct. Should anyone think it matters, > this hand was played under English regulations sometime in 1996, > and all four of the players at the table had at least 20 years > experience and had previously won county level open events or > better. They all knew that, too. The hand was played in the club > championship pairs, which might explain a lot. > > North > > S QJ109 > H AKJ > D Q32 > C AK2 > > > South > > S K876 > H 32 > D AKJ > C QJ109 > > The contract is 6NT by South on the sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, > opps silent. A small club is led, South takes one look at dummy, > and immediately shows his hand with the words "Give you the Ace > of Spades". > > East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South > should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. East is a joker. Declarer has 12 top tricks, and has plenty of entries to cash them all. If East appeals, I would deem this an appeal without merit. Thomas From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 29 11:45:37 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 11:45:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <3136609.1040988888827.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <008a01c2af30$914dc800$6b0be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > I don't think that WBF minute should be applied to > squeeze positions. I can imagine that it applies to > overruff positions, but that's about it. After all, a > being able to draw any conclusions as to the reason > for its appearance. If there is some evidence that a > claimer is not in touch with reality when he claims > five tricks from AKQJ8 facing singleton, it is not for > a TD or an AC to remedy the player's inadequacies. > +=+ Firstly, as to the minute, I have no amplification from the WBFLC and we have to read the minute as it has been written and ratified. Whilst one may believe how it 'should' (or should not) be applied, I think that read strictly as written there is no limitation such as David suggests. As to the case cited, I could well believe that in play without claim the player would note that the King was good and not throw it away; I also think that it would be a player only of weak understanding of the game who would not deduce the reason for the fatal discard - but that in any case the player does not even need to understand his windfall. I do not believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying claimer the number of tricks that is available to the field and which becomes clamorous for recognition in the pursuit of his statement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 29 10:58:39 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 10:58:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'The gentle rain from heaven' References: <200212260027.gBQ0RuE11784@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3E0AC66A.3070403@skynet.be> <000901c2acc1$7da62020$0c9427d9@pbncomputer> <3E0AF1E6.9010601@skynet.be> <005701c2acf6$e9151340$25b54351@noos.fr> <00a901c2ada8$f375cd90$1edef1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20021227165723.026eaeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <008901c2af30$8fb15610$6b0be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > Perhaps Jaap will argue that he does not deserve > the trick, on the grounds that he is "plain crazy" and > therefore doesn't deserve squat. But will Jaap argue > that his opponents *do* deserve the trick, or that > the rest of his field, in the same contract, each > deserve an extra half matchpoint, or that the rest > of the opposite field each deserve to lose a half > matchpoint? > +=+ Aside from this particular example, looking generally at the treatment of imperfection in making claims, I could easily envisage that it has happened that, in resolving a doubtful point against the claimer, a ruling giving a trick has made the difference for claimer's opponents of placing them first rather than second in the final ranking. It could happen in a World Championship. Or it could have this effect for one of the contestants not involved in the ruling, as Eric observes. This leaves me feeling that legislators have not considered deeply enough the treatment of contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect solution, but I think that the better part of the argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his briefcase'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Dec 29 12:28:57 2002 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:28:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'The gentle rain from heaven' In-Reply-To: <008901c2af30$8fb15610$6b0be150@endicott> Message-ID: <001101c2af35$dbc5dc60$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> --------------------- I do not=20 believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility=20 when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying=20 claimer the number of tricks that is available to the=20 field and which becomes clamorous for recognition in the pursuit of his statement.=20 ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ ---------------------- Maybe an approach that would be easy to understand by all and would tend to give the claimer the intended number of tricks: Give the claimer the number of tricks that he would win had he not claimed but played through. Almost redundant? I don=B4t think so, because a lot of the = cases that make a strong impression are the ones where the claimer clearly gets a different number of tricks. This will of course require from the TD a judgment on "is the claimer in deep outer space, slightly in space but still in touch with Mother Earth, or is he just simplifying procedures?" But that=B4s what TD=B4s are for... From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 29 13:00:07 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:00:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'The gentle rain from heaven' References: <001101c2af35$dbc5dc60$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <003701c2af3a$368428b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 1:28 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 'The gentle rain from heaven' > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > (.......) > This leaves me feeling that legislators have > not considered deeply enough the treatment of > contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect > solution, but I think that the better part of the > argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It > is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we > treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an > offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish > to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his > briefcase'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Rightly so, and I think this should be the general approach to Bridge > Laws in general: No lawyer, no hawk. It will require lots of judgment > from TDs, which may be a problem at the lower levels, but will also be > an advantage in the sense that forcing TDs to use more judgment will > eventually give rise to better TDs on average. > > Rui Marques However, we must never(!) reach a state of ruling where the Director (and/or the AC) "protects" the claimer from making a stupid mistake. If the claimer overlooks an important detail in his claim by not making that detail part of his statement, how can we be so sure it is "irrational" (for his class) to be unaware of this detail had he played the board out instead of claiming? My "claim" is that it is "irrational" for a claiming player not to mention such important details in his statement if he is aware of them when he claims. Consequently he should in general not get away with an after the fact statement that "of course ......" unless it is indeed obvious for everyone (beyond any reasonable doubt) that he must indeed have been aware. In a claim situation our duty as TD must be to protect the opposition, not the claimer when there is any doubt on the outcome. And a happy new year to everyone! regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 29 13:10:40 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:10:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <003d01c2af3b$b00d7b40$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 1:35 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. --------------------- I do not believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying claimer the number of tricks that is available to the field and which becomes clamorous for recognition in the pursuit of his statement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ---------------------- Maybe an approach that would be easy to understand by all and would tend to give the claimer the intended number of tricks: Give the claimer the number of tricks that he would win had he not claimed but played through. Almost redundant? I don´t think so, because a lot of the cases that make a strong impression are the ones where the claimer clearly gets a different number of tricks. This will of course require from the TD a judgment on "is the claimer in deep outer space, slightly in space but still in touch with Mother Earth, or is he just simplifying procedures?" But that´s what TD´s are for... An approach that would remove every doubt (I believe!) is to specify that a claimer rather than showing all his cards simultaneously shall play them one after the other in the sequence he intends to play the board out, as fast as he can without awaiting any play to each trick from opponents, . He should be able to produce his cards at a rate of approximately 4 cards per second, so there would not be any significant loss of time considering all the explanations that become redundant. (After he has produced his cards in this fashion opponents will have their opportunity to show how they will play to each trick, and there will be little if any reason at all for discussion on doubtful claims) regards Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Dec 29 15:18:02 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 09:18:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <3136609.1040988888827.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <008a01c2af30$914dc800$6b0be150@endicott> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 5:45 AM Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " A lawyer with his briefcase can steal > more than a hundred men with guns." > ('The Godfather') > ================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 11:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. > > > > > > I don't think that WBF minute should be applied to > > squeeze positions. I can imagine that it applies to > > overruff positions, but that's about it. After all, a > > being able to draw any conclusions as to the reason > > for its appearance. If there is some evidence that a > > claimer is not in touch with reality when he claims > > five tricks from AKQJ8 facing singleton, it is not for > > a TD or an AC to remedy the player's inadequacies. > > > +=+ Firstly, as to the minute, I have no amplification > from the WBFLC and we have to read the minute as it > has been written and ratified. Whilst one may believe > how it 'should' (or should not) be applied, I think that > read strictly as written there is no limitation such as > David suggests. > As to the case cited, I could well believe that in > play without claim the player would note that the > King was good and not throw it away; I also think > that it would be a player only of weak understanding > of the game who would not deduce the reason for the > fatal discard - but that in any case the player does > not even need to understand his windfall. I do not > believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility > when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying > claimer the number of tricks that is available to the > field and which becomes clamorous for recognition > in the pursuit of his statement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In the 5 card ending with a virgin suit presume a claim without clarification of 5 tricks where the pair holds S AKQJ9---2. An argument is made that it is irrational to not play top down. I say the argument is not valid. There are two ways to gain 5 tricks if they can be had- drop the T or finesse. It is not irrational to look at both as legitimate plays. Alter the holdings AKQJ8---2. An argument is made that it is irrational to not play top down. I say the argument is acceptable as [a] there can be no reentry to repeat a double finesse or [b] there is no card to lead a second round. Also, though I might want to consider it more I am thinking that it would be irrational to play an opponent to hold both missing honors and they would not split them. Now, add the D2 to dummy and the CA to declarer. The rest are claimed without statement. It is irrational to not first cash the club where the DA is discarded in front of dummy’s spades. Is it irrational to discard a spade? Yes. A diamond? No, the number of tricks surely rests in the number of spade tricks as it is possible that the spades might produce 5 tricks by force. What if it is clarified that five spades are claimed [plus the club]? Now it clearly is irrational to discard a spade since it is the only way to achieve 5 spade tricks. Now add that the DA was the defense’s last diamond? First make note that if it were relevant to claimer’s intent it must be irrational to not clarify it, so absent its mention there must be a presumption of the belief that more diamonds are outstanding. With no clarification on what basis is it to be ruled that declarer’s diamonds are to produce tricks at the expense of dummy’s 8, J etc? I believe that it is wrong to ascribe diamond tricks [without a suitable clarification]. But, change the D2 to the DK and I believe it is right to rule the S8 pitched [without clarification]. But what about if it was clarified that 5 spades are claimed [but not how the spades are played]? Then it must be right to rule that the diamond is pitched no matter if it be the 2 or king as it is irrational to attempt to take 5 spades from a length of only four. Now looking at what the WBFLC has said: > > "The committee discussed Law 70E. It was > > agreed that it is assumed declarer would see > > cards as they would be played and take account > > of what he would see." [WBFLC, 30 Oc 01] > > - making what they will of it. The ruling protects, > > in my opinion, the TD who awards six tricks. +=+ Grattan has assured us that the LC meant what they said, nothing more and nothing less. And does that result in how Grattan has applied L70 in the AKQJ8-K example? Grattan puts forth that when the Ace shows up it would be irrational to not discard the S8. No, he did not say that but to rule in accordance with L70 he should have. I do not see it. There is nothing in the minute that says that if a better way presents itself that it must be taken on solely on that basis, at least if to do so would be inconsistent with the clarification. To begin with claimer has clarified he is after his 5 spade tricks. It certainly is possible that the cards are distributed so as to produce 5 spade tricks and therefore it is rational to so believe it and act on that belief. The October minute specifies that the appearance of the ace is presumed to be noticed and acted upon. Now just how does the appearance of the ace affect the number of tricks available in the spade suit compared to before the ace was played? It does not affect it all. There is no proof that it is not a false card so therefore there is no proof that it would be irrational to continue with the plan for 5 spade tricks. So, the action after noticing the ace is to not change the execution of the clarification; at least in fulfilling L70. regards roger pewick From jurgenr@t-online.de Sun Dec 29 15:51:34 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:51:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seventeen clubs; Irrational claims Message-ID: >Grattan EndicottSubject: Re: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. [...] >As to the case cited, I could well believe that in >play without claim the player would note that the >King was good and not throw it away; What you or I or a TD or the High Priest "can well believe would happen" has no place in the interpretation of any Law, nor in its construction. Nothing matters except what actually occurred. >I also think >that it would be a player only of weak understanding >of the game who would not deduce the reason for the >fatal discard - but that in any case the player does >not even need to understand his windfall. I also think that it would be a person of weak understanding who would break into my house and be caught red-handed. Moreover, such an occurrence is rare; Shall we, therefore, act as though it had not taken place, provided the police think it appropriate? >I do not >believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility >when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying >claimer the number of tricks that is available to the >field and which becomes clamorous for recognition >in the pursuit of his statement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ According to your rationale, if consistency were a goal, whenever a player has blundered he should be able to retract his play - and the TD should be able to decide what he would have done had he had his wits about him. Jürgen From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 30 01:26:41 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:26:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Future equity Message-ID: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> One real issue is whether the future 2005 Laws "should" have fewer automatic penalties and more equity adjustments. For example, the Danish NCBO has suggested that, in the future 2005 Laws, the automatic revoke penalty should be reduced to an automatic one trick. (The reason for the suggested Danish change is that the current automatic penalty tends to be inequitable to the offending side.) If this Danish change was adopted, then this would mean that the TD would subsequently use the equity adjustment of Law 64C with greater frequency than the TD uses Law 64C under the current Lawful environment. In the thread, "AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims", Jaap wrote: >Dear Richard, > >I know as well that sometimes even card play problems >can lead to a weighted score. For this reason I wrote >'never' rather than never. > >The point I want to make (which I am sure you >understand very well despite your smart ass reaction) is >that revokes, play out of turns etc. carry 'automatic >penalties' rather than that an TD/AC tries to make some >kind of 'reasonable' ruling which is quite common in UI >and tempo problems during the bidding. > >Since claims belong in the card play department it seems >a good idea to me to handle claim stupidities like card >play stupidities. If you could only react to the real >issue rather than a minor detail, the discussion might >actually get anywhere. The trend away from automatic penalties and towards equity has been apparent in successive editions of the Laws, even for card play stupidities. For example, in the pre-1987 editions of the Laws, a declarer who stupidly led from the wrong hand could be compelled to immediately lead the same suit from the correct hand. This rule frequently inequitably gave the defenders a bonus trick or tricks that they would not have received by normal play. I have often felt embarrassed upon receiving an automatic windfall after a trivial mechanical error by an opponent. I would prefer the 2005 Laws to instead let the punishment fit the crime, with trivial errors resulting in a correspondingly trivial equity adjustment. Best wishes Richard From toddz@att.net Mon Dec 30 00:54:27 2002 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:54:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Future equity In-Reply-To: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > I have often felt embarrassed upon receiving an automatic > windfall after a trivial mechanical error by an opponent. I > would prefer the 2005 Laws to instead let the punishment fit > the crime, with trivial errors resulting in a correspondingly > trivial equity adjustment. Declarer in a NT contract gets a lead into a suit with AQ opposite xx in dummy. The trick comes around low to the AQ and declarer, making a mechanical error, plays the A. That mistake can cost anywhere from 0 to 7 tricks. Whatever protections the law offers for mechanical errors which are illegal plays of the cards, I hope they are not greater than the protections offered to mechanical errors which are legal plays of the cards. I feel sorry and sometimes embarrassed for declarers in these situations, but unless I'm playing with little children you won't see me letting players take back their mistakes. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 30 02:18:18 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:18:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: <4A256C9F.000B05E7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [snip] >if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the >Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 >or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the >Director's arrival. > >But this does not happen. I would think that the >majority of contested claims follow the scenario I >have described: "I've got these tricks"; "No you >haven't, because I've got this one"; "Oh, all right >then". "Oh, all right then", means that the claim is no longer *disputed*, since both sides have reached an amicable agreement. If I wished to be technical, I would argue that: a) I've got these tricks = a claim b) No you haven't, because I've got this one = a counter-claim c) Oh, all right then = acquiescence (Law 69A) >Law 68D is probably the most frequently broken Law in >bridge apart from Law 7B2, which is broken every time >the game is played by very nearly everybody who plays >it. [snip] Presumably David is using a dictionary definition of the words *his own* when interpreting Law 7B2, rather than using a contextual interpretation of Law 7B2. I agree with David Burn that ambiguous statements should be removed from the 2005 Laws. But we differ about the necessity of removing statements which are contextually totally unambiguous (but can be wilfully misinterpreted out of context). Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 30 03:34:59 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:34:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another claim question Message-ID: <4A256C9F.00120B22.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >all four of the players at the table had at least 20 years >experience and had previously won county level open events or >better. They all knew that, too. The hand was played in the >club championship pairs, which might explain a lot. > >North > >S QJ109 >H AKJ >D Q32 >C AK2 > > >South > >S K876 >H 32 >D AKJ >C QJ109 > >The contract is 6NT by South on the sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, >opps silent. A small club is led, South takes one look at dummy, >and immediately shows his hand with the words "Give you the Ace >of Spades". > >East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South >should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. > >The CTD resigned the job after the decision went against him, >along with much adverse comment about his views, which is why I >remember it so well. No, that doesn't mean I was the CTD. ;-) > >Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? > >Brian. I am not a claim hawk, but East did have a case under Law 70D: >>The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line >>of play not embraced in the original clarification statement >>if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be >>less successful. An assessment has to made made whether the players are members of the class for whom a "practice" finesse is normal. On the facts given, as TD I would rule that 20 years' experience means little more than 1 year's experience repeated 20 times. And, as TD, I would rule that winning county-level open events shows no greater ability than my wins of open events in my home state of Tasmania. Therefore, as TD, I would rule that East was sufficiently a bunny that East did not infract Law 74B1. As TD I would, however, rule that East had infracted Law 74A2, and (penalty) I would use Law 81C9 to recommend to the SO that East be requested to resign as CTD. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 30 04:16:33 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:16:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: <4A256C9F.0015D9E2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Twelve clubs; Irrational claims", Grattan wrote: >+=+ 70E is about adoption of a line of play that >was not included in the original statement of >clarification. It says specifically that such a line >is to be followed if it would be irrational not to >follow it. (In which there is no referral to the class >of player involved.) Any player may deduce that >the discard of the AH is to protect a holding in >the Spade suit; in my view (supported by the >WBFLC minute) it would be irrational then to >discard the KH rather than the small Spade. > >For the reasons already expressed I do not believe >personally that it is an option for the TD to award >fewer than six tricks. +=+ I can live with a ruling of either 5 tricks or 6 tricks under the current Laws, depending on the judgement of the TD and AC as to what is normal and what is irrational. If weighted claims are part of the 2005 Laws, I can also live with a ruling of 5.75 tricks. But I believe Grattan's "any player may deduce" is fallacious in the context of the previous erroneous claim. >From declarer's announced point of view, the AKQJ8 of spades in dummy are certain winners if played from the top. Therefore, declarer assumes that the defenders also know that the AKQJ8 of spades are certain winners if played from the top. Declarer can therefore merely conclude that the AH discard is a flamboyant and meaningless discard by LHO - not *necessarily* conclude that LHO has been squeezed to keep a (from declarer's point of view) non-existent spade stopper. Of course, six tricks are mandated under current Law if declarer was 100% certain that the eight of spades was a winner at the time of the claim, but merely 75% certain after the flashy discard of the HA - which is why a 2005 Law that allows the award of 5.75 tricks may be more equitable to both sides. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 30 04:57:03 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:57:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? Message-ID: <4A256C9F.00198F0A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman wrote: [snip] >>- regarding the "weak" nature of the 2Di opening. This hand is surely >>worth a 1Di opener. A player is allowed to deviate from his system, >>but not in such a way as to encroach into another one. I would >>certainly rule this as MI, like this : "if you explain something using >>just one word, the opponents are correct in assuming you mean the >>standard meaning of that word. They have read books about this and >>assume you have as well. If you have not read those books, or other >>books, you should have said so". >> >>So rulings based on taking away the double or allowing 5He to be bid >>are certainly on. Grattan replied: >+=+ General Alert. > All readers please avoid impetuous responses. This is >just Herman's little seasonal joke and is quite unconnected >with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As Herman has subsequently noted, Grattan's response is not helpful to blml discussion without citations from the Laws to back Grattan's assertion. Herman's ruling that the explanation "weak" is an infraction is presumably based on the "reasonably be expected to understand its meaning" provision of Law 40B. However, there is the countervailing Law 21A: >>>A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis >>>of his own misunderstanding. Popular texts may argue that a particular hand which is borderline between a one-level opening and a weak two "must" be opened at the one-level in this particular case. But texts with alternative popularity permit this particular borderline hand to be opened as a weak two. Therefore, as TD, I would rule that describing a borderline hand as "weak" was permitted under Law 21A and was consequently not an infraction of Law 40B. On the other hand, suppose this hypothetical case occurred: A pair agreed to play a 17-20 1NT opening. When one was asked by an opponent, "Is the 1NT opening weak?", they answered, "Yes". (Because the 1NT opening was too weak to guarantee that 7NT would make.) In such a hypothetical case I would stand foursquare with Herman in ruling that Law 21A did not apply, and an infraction of Law 40B had occurred. Best wishes Richard From nancy@dressing.org Mon Dec 30 04:38:26 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:38:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <4A256C9F.00198F0A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001301c2afbd$4b14a880$6401a8c0@hare> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > > > Herman wrote: > > [snip] > > >>- regarding the "weak" nature of the 2Di opening. This hand is surely > >>worth a 1Di opener. A player is allowed to deviate from his system, > >>but not in such a way as to encroach into another one. I would > >>certainly rule this as MI, like this : "if you explain something using > >>just one word, the opponents are correct in assuming you mean the > >>standard meaning of that word. They have read books about this and > >>assume you have as well. If you have not read those books, or other > >>books, you should have said so". > >> > >>So rulings based on taking away the double or allowing 5He to be bid > >>are certainly on. > > Grattan replied: > > >+=+ General Alert. > > All readers please avoid impetuous responses. This is > >just Herman's little seasonal joke and is quite unconnected > >with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > As Herman has subsequently noted, Grattan's response is not > helpful to blml discussion without citations from the Laws to > back Grattan's assertion. > > Herman's ruling that the explanation "weak" is an infraction is > presumably based on the "reasonably be expected to understand > its meaning" provision of Law 40B. However, there is the > countervailing Law 21A: > > >>>A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis > >>>of his own misunderstanding. > > Popular texts may argue that a particular hand which is > borderline between a one-level opening and a weak two "must" be > opened at the one-level in this particular case. But texts with > alternative popularity permit this particular borderline hand to > be opened as a weak two. Therefore, as TD, I would rule that > describing a borderline hand as "weak" was permitted under Law > 21A and was consequently not an infraction of Law 40B. In this particular instance, the partner who described the hand as "weak" fully expected his partner to hold a 6 card diamond suit of a strength of 5 - 10 or 5 - 11 points. Everyone at the table knew what meant. When he answered the question he had no idea that his partner had any hand other than what the table expected. How can the TD penalize the describer or suggest that he has provided MI about his partner's bid???? He doesn't know that his partner has lied to him with this bid. It is a gross error that after the 4C bid this same partner says "I think I should alert that bid as Gerber." > On the other hand, suppose this hypothetical case occurred: > > A pair agreed to play a 17-20 1NT opening. When one was asked > by an opponent, "Is the 1NT opening weak?", they answered, > "Yes". (Because the 1NT opening was too weak to guarantee that > 7NT would make.) > > In such a hypothetical case I would stand foursquare with > Herman in ruling that Law 21A did not apply, and an infraction > of Law 40B had occurred. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 30 06:15:56 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:15:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? Message-ID: <4A256C9F.0020C79E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: [snip] >>Popular texts may argue that a particular hand which is >>borderline between a one-level opening and a weak two "must" be >>opened at the one-level in this particular case. But texts with >>alternative popularity permit this particular borderline hand to >>be opened as a weak two. Therefore, as TD, I would rule that >>describing a borderline hand as "weak" was permitted under Law >>21A and was consequently not an infraction of Law 40B. [snip] Nancy Dressing replied: >In this particular instance, the partner who described the hand >as "weak" fully expected his partner to hold a 6 card diamond >suit of a strength of 5 - 10 or 5 - 11 points. Everyone at the >table knew what meant. When he answered the question he had no >idea that his partner had any hand other than what the table >expected. How can the TD penalize the describer or suggest that >he has provided MI about his partner's bid???? He doesn't know >that his partner has lied to him with this bid. [snip] Absolutely correct, *if* opening a weak 2D on K T KQT953 KQT52 was a lie in the explictly and implicitly agreed partnership system. Law 40A permits a lie in the auction. However, in an earlier posting Nancy revealed this fact: [snip] >>>The opener of 2D knew his partner would think the bid was weak >>>but he couldn't think of a better way to start to describe his >>>2 suiter. He intended to bid clubs on his next bid. If the opener of 2D had made similar compromise weak-2 openings with medium 2 suiters in the past (while playing with their current partner), then the 2D call was *not* a lie, but rather an implicit partnership agreement. However, if the singleton K of spades is discounted, then opener did have 5-10 or 5-11 points with a 6 card diamond suit, so the question of a lie or of a concealed implicit partnership agreement does not arise. Best wishes Richard From nancy@dressing.org Mon Dec 30 07:16:13 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:16:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <4A256C9F.0020C79E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000a01c2afd3$56611b40$6401a8c0@hare> This was a new partnership. The 2D bidder was the stronger of the pair. They had played once before and I think after this day the partnership is over!!! Obviously they didn't agree on much!! One of the opponents wants to quit bridge and the last person at the table is just confused and still feels damaged. Such is a NLM game!!! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > > > I wrote: > > [snip] > > >>Popular texts may argue that a particular hand which is > >>borderline between a one-level opening and a weak two "must" be > >>opened at the one-level in this particular case. But texts with > >>alternative popularity permit this particular borderline hand to > >>be opened as a weak two. Therefore, as TD, I would rule that > >>describing a borderline hand as "weak" was permitted under Law > >>21A and was consequently not an infraction of Law 40B. > > [snip] > > Nancy Dressing replied: > > >In this particular instance, the partner who described the hand > >as "weak" fully expected his partner to hold a 6 card diamond > >suit of a strength of 5 - 10 or 5 - 11 points. Everyone at the > >table knew what meant. When he answered the question he had no > >idea that his partner had any hand other than what the table > >expected. How can the TD penalize the describer or suggest that > >he has provided MI about his partner's bid???? He doesn't know > >that his partner has lied to him with this bid. > > [snip] > > Absolutely correct, *if* opening a weak 2D on > > K > T > KQT953 > KQT52 > > was a lie in the explictly and implicitly agreed partnership > system. Law 40A permits a lie in the auction. > > However, in an earlier posting Nancy revealed this fact: > > [snip] > > >>>The opener of 2D knew his partner would think the bid was weak > >>>but he couldn't think of a better way to start to describe his > >>>2 suiter. He intended to bid clubs on his next bid. > > If the opener of 2D had made similar compromise weak-2 openings > with medium 2 suiters in the past (while playing with their current > partner), then the 2D call was *not* a lie, but rather an implicit > partnership agreement. > > However, if the singleton K of spades is discounted, then opener > did have 5-10 or 5-11 points with a 6 card diamond suit, so the > question of a lie or of a concealed implicit partnership agreement > does not arise. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Schoderb@aol.com Sun Dec 29 12:41:51 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 07:41:51 EST Subject: [blml] 'The gentle rain from heaven' Message-ID: <8a.21e37857.2b40478f@aol.com> --part1_8a.21e37857.2b40478f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/2002 6:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > This leaves me feeling that legislators have > not considered deeply enough the treatment of > contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect > solution, but I think that the better part of the > argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It > is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we > treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an > offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish > to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his > briefcase'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Hear! Hear! =K= --part1_8a.21e37857.2b40478f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/2002 6:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes:

  This leaves me feeling that legislators have
not considered deeply enough the treatment of
contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect
solution, but I think that the better part of the
argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It
is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we
treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an
offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish
to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his
briefcase'.
            ~ Grattan ~         +=+


Hear! Hear!

=K= --part1_8a.21e37857.2b40478f_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Sun Dec 29 12:43:01 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 07:43:01 EST Subject: [blml] 'The gentle rain from heaven' Message-ID: --part1_c1.2c608b9d.2b4047d5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/2002 7:30:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt writes: > This leaves me feeling that legislators have > not considered deeply enough the treatment of > contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect > solution, but I think that the better part of the > argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It > is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we > treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an > offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish > to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his > briefcase'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Rightly so, and I think this should be the general approach to Bridge > Laws in general: No lawyer, no hawk. It will require lots of judgment > from TDs, which may be a problem at the lower levels, but will also be > an advantage in the sense that forcing TDs to use more judgment will > eventually give rise to better TDs on average. > > Rui Marques > > I repeat myself. Hear! Hear! =K= --part1_c1.2c608b9d.2b4047d5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/2002 7:30:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt writes:

    This leaves me feeling that legislators have
not considered deeply enough the treatment of
contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect
solution, but I think that the better part of the
argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It
is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we
treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an
offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish
to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his
briefcase'.
            ~ Grattan ~         +=+


Rightly so, and I think this should be the general approach to Bridge
Laws in general: No lawyer, no hawk. It will require lots of judgment
from TDs, which may be a problem at the lower levels, but will also be
an advantage in the sense that forcing TDs to use more judgment will
eventually give rise to better TDs on average.

Rui Marques



I repeat myself. Hear! Hear!

=K= --part1_c1.2c608b9d.2b4047d5_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Sun Dec 29 12:44:19 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 07:44:19 EST Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. Message-ID: <146.6565bd6.2b404823@aol.com> --part1_146.6565bd6.2b404823_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 12/29/2002 7:36:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,=20 rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt writes: > But that=B4s what TD=B4s are for... >=20 >=20 >=20 And there you have it. all those who don't want to do the job! =3DK=3D --part1_146.6565bd6.2b404823_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 12/29/2002 7:36:53 AM Eastern St= andard Time, rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt writes:

But that=B4s what TD=B4s ar= e for...




And there you have it. all those who don't want to do the job!
=3DK=3D --part1_146.6565bd6.2b404823_boundary-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Dec 30 12:01:09 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:01:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> --------------------- I do not believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying claimer the number of tricks that is available to the field and which becomes clamorous for recognition in the pursuit of his statement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ---------------------- Rui: Maybe an approach that would be easy to understand by all and would tend to give the claimer the intended number of tricks: Give the claimer the number of tricks that he would win had he not claimed but played through. Almost redundant? I don´t think so, because a lot of the cases that make a strong impression are the ones where the claimer clearly gets a different number of tricks. This will of course require from the TD a judgment on "is the claimer in deep outer space, slightly in space but still in touch with Mother Earth, or is he just simplifying procedures?" But that´s what TD´s are for... Aren't you both saying that we should follow the laws as they are at the moment, therewith enriching those with an interpretation? We are talking about L 70A and interpreting 'any doubtful points' there. My proposal would be to change those words and replace then with something like: awarding claimer the tricks he could not loose with any normal play. (That is consistent with other laws as 69B and 70C3 for example. And yes, it is still up to the TD, so this will not get the approval of David. ton From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Dec 30 12:17:15 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:17:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Future equity In-Reply-To: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:26:41 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >For example, the Danish NCBO has suggested that, in the >future 2005 Laws, the automatic revoke penalty should be >reduced to an automatic one trick. Yes. >(The reason for the >suggested Danish change is that the current automatic >penalty tends to be inequitable to the offending side.) No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that the current automatic penalty is too complicated. Our suggestion can be seen at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L64A --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Mon Dec 30 13:45:26 2002 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:45:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. In-Reply-To: <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000a01c2b009$b563b540$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> Ton: Perfect for me. ------------- (...) we should follow the laws as they are at the moment, therewith enriching those with an interpretation? We are talking about L 70A and interpreting 'any doubtful points' there. My proposal would be to change those words and replace then with something like: awarding claimer the tricks he could not loose with any normal play. (That is consistent with other laws as 69B and 70C3 for example. And yes, it is still up to the TD, so this will not get the approval of David. ----------------- From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Mon Dec 30 14:12:37 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003201c2b00d$82d8b9a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, You say: > Aren't you both saying that we should follow the laws as they are at th= e > moment, therewith enriching those with an interpretation? > We are talking about L 70A and interpreting 'any doubtful points' there. My > proposal would be to change those words and replace then with something > like: awarding claimer the tricks he could not loose with any normal pl= ay. > (That is consistent with other laws as 69B and 70C3 for example. And ye= s, it > is still up to the TD, so this will not get the approval of David. In a recent discussion I tried to show you how difficult it is to judge '= any normal line of play'. In your famous Kx opp Jx (both in a 2 and a 4 card ending) you demonstrated that you were incapable of realising that there = was more than one normal line of play. Not completely true because for mrs. G. there is only one line of play. For a player of my level there are definitely two (or more in the 4 card ending). Nor Mrs. G nor I would eve= r claim such a position (obviously for different reasons). Only players of your level (average) actually claim such positions (you seem to think thi= s is rather normal). Does this also mean that players of your level will decide what constitutes 'any normal line of play' ? Or are we going to gu= ess in AC what is any 'normal line of play' for the level of player involved = ? There we go again, complication after complication. The beauty of the rev= oke penalty is that it applies both to Mrs. G and Rodwell and doesn't eat up = TD and AC time. Why not solve at least 95% (or so) of the claim problems the same way? What is the point in protecting players who make faulty claims = ? That said I think there is nothing wrong with TD judgement. TD will alway= s have to translate the actual claim (words, motions, shrugs .....) into so= me kind of formal claim (which tricks are actual claimed according to which line of play) and to check if this claim is sufficiently (judgement!) correct. That is difficult enough. But once we have a formal claim and on= ce this is deemed incorrect I would prefer some kind of more or less automat= ic rules to be applied after that (by the TD and however 'automatic' they ar= e there will always be judgement, don't worry). Actually your proposal 'tri= cks which would have been made in any normal line of play' is a kind of automatic resolve. IMHO this is quite fair but too difficult to rule. If only we could reach consensus about what is a normal line of play. Becaus= e as long as even the simplest examples lead to endless discussion your proposed law is meaningless. And you don't solve the problem of someone clearly stating an abnormal line of play. I would very much like a clear statement in the law about that problem. Because IMHO it makes little sen= se for TD to impose a normal line of play on someone who insists on an abnor= mal line of play. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. > > > > --------------------- > I do not > believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility > when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying > claimer the number of tricks that is available to the > field and which becomes clamorous for recognition > in the pursuit of his statement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > ---------------------- > > Rui: > > > Maybe an approach that would be easy to understand by all and would ten= d > to give the claimer the intended number of tricks: Give the claimer the > number of tricks that he would win had he not claimed but played > through. Almost redundant? I don=B4t think so, because a lot of the cas= es > that make a strong impression are the ones where the claimer clearly > gets a different number of tricks. This will of course require from the > TD a judgment on "is the claimer in deep outer space, slightly in space > but still in touch with Mother Earth, or is he just simplifying > procedures?" But that=B4s what TD=B4s are for... > > > Aren't you both saying that we should follow the laws as they are at th= e > moment, therewith enriching those with an interpretation? > We are talking about L 70A and interpreting 'any doubtful points' there. My > proposal would be to change those words and replace then with something > like: awarding claimer the tricks he could not loose with any normal pl= ay. > (That is consistent with other laws as 69B and 70C3 for example. And ye= s, it > is still up to the TD, so this will not get the approval of David. > > ton > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Mon Dec 30 14:18:13 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:18:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Future equity References: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001101c2b00e$4b99da40$25b54351@noos.fr> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that the current > automatic penalty is too complicated. > Wonderful that at least some lawmakers see the importance of simplicity. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesper Dybdal" To: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Future equity > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:26:41 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >For example, the Danish NCBO has suggested that, in the > >future 2005 Laws, the automatic revoke penalty should be > >reduced to an automatic one trick. > > Yes. > > >(The reason for the > >suggested Danish change is that the current automatic > >penalty tends to be inequitable to the offending side.) > > No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that the current > automatic penalty is too complicated. > > Our suggestion can be seen at > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L64A > > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Dec 30 17:03:41 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:03:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> <003201c2b00d$82d8b9a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001f01c2b025$6f01e970$d8def1c3@LNV> > Dear Ton, > > You say: > > Aren't you both saying that we should follow the laws as they are at the > > moment, therewith enriching those with an interpretation? > > We are talking about L 70A and interpreting 'any doubtful points' there. > My > > proposal would be to change those words and replace then with something > > like: awarding claimer the tricks he could not loose with any normal play. > > (That is consistent with other laws as 69B and 70C3 for example. And yes, > it > > is still up to the TD, so this will not get the approval of David. > > In a recent discussion I tried to show you how difficult it is to judge 'any > normal line of play'. In your famous Kx opp Jx (both in a 2 and a 4 card > ending) you demonstrated that you were incapable of realising that there was > more than one normal line of play. It must be my poor English again, since I can't believe that you are changing the facts by purpose to fit in your opinion. Once more: declarer had made 8 tricks in 3NT and was in a hurry. He claimed one more trick with the diamond K and wrote 9 tricks as a result. This happened in practice dear Jaap!! He did so with still 4 tricks to play and diamonds only being played once ( so winning with the ace). Now the players discovered that the queen was bare at that moment. So what nonsense about me being incapable of realising that there was more than one normal line of play? If I need to admit so before you are capable of a normal line of discussion I will do so, helping to avoid useless contributions. And for David: an opponent of good ethical standard should have given the tenth trick himself, therewith answering one of your questions. This being a much more obvious case than the K + AKQJ8. But here I am expressing a very personal opinion. ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 19:30:11 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:30:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: <000b01c2a73d$61f05820$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 12/19/02, Sven Pran wrote: >What I would fancy for a change in the laws on claiming >is a specification that the claimer shows his cards, >not all in one single action but rapidly one by one >to indicate the sequence in which he intends to play >them. I already do that. Sometimes it even helps. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 19:28:56 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:28:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <3E01875F.20407@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12/19/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >The claim statement is more a clarification of the state of mind of >declarer and less a definite line of play. The law itself seems to disagree, since it says "state a line of play" not "tell us your state of mind". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 19:26:31 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:26:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <002d01c2a732$e95c2a10$7f25e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 12/19/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Surely to block the suit would only be irrational >if it were a conscious act done by Meckstroth or Mr. >Guggenheim when aware of what he was doing; >done simply because of not noticing the pips is it >not careless in either? Are not 'inferior' and 'irrational' >descriptions of conscious or reasoned actions and >'careless' applicable to the absent mind? I agree. Now tell me, as a TD, how I'm supposed to figure out that Meckstroth is being absent minded? Do I simply assume that, because for him the play would be irrational, he *must* have been careless? If so, then why does the law bother to make the distinction? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 20:33:24 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:33:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <200212191618.LAA02938@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 12/19/02, Steve Willner wrote: >I think John is asking whether this could or should be analogous to a >faulty claim statement. It isn't at the moment because the Laws on >card designations are much more specific than the ones for claims. As >far as I can tell, the low heart is designated (L46B2), and the >relevant question is whether declarer can change the designation under >L45C4. (Both parts a and b may be relevant.) Of course declarer must >_attempt_ a change, or there is no question (despite what happened in >Vancouver). Hm. I posted my reply to John's question a moment ago, before I saw this. I could retrieve and edit it, but I won't. :-) I will say that it now occurs to me that although it seems *likely* that declared intended to call for the Queen (in light of the arguments, if you can call them that, in my previous post), it isn't incontrovertible. So I have to change the ruling I gave previously, and agree with this one. Although, from the wording of John's original post, it does not appear to me that L45C4b would apply. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 20:14:26 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:14:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <002101c2a758$e8007560$0aa423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 12/19/02, David Burn wrote: >If that dictionary were to describe an "irrational" action as a >"reasoned" one, I would... well, I would hope someone gave me another >one for Christmas. Heh. Archie Goodwin once found his employer, Nero Wolfe, sitting in front of the fireplace in their office, ripping pages out of his brand new "Webster's Second International Dictionary", and tossing them into the flames. When Archie asked what was up, Nero said "'Contact' is *not* a verb!" :-) "Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 20:26:20 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:26:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <6QkPYdBj9dA+Ew3$@asimere.com> Message-ID: On 12/19/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >ok, let's try this one. > >H AKQx facing xxx, no other entries, no trump contract: > >declarer calls "Ace, king, heart" (all followed to first two tricks). > >How do we rule? Law 46B2 says "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): 2. Designates Suit but Not Rank If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. So your question boils down to whether declarer's different intention is incontrovertible. I dunno. I suspect I need more data. Is the remaining heart spot card in his hand higher than anything opponents have? Does he have other entries to his hand? Is it possible that there's a lay of the cards such that going to his hand now (instead of one trick later) might (not necessarily would) get him more tricks than playing the Queen? These are, as I understand it, the kind of questions to which this problem requires answers. I dunno if I'm experienced enough to answer them without seeing all four hands, or at least all four suits in these hands, but my gut feeling is that it would be irrational to play the lowest heart at this point, so I would think declarer's different intention *is* incontrovertible, so I would rule the Queen is played. Unless of course the declarer said that he *intended* to play the low card - but then we wouldn't have a problem, would we? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 21:27:17 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:27:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest [was: Ruling???] In-Reply-To: <001c01c2aac0$62f48530$5856e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 12/23/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Violations that could be the basis for a PP >in the Director's discretion may be: >(a) not having a CC (if the club requires >players to have CCs) >(b) accompanying an alert with a statement, >when not asked, of the reason for it - again if the club alerting >rules do not allow of such a statement. This brings up a point. It is my opinion that clubs should (and, where an NCBO sanction is required for club operations, should be required to) provide a clear and hopefully concise *written* statement of the conditions of contest applicable to club games. It is, however, my experience that such is not the case. In fact, one local club TD said to me, when I suggested this, that he'd "been running this club for twenty five years, and never had a reason to do that". Comments? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 21:04:56 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:04:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again In-Reply-To: <00a501c2a93e$264f6880$8f7abc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On 12/21/02, James Vickers wrote: >[Ed Reppert:] > >>On 12/13/02, James Vickers wrote: >> >>>[Herman:] >>>> >>>>I remember the argument well. Since "bidding" is considered an >>>>"action", and that action is now again a LA, you may not pass. >>> >>>Considered by whom? Not by those who have been insisting that >>>"action" refers to a call or play (as the law says). >> >>Er, what? A bid is a call. If a call is an action, then so is a bid. > >You've misunderstood, Ed. The argument is about whether bidding per se >can be considered a logical alternative, when "bidding" could >encompass a number of individual bids, each of which counts on its own >as a logical alternative. Perhaps I have. Perhaps I still do. Perhaps my misunderstanding is influenced by my opinion that "alternative" means one of *two* choices, and that the proper word when there are more than two choices is "option". However, looking at a dictionary, I see that one meaning (the third listed, in this dictionary) of "alternative" is, in effect, that it is synonymous with "option". I bow to the pressure. :-) IAC, if there are several possible bids, I concur that any or all of them may be "logical alternatives" under the law. However, the point I was trying to make is that since the law says that (in the auction) any call is an action, then any bid is *also* an action, because all bids are calls. Herman seemed to be saying that some did not consider it so. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 21:20:38 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:20:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] phoenix claims In-Reply-To: <3E06CB69.1030400@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12/23/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ed, I am not trying to teach people how the claims laws work. Your >analysis is completely correct. >The point I am trying to make is that the claim statement is not the >begin and end all of all hypothetical play. We are not required, as >Directors, to force upon players irrational lines in order to >literally satisfy claim statements. > >We are at all times required to judge normal lines. Ah. Okay, got it. I think. :-) From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 30 21:40:25 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:40:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. In-Reply-To: <003201c2b00d$82d8b9a0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021230163729.026f0b80@pop.starpower.net> At 09:12 AM 12/30/02, Jaap wrote: >Because IMHO it makes little sense >for TD to impose a normal line of play on someone who insists on an >abnormal >line of play. I don't believe anyone has suggested doing so. We are talking about imposing only normal lines of play (of which declarer will be presumed to have taken the one leading to the worst result), not abnormal ones, on someone who has not stated, or has not sufficiently specified, what his line of play would be. 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 Mon Dec 30 21:59:58 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:59:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] I like Ike In-Reply-To: <3E06FF12.5010704@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12/23/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >I believe it is, at this moment, legal to ask declarer to "play it >out". That is just one way of checking to see if the claim is correct >or not. I have mentioned before that at the level at which I usually play, opponents quite often ask me to "play it out". They mean it literally. Some think declarer should pick up his hand, some think he should leave it on the table, but they *all* want play to continue as if the claim had not occurred - except that they would presumably object if declarer deviated from his stated line of play (assuming they could remember that line, which is in many cases unlikely). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 21:54:02 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:54:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? In-Reply-To: <3E06D25E.6010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12/23/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >- regarding the "weak" nature of the 2Di opening. This hand is surely >worth a 1Di opener. I'd say so, yes. >A player is allowed to deviate from his system, but not in such a way >as to encroach into another one. Sorry, I don't know what this means. >I would certainly rule this as MI, like this : "if you explain >something using just one word, the opponents are correct in assuming >you mean the standard meaning of that word. They have read books about >this and assume you have as well. If you have not read those books, or >other books, you should have said so". Agreed. >So rulings based on taking away the double or allowing 5He to be bid >are certainly on. I agree with Grattan regarding the double. It's nuts. Leave it in. As for 5H, see below. >- regarding the "Gerber" explanation of 4Sp. This is of course UI. >West is not allowed to use the information that partner has 2 aces, >but I don't believe we can force him to slam. I would have said "so", rather than "but". :-) >West is not allowed to use the information that partner does not have >a solid spade suit, and maybe indeed we can force him to pass 4Sp. >That would be the harsh ruling, but maybe a correct one. >But West is also not allowed to use the information that partner does >not know he has clubs. He should not be allowed to no mention his >clubs a second time in order for partner to not be confused. Even if >passing 4Sp is not considered a LA, bidding 5Cl in stead of 5Di >certainly is. What would 5Cl be after 4Cl Gerber? asking for Kings? >That would bring us back to 5Di of course, but now with the added >information to NS that West is very 2-suited, making 5He even more >interesting. Hm. Not sure I follow this argument. I suspect that West bid 4C intending to rebid 5C over 4S, given that he started as he did. That is, of course, not relevant once he has UI. I also suspect that if 4C is Gerber, 5C is indeed asking for Kings. On that basis, it may be that the UI (which is that East thinks 4C is Gerber) suggests *not* bidding 5C. 5H may be interesting, but again I agree with Grattan: since opponents aren't entitled to know that West violated their system in his first bid, 5H is not going to happen. >My ruling depends on players' assesment of the LA of passing 4Sp. >So either 4Sp or 5He. Forgive me for laying this all out explicitly, but I want to make sure I understand my own argument. :-) East bid 4S. West has UI, and so must consider what logical alternatives are available to him. These are: 1. pass 2. bid 5C 3. bid 5D If 5C is indeed asking for Kings, then both 5D and pass are LAs "that could demonstrably have been suggested over [5C] by the extraneous information." Therefore, West *must* bid 5C. East will now, as you say, bid 5D, and West will pass. End result: a contract of 5D. Now, West did bid 5D, and that is an LA whose choice violates law 16. However, where is the damage? They end up in the same contract, so there ain't none. If 5C is not Gerber, then the question is whether 5C is suggested by the UI (which is of course that East thinks 4C is Gerber). I suppose it is. So that's out. Is 5D suggested? This is less clear to me. If it is, then there is no choice but to pass. As for 5H, again, opponents would have bid it *if they had known* that West had deliberately misdescribed his hand when he bid 2D. They aren't entitled to know that. IMO, 5H is not a possible contract to which to adjust. Ruling: If 5D is an LA which may not be chosen, then adjust to 4S with whatever the result would be. If it isn't, then result stands. If this is incorrect, please explain why. :-) From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Dec 30 22:17:22 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:17:22 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Deliberate slow play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 12/19/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >What I would fancy for a change in the laws on claiming > >is a specification that the claimer shows his cards, > >not all in one single action but rapidly one by one > >to indicate the sequence in which he intends to play > >them. > > I already do that. Sometimes it even helps. :-) > Very true. I often do too. I think we need to remember, though, that changing the recommended procedure for claiming is not going to solve our claim problems: most the time we do OK already when claimer gives a clear statement. Our problems arise in deciding how to handle claims which fail to conform to the recommended procedure for claiming. Deciding how to handle claims without a statement, and claims where claimer's stated line gets interrupted by an opponent's surprise winner, etc, will remain an issue with or without this change. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 22:19:25 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:19:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: On 12/23/02, David Burn wrote: >Here is a question: > > AKQJ8 > K > None > None >109732 64 >A None >None AKQ >None 2 > 5 > None > 5432 > A > >South: "I have the ace of clubs and five spade tricks." >West: "But I have 109732 of spades" (showing these cards to South). >South: "Oh. Then you get the last trick." > >The board is scored accordingly. Has West acted illegally? West (and everyone else at the table) has violated Law 68D by not calling the TD immediately. So yes, he has acted illegally. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 22:06:21 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:06:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? In-Reply-To: <002301c2aac0$65873e00$dea8193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On 12/23/02, grandeval wrote: >+=+ General Alert. > All readers please avoid impetuous responses. This is >just Herman's little seasonal joke and is quite unconnected >with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hm. Well, I did take it seriously, and I did provide an analysis of what I think the ruling should be, and why. Perhaps I missed the joke, but I still want to know if my analysis is correct. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 30 23:41:57 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:41:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Future equity Message-ID: <4A256C9F.00808AAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Todd Zimnoch wrote: [snip] >Whatever protections the law offers for >mechanical errors which are illegal plays >of the cards, I hope they are not greater >than the protections offered to mechanical >errors which are legal plays of the cards. I totally support Todd's equitable principle of equivalence for any future protection of mechanical errors in the 2005 Laws. (Similar principles of equivalence exist in the current 1997 Laws. For example, since Law 40A rules that a deliberate psyche is not an infraction, Law 75 has a parallel rule that an inadvertent misbid is also not an infraction.) >I feel sorry and sometimes embarrassed for >declarers in these situations, but unless >I'm playing with little children you won't >see me letting players take back their >mistakes. Presumably Todd implied the adjective "unLawfully" before "letting players take back their mistakes". Even the current 1997 Laws allow many equitable takes-back of mistakes: Law 13B1, Law 17D, Law 20A, Law 25A, Law 33, Law 35C, Law 39A, Laws 45C4(b) & 47C, Law 45D, Law 45E2, Law 46B4, Law 47E1, Law 48A, Law 55B, Law 58A, Law 62D1, Law 67A1, Law 69B, Law 71, Law 75D, Laws 79B & 79C, Law 81C6. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 23:20:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:20:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: <4A256C9F.000B05E7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 12/30/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >a) I've got these tricks = a claim >b) No you haven't, because I've got this one = a > counter-claim >c) Oh, all right then = acquiescence (Law 69A) Under which law is an opponent permitted to "counter-claim"? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 23:11:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:11:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another claim question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/28/02, Brian Meadows wrote: >East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South >should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. Why does this conjur an image of the TD standing over South and sticking a gun in his ear? Yeah, yeah, I know - it's just hyperbole. I'll shut up now. :-) From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Dec 30 23:35:19 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:35:19 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 12/30/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >a) I've got these tricks = a claim > >b) No you haven't, because I've got this one = a > > counter-claim > >c) Oh, all right then = acquiescence (Law 69A) > > Under which law is an opponent permitted to "counter-claim"? So far as I can tell there isn't exactly a "right to claim" specified anywhere in the laws for anyone -- just a definition, that ANY statement to the effect a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. If "any statement" means "any statement", it seems quite possible to have 2 or even 3 claims in progress at the same time. It's not obvious to me that the effect of 68D is in such a case: is the second claim voided just as playing on after the first claim would be? The practical solution appears to be treating a counterclaim as an objection to the first claim. But I can't offhand see anything to prevent two claims being made and only one acquiesced. What a fun new twist on claiming we've discovered! GRB From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 30 23:44:38 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:44:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims References: Message-ID: <005e01c2b05d$6aa105e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Ed Reppert" > >a) I've got these tricks = a claim > >b) No you haven't, because I've got this one = a > > counter-claim > >c) Oh, all right then = acquiescence (Law 69A) > > Under which law is an opponent permitted to "counter-claim"? Law 70B3 Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 30 23:33:06 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:33:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again In-Reply-To: <005401c29f00$e84ef420$ca7abc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On 12/8/02, James Vickers wrote: >In my last contribution to BLML back in April 2001 I argued that where >the word "action" appeared in L16, this refers to a call or play, and >I quoted in support the wording of the relevant law, and the EBU TD >Guide, which says as much unequivocally. No-one supported my point of >view, in fact, Grattan, David Stevenson, Alain Gottcheiner, Steve >Willner and others all disagreed, saying that "action" could refer to >"bidding" as opposed to "passing" or "doubling". (NB I was not arguing >about what the law _should_ be, only what it actually does say.) > >Now in December 2002 David Burn and Grattan are arguing that "action" >does indeed refer to a call or play, and no-one is objecting. What has >happened in the intervening time to make everyone change their minds? >If opinions change back again, will we be informed of this? Hm. Just discovered this old message, unread, in my blml box. I did address this later in the thread, and someone suggested I was confused. I suppose I still am, but it seems to me the problem here is that James thinks a bid is not a call. No doubt I'm misreading it, but I don't see how. Chapter I of the Laws (Definitions) of course does says "Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass." So again, if a call is an action, so is a bid. Right? From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 31 00:19:36 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:19:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? References: <4A256C9F.0020C79E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000b01c2b062$6dd27d70$9d0ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 6:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling??? > However, in an earlier posting Nancy revealed this fact: > > [snip] > > >>>The opener of 2D knew his partner would think > >>>the bid was weak but he couldn't think of a better > >>>way to start to describe his 2 suiter. He intended > >>>to bid clubs on his next bid. > +=+ This is my issue with Herman's misleading assertion. The laws (40A) allow opener to make any bid he likes in contravention of his partnership agreement if it is not based on a partnership understanding. Here partner is no more aware than opponent of the violation of the partnership agreement. If the opener were stronger than a one opener it would still be entirely lawful. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 31 01:40:21 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:40:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Future equity Message-ID: <4A256CA0.00078BED.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: [snip] >>>For example, the Danish NCBO has suggested that, in the >>>future 2005 Laws, the automatic revoke penalty should be >>>reduced to an automatic one trick. (The reason for the >>>suggested Danish change is that the current automatic >>>penalty tends to be inequitable to the offending side.) [snip] Jesper Dybdal replied: >>No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that >>the current automatic penalty is too complicated. >> >>Our suggestion can be seen at >>http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L64A Sorry, I should have written "A reason" instead of "The reason". But equity does get a mention on the URL cited above; the Danish NCBO wrote: >Since the majority of revokes gain at most one >trick for the offenders, we suggest that the penalty >is changed to be one trick always (provided the >offenders have won the revoke trick or some later trick). If strict simplicity was the only issue in the 2005 revoke penalty, then a simple rule that the non-revoking side was automatically awarded all 13 tricks would remove the possibility of a complex ruling caused by the current Law 64C. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 31 05:21:48 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:21:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest [was: Ruling???] Message-ID: <4A256CA0.001BD175.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ed Reppert asked: >It is my opinion that clubs should (and, where >an NCBO sanction is required for club operations, >should be required to) provide a clear and >hopefully concise *written* statement of the >conditions of contest applicable to club games. >It is, however, my experience that such is not >the case. In fact, one local club TD said to >me, when I suggested this, that he'd "been >running this club for twenty five years, and >never had a reason to do that". > >Comments? In my opinion, the only mandatory Conditions of Contest are the Laws themselves. The sponsoring organisation is not even compelled to arrange for such a basic condition as providing for a TD. (See the second sentence of Law 80A.) If the SO does not exercise its powers to establish Conditions of Contest, then such powers of establishment devolve to the TD for the TD to define, as required. (Law 81A, Law 81B, Law 81C3.) I do agree that it is *usually* a good idea for SOs to do more than the legal minimum in establishing Conditions of Contest. On the other hand, I have occasionally seen funky gibbon Conditions of Contest promulgated by SOs, when the local TD - if given a chance - would have defined rational Conditions of Contest. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 31 05:42:33 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:42:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling??? Message-ID: <4A256CA0.001DB827.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >East bid 4S. West has UI, and so must consider >what logical alternatives are available to him. >These are: > >1. pass >2. bid 5C >3. bid 5D > >If 5C is indeed asking for Kings, then both 5D >and pass are LAs "that could demonstrably have >been suggested over [5C] by the extraneous >information." Therefore, West *must* bid 5C. [snip] Disagree with the premise. The UI demonstrably suggests that the 4S call is an artificial ace- showing response to Gerber. Therefore, in my opinion, bidding 5C is demonstrably suggested over a Pass of 4S by the UI. Although West has UI that 5C may be taken as Gerber for kings (if the local milieu uses 5C as Gerber for kings, instead of one of several popular alternatives), West may hope to land on their feet with a zero king response of 5D. However, although I disagree with Ed's premise, my ruling of no score adjustment would be the same, since I would rule that for West's class of player a Pass of 4S is not a logical alternative. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 31 06:17:29 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:17:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. Message-ID: <4A256CA0.0020EB4C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >We are talking about L 70A and interpreting 'any >doubtful points' there. My proposal would be to >change those words and replace then with something >like: awarding claimer the tricks he could not lose >with any normal play. (That is consistent with >other laws as 69B and 70C3 for example.) And yes, it >is still up to the TD, so this will not get the >approval of David. > >ton Yet another example of how the current 1997 Laws have created unnecessary nuances of interpretation by using numerous terms such as doubtful, logical, intention, inadvertent, etc. Perhaps the 2005 Laws could replace the multiplicity of such terms by the repeated insertion of the simple antonyms "rational" and "irrational", where required. Such a change would mean that TDs would not have to rummage through the Oxford English Dictionary before making a ruling. Noted? Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Dec 31 06:03:17 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 06:03:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <4A256CA0.0020EB4C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <022101c2b092$509bd960$fd2e27d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > Perhaps the 2005 Laws could replace the multiplicity > of such terms by the repeated insertion of the simple > antonyms "rational" and "irrational", where required. > Such a change would mean that TDs would not have to > rummage through the Oxford English Dictionary before > making a ruling. > Noted? I should hope not. You see, "rational" and "irrational" are not antonyms, any more than "beautiful" and "ugly" are. The eye of the beholder is involved, and insofar as this is true, a game is unplayable, or at any rate theoretically unsound. It occurred to me the other evening that "careless... but not irrational" was absurd. Burn's Hypothesis: no careless play is rational. Discuss. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 31 08:17:46 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:17:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <4A256CA0.0020EB4C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <022101c2b092$509bd960$fd2e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001101c2b0a5$3612a840$bf30e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. > Richard wrote: > > > Perhaps the 2005 Laws could replace the multiplicity > > of such terms by the repeated insertion of the simple > > antonyms "rational" and "irrational", where required. > > > Such a change would mean that TDs would not have to > > rummage through the Oxford English Dictionary before > > making a ruling. > > > Noted? > > I should hope not. You see, "rational" and "irrational" > are not antonyms, any more than "beautiful" and "ugly" are. > The eye of the beholder is involved, and insofar as this > is true, a game is unplayable, or at any rate theoretically > unsound. > > It occurred to me the other evening that "careless... but > not irrational" was absurd. Burn's Hypothesis: no careless > play is rational. > Discuss. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Er .... all noted ..... or indeed 'black' and 'white', of course, in the politically correct use of these words if only I understood the meaning of 'politically correct'. It appears rational to me to think that something irrational is something that no person in his or her right mind would do intentionally. I think, however, it may be the reasoned intention of a fevered brain. It also occurs to me in my brief periods of lucidity and revelation that 'careless' is not a term that may be qualified by the class of player involved - and I begin to question 'inferior' also in that regard. As to 'normal' would this not be something generally to be expected of a player? And is all else what would not normally be expected of a player? It is a worthwhile challenge eventually to understand the corporate intention of my colleagues and, further, then to find English words to express that intention that convey but one universal meaning as to their requirement. I have grave doubts that we may have damaged the word 'irrational' beyond any hope of repair. And probably post blml the English language will never be the same again. ~ G ~ +=+ From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Tue Dec 31 08:35:12 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:35:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20021230163729.026f0b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007801c2b0aa$bc565aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> Eric, Jaap: > >Because IMHO it makes little sense > >for TD to impose a normal line of play on someone who insists on an > >abnormal > >line of play. Eric: > I don't believe anyone has suggested doing so. We are talking about > imposing only normal lines of play (of which declarer will be presumed > to have taken the one leading to the worst result), not abnormal ones, > on someone who has not stated, or has not sufficiently specified, what > his line of play would be. > Maybe nobody suggested (not) doing so but it is wide open. In cases like the AKQJ8+K declarer clearly stated 'five spade tricks' (or lets assume he did) which means in any normal interpretation a heart discard on the DA. There have been lots of opinions whether or not this is irrational (seems to depend on what the guy thinks about S8 which is undecidable) but it is a good example where at least some TD's want to overrule a clearly stated line of play (which may be or not be rational). This approach is IMHO a) an unsound idea and b) an unnecessary complication. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. > At 09:12 AM 12/30/02, Jaap wrote: > > >Because IMHO it makes little sense > >for TD to impose a normal line of play on someone who insists on an > >abnormal > >line of play. > > I don't believe anyone has suggested doing so. We are talking about > imposing only normal lines of play (of which declarer will be presumed > to have taken the one leading to the worst result), not abnormal ones, > on someone who has not stated, or has not sufficiently specified, what > his line of play would be. > > > 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 jvdneut@xs4all.nl Tue Dec 31 09:23:28 2002 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:23:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> <003201c2b00d$82d8b9a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001f01c2b025$6f01e970$d8def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <007b01c2b0ae$ee576c20$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, Ton: > It must be my poor English again, since I can't believe that you are > changing the facts by purpose to fit in your opinion. I am not changing facts and nothing is wrong with your English. The problem is you left out a lot of relevant info when stating the case both times. If you just state an ending we all assume that the early play, the form of scoring etc. didn't provide important info (but then it almost always does). Ton: > Once more: declarer had made 8 tricks in 3NT and was in a hurry. He claimed > one more trick with the diamond K and wrote 9 tricks as a result. This > happened in practice dear Jaap!! This is new info for me (I assume it is teams because in pairs it still makes no sense if 3NT is a normal contract). Now I can understand that the TD ruled that the intention of the claim was 'play K' rather than 'I get 1 trick'. In which case I can understand the ruling. Still I am not completely convinced. He wants only one trick so he might well fail to notice the discards and play a random card at the next trick. This might not be 'normal' if you are awake but it is perfectly 'normal' for someone who just conceded the rest. And if you are awake then there is always that other 'normal' line of play of exiting with a loser rather than playing the K. Still 100% for 1 trick (given still 5 cards out) and depending on the early play it might give a much better change of a second. Is drop or end-play so different from drop or finesse (70E)? Please point out where my logic goes wrong. Ton: > And for David: an opponent of good ethical standard should have given the > tenth trick himself, therewith answering one of your questions. This being a > much more obvious case than the K + AKQJ8. But here I am expressing a very > personal opinion. Sorry but I don't agree at all. How can it possibly be unethical to accept a claim at face value. Now you put the responsibility of the crime on the victims. If the guy was really in a hurry he might well not have shown his small diamond (without the claim is correct) and IMO it is not up to opps to check if declarer can make more tricks than he claimed. And even if he shows his small diamond why should opps improve/interpret declarers claim. Come on, get real. Declarer should either have put the K on the table or have claimed clearly like 'play K'. And in the AKQJ8+K it is too fantastic to think that defender should help declarer. Declarer: I take DA and 5 spades. Defender: What do you discard on the DA. Declarer: HK of course you moron, I want 5 spades and the HA is still out. Defender: But I have a spade stop. Declarer: Bad luck (or how is that possible or ..). Defender: But what about discarding a spade on the DA. Declarer:But then I will lose to the HA. Defender: But I have the HA as well. Declarer: But what does that change. Defender: I am squeezed on the DA. Declarer: What is a squeeze (or really or explain me or ...). Happy New Year. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. > > Dear Ton, > > > > You say: > > > Aren't you both saying that we should follow the laws as they are at the > > > moment, therewith enriching those with an interpretation? > > > We are talking about L 70A and interpreting 'any doubtful points' there. > > My > > > proposal would be to change those words and replace then with something > > > like: awarding claimer the tricks he could not loose with any normal > play. > > > (That is consistent with other laws as 69B and 70C3 for example. And > yes, > > it > > > is still up to the TD, so this will not get the approval of David. > > > > In a recent discussion I tried to show you how difficult it is to judge > 'any > > normal line of play'. In your famous Kx opp Jx (both in a 2 and a 4 card > > ending) you demonstrated that you were incapable of realising that there > was > > more than one normal line of play. > > > It must be my poor English again, since I can't believe that you are > changing the facts by purpose to fit in your opinion. > > Once more: declarer had made 8 tricks in 3NT and was in a hurry. He claimed > one more trick with the diamond K and wrote 9 tricks as a result. This > happened in practice dear Jaap!! > He did so with still 4 tricks to play and diamonds only being played once > ( so winning with the ace). Now the players discovered that the queen was > bare at that moment. > > So what nonsense about me being incapable of realising that there was more > than one normal line of play? If I need to admit so before you are capable > of a normal line of discussion I will do so, helping to avoid useless > contributions. > > And for David: an opponent of good ethical standard should have given the > tenth trick himself, therewith answering one of your questions. This being a > much more obvious case than the K + AKQJ8. But here I am expressing a very > personal opinion. > > > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 31 12:43:44 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:43:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly Message-ID: --------------------- I do not believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying claimer the number of tricks that is available to the field and which becomes clamorous for recognition in the pursuit of his statement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----------------------------------------------------------- The prose is florid and the statement is clamorous nonsense: Yesterday at the club the following end position arose (assume I made it up, if you like); it is the last round and presumably declarer, not otherwise incapable of playing such a hand correctly, is tired and has evidently lost count: AT -- -- 9 K8 -- -- T5 -- Q T -- J A6 -- -- South plays the HA and while I am discarding the CT she, without waiting for my card to become clearly visible, calls for the C9. Is it your opinion that she should be awarded the 3 tricks available to any player who is not asleep? Or should she be awarded the third trick only after an illogical claim of 2 tricks? Regards, Jürgen From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 31 13:27:29 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:27:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: let me try again In-Reply-To: References: <005401c29f00$e84ef420$ca7abc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021231081821.026d89f0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:33 PM 12/30/02, Ed wrote: >On 12/8/02, James Vickers wrote: > > >In my last contribution to BLML back in April 2001 I argued that where > >the word "action" appeared in L16, this refers to a call or play, and > >I quoted in support the wording of the relevant law, and the EBU TD > >Guide, which says as much unequivocally. No-one supported my point of > >view, in fact, Grattan, David Stevenson, Alain Gottcheiner, Steve > >Willner and others all disagreed, saying that "action" could refer to > >"bidding" as opposed to "passing" or "doubling". (NB I was not arguing > >about what the law _should_ be, only what it actually does say.) > > > >Now in December 2002 David Burn and Grattan are arguing that "action" > >does indeed refer to a call or play, and no-one is objecting. What has > >happened in the intervening time to make everyone change their minds? > >If opinions change back again, will we be informed of this? > >Hm. Just discovered this old message, unread, in my blml box. I did >address this later in the thread, and someone suggested I was confused. >I suppose I still am, but it seems to me the problem here is that James >thinks a bid is not a call. No doubt I'm misreading it, but I don't see >how. Chapter I of the Laws (Definitions) of course does says "Call: >Any bid, double, redouble or pass." So again, if a call is an action, so >is a bid. Right? I think this has gotten way off track. The discussion last year, as I recall, was about calling "bidding" an LA, as opposed, to be precise, to "pass", or to "double". Imagine that a player in possession of UI has passed, and it is deemed that his pass may have been suggested by the UI. We examine various bids he might conceivably have made at the point at which he passed, and conclude that none of them meet the quantitative threshhold (either considered or taken by some percentage of his peers) for being deemed to be logical alternative actions. Taken together, however, they (i.e. the total of the presumed percentages) do meet that threshhold. The question, then, is whether "bidding" can be considered an "action", and thus an LA to "passing", in which case we do not allow his pass to stand, and adjust the result, or, contrariwise, consider that only a specific individual bid may be considered an "action", in which case we allow the pass. 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 Dec 31 13:38:35 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:38:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly. In-Reply-To: <007801c2b0aa$bc565aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <001201c2af36$b47ed160$373e81d9@netvisao.pt> <001901c2affb$2b330050$90c0f1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20021230163729.026f0b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021231082746.026f89a0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:35 AM 12/31/02, Jaap wrote: >Jaap: > > >Because IMHO it makes little sense > > >for TD to impose a normal line of play on someone who insists on an > > >abnormal > > >line of play. >Eric: > > I don't believe anyone has suggested doing so. We are talking about > > imposing only normal lines of play (of which declarer will be presumed > > to have taken the one leading to the worst result), not abnormal ones, > > on someone who has not stated, or has not sufficiently specified, what > > his line of play would be. > >Maybe nobody suggested (not) doing so but it is wide open. In cases >like the >AKQJ8+K declarer clearly stated 'five spade tricks' (or lets assume he >did) >which means in any normal interpretation a heart discard on the DA. There >have been lots of opinions whether or not this is irrational (seems to >depend on what the guy thinks about S8 which is undecidable) but it is a >good example where at least some TD's want to overrule a clearly >stated line >of play (which may be or not be rational). This approach is IMHO a) an >unsound idea and b) an unnecessary complication. I may have gotten hung up on Jaap's use of the word "insists", for I do not believe the case at hand qualifies based on the use of that term. Declarer, IMO, may have intended to attempt five spade tricks (having failed to consider, or understand, the possibility of the automatic squeeze), but, given that the HA will appear in front of him, has not "insisted" that he will do so -- which we would thus deem irrational, as the laws require us to assume that he will "see" the discard of the HA. Had dummy held AKQJ8/A/-/-, and had declarer tabled the CA with the statement "five spade tricks", I would find that he had stated a clear intention to take ("insisted on taking") an irrational line of play, and would rule that the opponents are entitled to a spade trick. But in the actual case I would have no problem finding that "five spade tricks" expressed an intention to throw his presumed loser (the HK) from dummy, and do not force him to make the same, irrational, discard, when the laws tell me that he cannot be deemed not to notice that the HK has become a winner. 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 Dec 31 13:52:42 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:52:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021231084016.026c2d20@pop.starpower.net> At 07:43 AM 12/31/02, jurgenr wrote: > I do not >believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility >when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying >claimer the number of tricks that is available to the >field and which becomes clamorous for recognition >in the pursuit of his statement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >----------------------------------------------------------- >The prose is florid and the statement is clamorous nonsense: > >Yesterday at the club the following end position arose >(assume I made it up, if you like); it is the last round >and presumably declarer, not otherwise incapable of playing >such a hand correctly, is tired and has evidently lost count: > > AT > -- > -- > 9 >K8 -- >-- T5 >-- Q >T -- > J > A6 > -- > -- > >South plays the HA and while I am discarding >the CT she, without waiting for my card to become clearly visible, >calls for the C9. >Is it your opinion that she should be awarded the 3 tricks >available to any player who is not asleep? Or should she be >awarded the third trick only after an illogical claim of 2 tricks? He should not be awarded the third trick, and I do not believe Grattan has said otherwise. When W plays the C10, it would be careless, but hardly irrational, for S not to become immediately aware of the fact that the C9 is now a winner. I (and, I am confident, Grattan) would presume that he would carelessly discard the C9, and would lose the last trick. If, however, we change the C10 and C9 to the CA and CK respectively, we must assume that the fact that the CK is now a winner *will* "become clamorous for recognition"; it would therefore be irrational for him to discard it, and we do not presume that he might do so -- he gets the rest of the tricks. IOW, it is not irrational when the C10 is discarded in the given position, for S to believe, incorrectly, that the opponents still hold a club higher than the ten. It would, however, be irrational for S to believe, in the hypothetical alternative position, that the opponents "still" hold a club higher than the ace. Surely we can make, and act on, this distinction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 31 14:49:33 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:49:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] 'The gentle rain from heaven' In-Reply-To: <8a.21e37857.2b40478f@aol.com> References: <8a.21e37857.2b40478f@aol.com> Message-ID: <43H$hFB95aE+Ewkq@asimere.com> In article <8a.21e37857.2b40478f@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes > In a message dated 12/29/2002 6:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,=20 > cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > >> =A0 This leaves me feeling that legislators have=20 >> not considered deeply enough the treatment of >> contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect >> solution, but I think that the better part of the >> argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It >> is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we=20 >> treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an=20 >> offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish=20 >> to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his=20 >> briefcase'. >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ~ Grattan ~=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 +=3D+ > > > Hear! Hear! > > =3DK=3D=20 S xxx D Kx H Qxxx D x LHO has just ruffed a D (with a heart). South lays his hand on the table. The H 10 is still with West, the D K is good. - oh and btw, declarer has won thousands of pounds off you at rubber bridge and you would have conceded the rest if this had happened at the Wood. --=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 john@asimere.com Tue Dec 31 14:58:24 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:58:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Future equity In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , Jesper Dybdal writes >On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:26:41 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>For example, the Danish NCBO has suggested that, in the >>future 2005 Laws, the automatic revoke penalty should be >>reduced to an automatic one trick. > >Yes. > >>(The reason for the >>suggested Danish change is that the current automatic >>penalty tends to be inequitable to the offending side.) > >No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that the current >automatic penalty is too complicated. > No it's not, and insofar as it's a penalty provision it's about as equitable as one can get. Most members of my clubs tell me in a single statement whether the revoker won the trick and whether he won a later trick in the suit. Even the players know the law. I just confirm the ruling by holding up 1 or 2 fingers :) cheers john >Our suggestion can be seen at >http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L64A > -- 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 Tue Dec 31 15:06:44 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:06:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , J=FCrgen Rennenkampff writes > >--------------------- > I do not >believe that the failure to anticipate the possibility >when clarifying the claim is a fair reason for denying >claimer the number of tricks that is available to the >field and which becomes clamorous for recognition >in the pursuit of his statement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ >----------------------------------------------------------- >The prose is florid and the statement is clamorous nonsense: > >Yesterday at the club the following end position arose >(assume I made it up, if you like); it is the last round >and presumably declarer, not otherwise incapable of playing >such a hand correctly, is tired and has evidently lost count: > > AT > -- > -- > 9 >K8 -- >-- T5 >-- Q >T -- > J > A6 > -- > -- > >South plays the HA and while I am discarding >the CT she, without waiting for my card to become clearly visible, >calls for the C9. >Is it your opinion that she should be awarded the 3 tricks >available to any player who is not asleep? Or should she be >awarded the third trick only after an illogical claim of 2 tricks? > I would award three tricks on the claim, and two tricks on the play. (subject to South convincing me that no clubs higher than the 10 remain) As far as I'm concerned, one of the benefits of claiming is that one is *protected* from stupid errors. It's certainly one of the reasons that I do it, apart from liking to play 16 hands an hour, so I can go for a ciggy and a beer most rounds. >Regards, 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 svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 31 16:17:36 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:17:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Future equity References: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001901c2b0e8$223316f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" ......... > >No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that the current > >automatic penalty is too complicated. > > > No it's not, and insofar as it's a penalty provision it's about as > equitable as one can get. Most members of my clubs tell me in a single > statement whether the revoker won the trick and whether he won a later > trick in the suit. Even the players know the law. I just confirm the > ruling by holding up 1 or 2 fingers :) Well, if this is an accurate description on how your rule then it is an equally accurate description on a misinterpreted law! Two trick revoke if the revoker and his partner between them won at least two tricks after (and including) the revoke trick provided that at least one of these tricks was won by the revoker (not his partner) as either a: the revoke trick itself or b: a later trick won with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick. I certainly hope this is what you meant, but it is not exactly what you said, and I take that as another confirmation that the present wording of the revoke rules is a bit too complicated for everyday use. IMO the main problem is the need for distinction between tricks won by the revoker and tricks won by the revoker or his partner. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 31 16:28:08 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:28:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly References: Message-ID: <001f01c2b0e9$9bbdf020$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" ......... I would award three tricks on the claim, and two tricks on the play. (subject to South convincing me that no clubs higher than the 10 remain) As far as I'm concerned, one of the benefits of claiming is that one is *protected* from stupid errors. It's certainly one of the reasons that I do it, apart from liking to play 16 hands an hour, so I can go for a ciggy and a beer most rounds. >Regards, Jürgen And it is exactly this "benefit" that I for one cannot accept in the laws. The claim is a diversion from the normal way of playing the cards. While the laws certainly allow such diversions they must "protect" the adversaries of the claimer by allowing for any "stupid error" that he might have made had he played the cards the regular way. And "forgetting" to mention something in his statement is a strong indication that he is not aware of it when he makes his claim however "irrational" such forgetness could be considered to be afterwards. (You didn't intend any irony - did you?) regards Sven From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Tue Dec 31 16:47:55 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:47:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly References: Message-ID: <014401c2b0ec$705feb60$2c9590d4@rabbit> > AT > -- > -- > 9 > K8 -- > -- T5 > -- Q > T -- > J > A6 > -- > -- > > South plays the HA and while I am discarding > the CT she, without waiting for my card to become clearly visible, > calls for the C9. A typical case of 'claim before you make a mistake'. The C9 is gone now, the defense gets a S trick. If declarer would have claimed, rather than play the HA, we might have awarded a 3rd trick depending on the wording of the claim. Thomas From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 31 17:57:29 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:57:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly In-Reply-To: <014401c2b0ec$705feb60$2c9590d4@rabbit> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021231124707.00a383b0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:47 AM 12/31/02, Thomas wrote: > > AT > > -- > > -- > > 9 > > K8 -- > > -- T5 > > -- Q > > T -- > > J > > A6 > > -- > > -- > > > > South plays the HA and while I am discarding > > the CT she, without waiting for my card to become clearly visible, > > calls for the C9. > >A typical case of 'claim before you make a mistake'. >The C9 is gone now, the defense gets a S trick. >If declarer would have claimed, rather than play >the HA, we might have awarded a 3rd trick depending >on the wording of the claim. I am having a very hard time imagining how a claim might have been worded so as to fail to state an explicit line of play and still be such as to result in our awarding a third trick. Declarer would have had to make it clear that he knows that knows that the nine is the second-highest club out and that there are exactly two spades and two hearts out, without saying that he will discard the C9 unless a higher one appears then try to split the spades if the hearts don't break. But if he could somehow manage to do that, the laws would indeed prohibit us from ruling on the claim with the presumption that he would not have seen the C10 discarded, notwithstanding that upon playing the hand out he failed to do so. 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 Tue Dec 31 21:07:49 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:07:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. Message-ID: <200212312107.QAA26300@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > BOTH #tricks etc. AND line of play SHOULD BE CLEAR. As long as the line of play is clear, why is it hard to work out the number of tricks? Suppose a declarer plays to the end but has a trick turned wrong, thinking that the defenders won it when he really did. Don't you want to give him the actual number of tricks won? > The Kx opp. Jx case is an example of clear on tricks and unclear on line of > play. Quite the opposite, I would say. From the sound if it, the line of "play king and follow suit small" seemed pretty clear. It was unexpected that this line should result in two tricks, but there's no doubt it does on the actual lie of the cards. The only doubt is whether declarer's claim statement indicated this line and no other. > The AKQJ8+K case is an example of clear on line of play and unclear on which > tricks. Again the opposite. Did the statement mean "throw H-K unless it is good," or did it mean "throw H-K regardless?" I probably vote for the former unless the claim statement contained some unlikely phrasing. > The trump issue is a good example. With the ACBL being > rather strict on mentioning outstanding trumps I am sure the Americans have > learned to claim more precise than Europeans. Nothing wrong with that. I don't have any problem being stricter about requiring a proper claim statement. > From: "Sven Pran" > However, we must never(!) reach a state of ruling where the Director > (and/or the AC) "protects" the claimer from making a stupid mistake. Why not? It seems a suitable reward for claiming. > If the claimer overlooks an important detail in his claim by not making > that detail part of his statement, how can we be so sure it is "irrational" > (for his class) to be unaware of this detail had he played the board out > instead of claiming? This, of course, is the question. If there are mechanical rules to apply in the absence of a statement, then we can probably reach a conclusion. > Consequently he should in general not get away with an after the fact > statement that "of course ......" unless it is indeed obvious for everyone > (beyond any reasonable doubt) that he must indeed have been aware. I think it would be helpful if we could get entirely away from guessing what the claimer was or was not aware of. My suggestion for doing that is to focus on the claim statement itself. > From: Gordon Bower > I think we need to remember, though, that changing the recommended > procedure for claiming is not going to solve our claim problems: most the > time we do OK already when claimer gives a clear statement. Our problems > arise in deciding how to handle claims which fail to conform to the > recommended procedure for claiming. Indeed. One earlier concept in this thread was to have a set of mechanical rules for resolving claims when there is no stated line. >From the "serendipitous squeeze" example, it is clear we will also need some rules for what unexpected events, if any, allow a claimer to depart from the stated line. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > As far as I'm concerned, one of the benefits of claiming is that one is > *protected* from stupid errors. It's certainly one of the reasons that > I do it, apart from liking to play 16 hands an hour, so I can go for a > ciggy and a beer most rounds. Sounds like the kind of game I'd like to play in (if I could afford the stakes). From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Tue Dec 31 21:39:02 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:39:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: from "Steve Willner" at Dec 31, 2002 04:07:49 PM Message-ID: <200212312139.gBVLd2w12732@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Ah, Steve. Usually I agree with you, but here we'll have to differ since I have a different perspective from you. > From: Steve Willner > Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:07:49 -0500 (EST) > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > BOTH #tricks etc. AND line of play SHOULD BE CLEAR. > > As long as the line of play is clear, why is it hard to work out the > number of tricks? > > Suppose a declarer plays to the end but has a trick turned wrong, > thinking that the defenders won it when he really did. Don't you want > to give him the actual number of tricks won? > TY: Yes, that sounds reasonable. But typically, we are talking about how many of the remaining tricks to play are claimed. Since the play on the already played tricks can be confirmed and their total is fact, they are not in question. Only the number of remaining tricks that declarer expects to take. > > The Kx opp. Jx case is an example of clear on tricks and unclear on line of > > play. > > Quite the opposite, I would say. From the sound if it, the line of > "play king and follow suit small" seemed pretty clear. It was > unexpected that this line should result in two tricks, but there's no > doubt it does on the actual lie of the cards. The only doubt is > whether declarer's claim statement indicated this line and no other. > TY: Hmm...I agree with Jaap here. Since there were 5 tricks left to play (8 had been played) and there were still 5 remaining diamonds outstanding, declarer could easily have exited a random card not in diamonds hoping that he might get an endplay on the player holding the DQ to get a 10th trick. I don' think that the statement "and I get one more trick from the DK" at all implies that declarer was planning on cashing it right away. The proper thing would have been to call the TD to the table to determine if it was appropriate to ask declarer for a clarification before the cards were tabled. > > The AKQJ8+K case is an example of clear on line of play and unclear on which > > tricks. > > Again the opposite. Did the statement mean "throw H-K unless it is > good," or did it mean "throw H-K regardless?" I probably vote for the > former unless the claim statement contained some unlikely phrasing. > TY: Again, I beg to differ. I think the latter is what should be ruled in the case where claimer expects the other cards in the hand to be good. If the hand were S-AKQJT, H-K, no one would question that the HK pitch was normal. The effect is that if claimer statement implied (s)he was expecting to win 5 spade tricks, thinking they were good. Unless the TD or the AC can determine that declarer actually was aware that the S8 was not good or would be good when played on the fifth round of the suit then I think as L70A says, that any doubtful points should be resolved against claimer. Let claimer make his/her argument to the AC rather than the NOS. > > The trump issue is a good example. With the ACBL being > > rather strict on mentioning outstanding trumps I am sure the Americans have > > learned to claim more precise than Europeans. Nothing wrong with that. > > I don't have any problem being stricter about requiring a proper claim > statement. > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > However, we must never(!) reach a state of ruling where the Director > > (and/or the AC) "protects" the claimer from making a stupid mistake. > > Why not? It seems a suitable reward for claiming. > TY: And why should we reward claiming? Claiming is a part of the game like anything else, bidding, declaring, dummy play, defending. You don't reward someone for doing these things right, but you do punish them for doing them wrong (like a revoke, or a BOOT). And claiming shouldn't be used as just a mechanism to protect against making a stupid mistake. A player needs to be just a cautious in claiming and in playing. If the player played the hand out and pitched the HK, then everyone would take the trick away. You shouldn't reward them for claiming imperfectly to avoid making that stupid mistake. They should be required to show the same care in claiming that they would in playing, namely not making a mistake. In this case, I think the claim was careless and/or inferior for the player and both cases in the laws state to aware the trick against the claimer and let him/her argue with the AC to get that trick back. > > If the claimer overlooks an important detail in his claim by not making > > that detail part of his statement, how can we be so sure it is "irrational" > > (for his class) to be unaware of this detail had he played the board out > > instead of claiming? > > This, of course, is the question. If there are mechanical rules to > apply in the absence of a statement, then we can probably reach a > conclusion. > TY: And, I repeat, L70A does state that if in doubt, then you award against the claimer. Seems obvious to me. > > Consequently he should in general not get away with an after the fact > > statement that "of course ......" unless it is indeed obvious for everyone > > (beyond any reasonable doubt) that he must indeed have been aware. > > I think it would be helpful if we could get entirely away from guessing > what the claimer was or was not aware of. My suggestion for doing that > is to focus on the claim statement itself. > TY: The claim statement was that claimer expected to take the CA and then five spade tricks. Seems obvious, that claimer was intending to throw the HK. If claimer had said, "CA from hand, pitching the HK and a spade to the dummy" then would you still be arguing? Isn't this implied by CA and then five spade tricks? If it is in doubt whether he would throw the S8 or the HK on the CA, then award against claimer as L70A says and let claimer argue for the sixth claimed trick with the AC. > > From: Gordon Bower > > I think we need to remember, though, that changing the recommended > > procedure for claiming is not going to solve our claim problems: most the > > time we do OK already when claimer gives a clear statement. Our problems > > arise in deciding how to handle claims which fail to conform to the > > recommended procedure for claiming. > > Indeed. > > One earlier concept in this thread was to have a set of mechanical > rules for resolving claims when there is no stated line. > TY: And this is why I don't think you should award in favor of claimer in poor claim situations...it encourages players to make sloppy or poor claims, since they'll work anyways and they'll get their tricks. By only allowing good claims to succeed and to penalize poor claims, you ensure that people are either more careful with claims, or they don't claim. And that is what makes the game faster. Allowing sloppy claims and poor claims to win only makes the games longer and makes more players irritated with the system. I know many players in our area who would rather see fewer claims since so many claims slow the game down. Also poor claims usually end up with one or both sides feeling they were abused by the system and they didn't get what they should. Why encourage something that causes this much disgruntlement? > >From the "serendipitous squeeze" example, it is clear we will also need > some rules for what unexpected events, if any, allow a claimer to > depart from the stated line. > TY: If you only allow deviation as per the statement, then after a few players lose a trick(s) or a matchpoint(s), then maybe they'll learn to only claim when the outcome is definite and avoid the situation where both sides feel aggrieved. Why not try to discourage poor claiming? > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > As far as I'm concerned, one of the benefits of claiming is that one is > > *protected* from stupid errors. It's certainly one of the reasons that > > I do it, apart from liking to play 16 hands an hour, so I can go for a > > ciggy and a beer most rounds. > > Sounds like the kind of game I'd like to play in (if I could afford the > stakes). > TY: One should only be protected from stupid errors that the claimer is aware of, not ones that the claimer is unaware of. In this case, claimer made no mention or hint that the squeeze was possible and made no allowances for it. Hence, claimer should not be entitled to it. If claimer had waited for one more trick, it would have been evident. But, claimer chose to make a poor claim and should be forced to live with the result of a poor claim which is similar to the result of a poor play. -Ted. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 31 22:33:38 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:33:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: <200212312139.gBVLd2w12732@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021231171658.00a402a0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:39 PM 12/31/02, Ted wrote: > TY: One should only be protected from stupid errors that the > claimer is aware of, not ones that the claimer is unaware of. > In this case, claimer made no mention or hint that the squeeze > was possible and made no allowances for it. Hence, claimer > should not be entitled to it. If claimer had waited for one > more trick, it would have been evident. But, claimer chose to > make a poor claim and should be forced to live with the result > of a poor claim which is similar to the result of a poor play. It is not a matter of protection from stupid errors. Those who would refuse to award all the tricks may consider not realizing that LHO might be squeezed to be a "stupid error", and I am willing to grant that. But they are not simply not protecting him from that error; they are, rather, punishing him for it. Those who would grant the rest of the tricks are merely protecting claimer from the gross irrationality of not realizing that once the HA is pitched the HK is a sure winner, which goes well beyond mere "stupid error"; I don't think anyone will argue that the fact that once the HA is pitched the HK becomes a sure winner is something "the claimer is unaware of" (but if you do believe that, then yes, you should award a trick to the defense). Ted is right on one important point, though (not cited above): To be consistent, we should make the same ruling if, instead of saying, "DA and five spades" declarer had said "DA pitching the HK and five spades". I would indeed allow the declarer the rest of the tricks in either case. 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 Dec 31 22:48:41 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:48:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212312107.QAA26300@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005b01c2b11e$c4464530$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" ......... > > From: "Sven Pran" > > However, we must never(!) reach a state of ruling where the Director > > (and/or the AC) "protects" the claimer from making a stupid mistake. > > Why not? It seems a suitable reward for claiming. Because a claim, although explicitly permitted in the laws is still a diversion from the normal routine of playing all thirteen tricks and obtain a result. Do we really want the laws to allow a player thinking something like: "I am not sure which play is the better and I am almost exhausted so I might very easily make some stupid mistake now. Therefore I claim and trust that the Director and AC will award me the number of tricks I deserve under normal conditions, not mentioning anything about being so tired I can hardly hold my cards" and get away with it????? So far the laws have been very consistent that when a player claims then any doubt on his intentions for the remaining tricks shall be resolved in favour of opponents. Originally (back in the thirties) opponents could directly order the play of the remaining cards whenever the claimer had not completely stated his line of play, this has eventually been modified so that the claimer is protected against pure stupidities, but some opinions stretch this rather too far when "stupidities" include mistakes that cannot obviously be excluded. > > > If the claimer overlooks an important detail in his claim by not making > > that detail part of his statement, how can we be so sure it is "irrational" > > (for his class) to be unaware of this detail had he played the board out > > instead of claiming? > > This, of course, is the question. If there are mechanical rules to > apply in the absence of a statement, then we can probably reach a > conclusion. > > > Consequently he should in general not get away with an after the fact > > statement that "of course ......" unless it is indeed obvious for everyone > > (beyond any reasonable doubt) that he must indeed have been aware. > > I think it would be helpful if we could get entirely away from guessing > what the claimer was or was not aware of. My suggestion for doing that > is to focus on the claim statement itself. I completely agree. Today's laws do not ask us to guess, they ask us to consider what the claimer has demonstrated with his statement and what is obvious the way the remaining cards lie. The problem is that some people seem to ignore the possibility that a world master can make a mistake even when he "forgets" to make a note of an important detail in his claim statement. The claimer shall be limited to selecting lines of play that have been explicitly stated with his claim or which show up as obvious plays (not depending upon the claimers ability to count to thirteen or to remember the cards played except that he is allowed to remember that an opponent has shown out in one or more suits). Example: The claimer may have forgotten an outstanding trump, but the cards lie in such a way that whenever this trump is used for a ruff the claimer is able to overruff. It must be the responsibility of the claimer to ensure that there is no outstanding doubtful points, if he forgets something then he might as well make a ("stupid") mistake if he were to play it out. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 31 02:38:38 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:38:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims Message-ID: <4A256CA0.000CE190.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=68wXTbDrknZWEm7FgvKZv3CT1NbfMebrkdmJWWfxuaWmySArRiAKpkNu Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Gordon Bower wrote: [snip] >>It's not obvious to me that the effect of 68D is in >>such a case: is the second claim voided just as >>playing on after the first claim would be? The first two sentences of Law 68D state: >After any claim or concession, play ceases. All >play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be >voided by the Director. The Chapter 1 definition of Play is: >Play - 1. The contribution of a card from one --0__=68wXTbDrknZWEm7FgvKZv3CT1NbfMebrkdmJWWfxuaWmySArRiAKpkNu Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline 's hand >to a trick, including the first card, which is the >lead. 2. The aggregate of plays made. 3. The period >during which the cards are played. 4. The aggregate >of the calls and plays on a board. A second claim is not a contribution of a card to a trick. A second claim is therefore not part of the aggregate of plays made. A second claim is not a period of any type. A second claim is also not a call, so therefore cannot be included in an aggregate of calls and plays. Conclusion: The statement that "play" ceases does not, by the Laws' own definition, encompass the statement that "claims" cease. >>The practical solution appears to be treating a >>counterclaim as an objection to the first claim. Actually, that is an IMpractical solution. Instead of an amicable acquiescence to a second claim by the first claimer, an objection requires the presence of the TD to rubber-stamp the amicable acceptance of the objection (Law 70B3). >>But I can't offhand see anything to prevent two claims >>being made and only one acquiesced. >> >>What a fun new twist on claiming we've discovered! And what fun that this interpretation of Law 68D actually permits players to sensibly finalise (without wasting their time calling for the TD) an amicable modification of a first claim by legally putting forward a second claim. Of course, almost all players (including myself) routinely amicably counter-claim anyway - ignoring blml pedantry - but it is nice to know that blml ultra-pedantry has given our sensible claiming style a veneer of legality. Best wishes Richard = --0__=68wXTbDrknZWEm7FgvKZv3CT1NbfMebrkdmJWWfxuaWmySArRiAKpkNu-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 31 05:02:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:02:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity Message-ID: <4A256CA0.001A1323.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=WfJFjHhOA6XYrBfC4OLFe7pIYV812M0FTKIoUhHmAvOgiwihVgoAtw4x Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Ed Reppert wrote, in evaluating a Law 46B case: [snip] >>I will say that it now occurs to me that although >>it seems *likely* that declarer intended to call >>for the Queen (in light of the arguments, if you >>can call them that, in my previous post), it isn't >>incontrovertible. [snip] The preamble to Law 46B states: >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by >declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the >following restrictions apply (except when declarer --0__=WfJFjHhOA6XYrBfC4OLFe7pIYV812M0FTKIoUhHmAvOgiwihVgoAtw4x Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline 's >different intention is incontrovertible): It seems to me that, if the distinction drawn by Ed is a correct interpretation of Law 46B, the 1997 edition of Law 46B has two flaws: a) It requires the TD to mind read an intention, and b) It requires such a mind reading assessment to be an "incontrovertible" determination of fact, instead of the usual less stringent requirement under Law 85A that the TD merely has to be "satisfied" with their determination of fact. [As TD I would be "satisfied" if I determined that a particular factual was more *likely* than the contrary counterfactual.] A possible patch for the 2005 Laws would be to change the bracketed words in Law 46B to read: *(except that the following restrictions are void to the extent that an irrational play of a card is never required)* This suggested 2005 patch would have three advantages: x) The decision procedure for evaluating an incomplete stating of a card would harmonise with the decision procedure for evaluating an incomplete stating of a claim, y) The TD would merely have to make a relatively objective decision about irrationality, instead of a mind reading decision about intention, and, z) The TD would have greater scope to rule equitably. Why automatically punish a declarer who merely lacks the useful social skills of being verbally ept and telepathically incontrovertible? Noted? Best wishes Richard = --0__=WfJFjHhOA6XYrBfC4OLFe7pIYV812M0FTKIoUhHmAvOgiwihVgoAtw4x-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 31 00:34:00 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:34:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: <005e01c2b05d$6aa105e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 12/31/02, Sven Pran wrote: >Law 70B3 Sure. *After* the TD is called. He wasn't. That's the whole point. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 31 00:32:16 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:32:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] AKQJ8 + K & weighted claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/30/02, Gordon Bower wrote: >What a fun new twist on claiming we've discovered! Hehe. Oh, yeah. :-)